Forum Topics

Wandsworth Planners - again

Seeing another thread on this Forum about the bizarre handling of planning applications by WBC prompts me to draw another one (2019/2874) to your attention.This one relates to the expansion of the Roche School in Frogmore, just off the Putney Bridge Road. In 2017, their application to extend (2017/5753) was rejected. In 2019 they submitted another application which was basically much the same as the rejected one, the major difference this time round being the construction of a huge underground Sports Hall, classrooms and office area which will leave the school with no outside play area and pupils being taught in underground classrooms.This time round the planners incredibly recommended approval despite saying that "it is clearly evident that the site has already been maximised" and "that basement accommodation is not considered ideal". But as it's a private school, parents have the choice so that's all right then. If it had been a State School, one assumes the application would have been refused.The expansion works are scheduled to last THREE YEARS during the school holidays. The 17 objections received were nearly all related to the huge basement excavation which we calculated (using figures supplied by Cappagh) would result in over 350 lorry loads of earth being transported through our crowded streets. One of my neighbours is looking forward to having a jet wash to remove mud from the lorry wheels just a few feet from his doorstep!However, the planners meekly accepted the school's assurance that the excavation works could be completed in ONE MONTH. Hopefully, the Government will give these contractors the HS2 and the Heathrow Third Runway business as they would probably be able to complete both of them by next Christmas at they rate they obviously work. Worryingly, the meeting was told that Wandsworth doesn't have a policy on basement extensions, unlike Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster, and so there was no objection to this massive project. This will be music to the ears of any developers considering basement extensions in the borough as a dangerous precedent has now been set.Credit goes to the Labour side of the table who asked some very pertinent questions but in the end the application was approved 6 votes to 4. Come the 2022 local elections if I were a Conservative councillor I wouldn't waste too much time canvassing in the Frogmore/Sudlow Road area. Even if they start tomorrow, the works will still not be finished by then and local residents have long memories. The school originally opened in the same building with 30 pupils. It will now cater for 328 pupils and up to 80 staff in a narrow primarily residential street. Congratulations to all concerned with the application - you should be proud of yourselves.

Hugh Walton ● 2470d2 Comments ● 2469d

Awful PA 2019/5047 - Retail business under threat

Firstly, apologies for the length of this message but it would be helpful of you could provide comments to the Council on the above PA. The deadline is 5 February 2020.I looked into the above PA and was appalled at how misleading it is. It relates to the change the use from a beauty clinic (Sui Generis classification) to D1 (dental practice).1.  When I searched the PA on WBC's website the first time in the morning of 31 January 2020, under application summary, it clearly stated the site address as 262 URR.  Later in the afternoon of 31 January 2020, it was changed to 264 URR.2.  When looking at the associated application documents, the redacted   planning application form, under site address, it clearly indicates 262-264 Upper Richmond Road.3. If the redacted planning application is to be believed, 262 Upper Richmond Road may have a Sui Generis classification (for a beauty clinic) but 264 Upper Richmond Road must certainly have A1 classification (retail) as H J Cooper Ltd is there. So this form is incorrectly completed too?4. I understand that the applicant does not own 262 URR, but yes 264 URR.5. Are all the above inconsistencies meant to mislead deliberately or are they due to a total lack of attention to detail? Either way, the application is as incorrect as it is confusing.  6. There are some 14 dental practices in Putney, of which two are across the road from the above premises and a further five within 250 m. Hardly a proposal with vision for the future success of independent businesses in Putney.Putney needs vibrancy, more unique, individual and independent shops.  It certainly does not need more of the same!  Putney also needs to support - as does the Council - shops like H J Cooper which is an independent business of excellence with a service second to none. As I always flippantly say, Putney already is full of shops that cater for the short-sighted obsessed with property, in dire need of a coffee and addicted to gambling.  With the above proposal, it appears I need to add rotten teeth to the equation!Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2473d13 Comments ● 2470d