Category Archives: Planning

Shakespeare Road Waste Site Fire – what next?

Neighbours will remember the dramatic fire last September at the waste disposal site on Shakespeare Road, which created alarming plumes of smoke across many streets. Earlier posts here reported our letter to Lambeth Council on the vexed question of reopening the waste site, and the reply from the relevant Councillor.

The site was cleared and levelled before Christmas. As far as we know, no dramatic developments have taken place since then. And as reported at the time, any move to reopen the site would have to be subject to full planning permission with opportunities for the community to object. There is no evidence that any such planning applications have been received so far.

Clearance of waste site, November 2023
Fire Brigade investigation

Separately we were told that the London Fire Brigade would be investigating the causes of the fire.

This didn’t seem to get us very far. Last week we asked the Fire Brigade whether their enquiry had reached any conclusion. They have now replied saying simply that “the outcome of the fire was treated as accidental unknown”.

The vocabulary is clumsy, but I think the meaning is clear: the circumstances were obscure and in practice impossible to discover – they don’t know what caused it but assume it was not deliberate.

Shakespeare Road Waste Site – Lambeth’s reply

In response to our message urging the Council to refuse permission to rebuild the waste site in Shakespeare Road, the Councillor responsible for planning has written a detailed and carefully worded explanation (below) which is worth reading in full. My emphases, in bold.

 

 

 

 

In effect Lambeth needs to allow legal applications for waste sites, and this one cannot be permanently closed without some alternative being made available. But there will be consultations.


Thank you for your email to Cllr Holland regarding the Shakespeare Road site, which I am responding to as Deputy Leader with responsibility for planning policy.

In respect of land use planning matters, the site is one of a number of designated waste sites within Lambeth. These waste sites are safeguarded for waste uses through Lambeth’s Local Plan and are identified in Lambeth’s Policies Map and the Waste Evidence Base.

As required by Lambeth Local Plan policy EN7 (Sustainable waste management), redevelopment of safeguarded waste sites for other uses will only be supported if compensatory waste capacity is provided elsewhere within the borough or if waste capacity is re-provided on-site. This is to ensure that Lambeth is able to continue meeting its waste needs.

As you note in your correspondence, planning permission exists for the redevelopment of the site for residential use . This planning permission was granted on 21st December 2021 for ‘Demolition of existing waste transfer station and re-development of the site to provide a residential development comprising of three blocks ranging from 5 -11 storeys in height to provide 218 residential units (class C3) with associated landscaping’.

This permission was granted subject to a planning obligation requiring the applicant to provide replacement waste capacity elsewhere in the borough, with a potential location being another safeguarded waste site at Windsor Grove in West Norwood, as noted in your correspondence.

Notwithstanding the recent fire damage, the Shakespeare Road site remains a safeguarded waste site in land use planning terms and the obligation referred to above is still binding and runs with the land.
Planning officers have confirmed to me that a number of pre-commencement planning conditions require discharge before works can begin on the Windsor Grove site. At the time of writing no application submissions have been received seeking discharge of these conditions.

I can advise you that there is no right to re-build the premises and the erection of any replacement building at the site would require planning permission. Any such application for planning permission would be assessed against the planning policies of the Council’s Development Plan and other material considerations.

The proposed use of any new building and its environmental impacts would be considered as part of the assessment of a planning application seeking permission for new development. Considerations would include matters relating to air quality, noise, transport and fire safety amongst other matters. The former lawful use and operation of the site for waste transfer would be a material consideration when assessing a planning application.

Importantly, were a planning application to be received, there would be consultation of adjoining and nearby residents and businesses in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

Therefore the council, as the Local Planning Authority, would need to consider the acceptability of any proposed development, including any replacement waste transfer facility, by assessing a planning application once submitted, meaning that it is not possible to pre-emptively outrightly prohibit such a use.

I hope that this response is helpful but please don’t hesitate to contact me if there’s anything further I can be of assistance with.

Best regards,

Danny

Councillor Danny Adilypour
Streatham Common & Vale
Deputy Leader for Sustainable Growth and New Homes


 

The Twin Towers of Loughborough Junction – revived ?

A neighbour reports that they have received a letter from Lambeth advising that a revised application has been made for the notorious Twin Towers project at Loughborough Junction, which we reported on back in 2020: see our summary then,  which contains a link to the Herne Hill Society’s magisterial objection.

Fully conscious that their original application blatantly breached Lambeth’s own policy regarding tall buildings, the developers are now, it seems, trying to breathe new life into the proposal by persuading the council to override their own policy.

We have no doubt that the Herne Hill Society’s planners are now gearing up to return to the charge. Hopefully the Brixton Society and the Loughborough Junction Action Group will also spring into action.

Meanwhile, what isn’t remotely clear is why Lambeth have advised (as far as we know) just one household on Fawnbrake Avenue. Surely they’re not trying to keep this cheeky new application secret, are they?

Not The Great Escape: Digging deep – major tunnelling project south of Ruskin Park

This is a National Grid project, stretching over several years and representing an investment of over £1 billion.

Phase 1 was a seven-year, £1 billion programme, to build 32km of tunnels and two new substations across North London.

Now Phase 2, “London Power Tunnels 2” relates to south London and will see the replacement of existing electricity cables in South London which are coming towards the end of their useful life, the majority of which are buried beneath the road network.

It involves building a new network of cable tunnels, 32.5km in length, between Wimbledon (via Lambeth and Old Kent Road) and Crayford. The local stretch of this long tunnel runs deep under Coldharbour Lane. The Bengeworth Road tunnelling project is designed to connect the substations and other installations on the Bengeworth Road site to this main cross-London tunnel. The operations on the Bengeworth Road site are the responsibility of UK Power Networks, who are infrastructure operators: they own and maintain electricity cables and lines across London, the South East and East of England.

To upgrade the connections between the UK Power Networks installations at Bengeworth and the main National Grid, their contractors need to tunnel down to build a shaft at Bengeworth Road to connect to the main tunnel under Coldharbour Lane. Tunnelling works are due to start in the second half of 2021, and once complete (likely in 2022), a new substation and headhouse (to access the shaft for maintenance purposes) will be installed on the site in 2023 and 2024.

Bengeworth Road is the access route to (and also the name of) a large industrial site occupied by UK Power Networks. It is squeezed between the side of King’s College Hospital , the residential streets east of Cambria Road, and Southwell Street. It borders on the railway line, which separates it from Ruskin Park. See map below.

The residents’ concerns about the impact of this major project include the impact of noise and disruption during the tunnelling and the building of new, taller infrastructures that might permanently dominate their sightlines and deprive them of light. Meetings have been held with residents and attended by our MP Helen Hayes and representatives of Lambeth Council. Consultations are ongoing.
It seems clear that the project cannot be stopped, so the issues are about mitigation.

Planning Permission in the usual way is not required because the project is classified as a Permitted Development – a legal category which seems to have some ambiguous rules and different interpretations. But there may still be ways to challenge certain aspects of the plans, and local planning experts are examining these at the moment. The Loughborough Junction Action Group and the Herne Hill Society are involved in the consultations and the campaign.

All the documents relating to the formal application for Permitted Development can be found on Lambeth’s planning website by keying in reference 20/04417/LDCP or clicking here.

Station Square shops – where’s the power?

If you have lived in Herne Hill for a few years, you’ll be wearily familiar with the sequence of changes that have befallen the row of shops at the start of Railton Road, on what is now called Station Square but which was originally not a pedestrianised area but just a normal road – indeed, a bus route. A much-needed redevelopment turned into a slow-moving eyesore. Even now, many of the handsomely refurbished shop units haven’t been let.

Going back in time …

It was back in 2015 that Network Rail, the then owner of these properties, started to consider an investment scheme in Railton Road. Planning consent was obtained, but then the start of the construction works for the comprehensive upgrade of the units and accompanying arch accommodation was delayed for almost a year while vacant possession of the final unit was secured.

Shops closed & relocating – 2016

 

Works finally started in January 2017 but revealed a succession of structural weaknesses that called for major remedies before work could proceed further.

Oops, we forgot about that

During the project, it was realised that the electricity power supply delivered to these units and the flats above them would not be adequate for modern use and that a new electricity substation would need to be installed nearby. The long and painful search for a suitable location triggered yet more delay: some neighbours will remember the uproar when it was proposed to demolish The Flower Lady’s shop (a former coal store) to be the new site.

Works in (slow) progress – February 2018

Cutting a long and highly technical story short, The Arch Company, new owners of the thousands of arches and other trackside real estate formerly owned by Network Rail, investigated numerous alternatives but have finally opted to install the substation inside one of the new retail units!

The planning application allowing them to pursue this rather silly solution was contested by the Herne Hill Society, by our ward councillor Becca Thackray, local traders  and other bodies. But in the end Lambeth planners have recently granted permission, though no doubt with some reluctance. Enthusiasts for the minutiae of planning applications can find the proposal and the objections still up on Lambeth’s planning website under the reference 19/03371/FUL.

Southeastern say no

Several objectors, including the Herne Hill Society, argued that a much better site was available on the station premises, in the scruffy patch which currently accommodates waste bins and parking for staff cars. Herne Hill station is owned and operated by Southeastern, the train operating company owned by Govia. But as the planning application states, ‘The proposals would have compromised the Train Operating Company’s use of the station and they were unwilling to consider releasing this site from the station lease.’ A great pity; many think that some flexibility here would have led to a good solution, rather than one which disfigures one of the nicely-refurbished new shop units. But Southeastern would not relent.

Station Square shops, July 2020- location of electricity sub-station

So there we are. The shop in question, to the immediate left of Lark’s new premises, will now house a massive piece of equipment, and the frontage will, of necessity, be an industrial-looking louvred shutter –  see the architect’s elevation drawing extracted from the planning application.

Drawing showing location of sub-station

Meanwhile there seems to be no news of tenants for the other vacant shops, and the Covid-19 pandemic, with its painful impact on retail commerce, won’t have helped at all.

Dorchester Court – how will Lambeth’s planners now respond?

In response to the development proposals for Dorchester Court submitted on behalf of the owners, Heinrich Feldman and family, through their company Manaquel,  Lambeth’s planning committee now has to cope with two magisterial objections  –  on behalf of the residents themselves, and now by the Herne Hill Society on behalf of the whole community.

Dorchester Court – years of neglect

The Society’s deeply considered and detailed response to the planning application fundamentally dismantles the Manaquel proposal. It can be read on the Society’s website. Here are a few key excerpts:

  • There needs to be a legally binding agreement between Lambeth Council and Manaquel which sets out in detail the repairs Manaquel agree to carry out for the total restoration of Dorchester Court. Without it, there is no obligation on Manaquel to start, let alone complete the work. Given the historic failures of Manaquel over decades to address the repair of the building the need for this is all the greater. Neither is there any other form of legally binding undertaking that obliges Manaquel to complete the repairs before marketing the new residences.
  • There is no detailed schedule of repairs. …  Given Manaquel’s historic record in terms of maintenance of Dorchester Court, our fear is that work will start, the foundations will be found to be inadequate, the buildings will be structurally compromised and an application will then be made to demolish the buildings as there will not be enough profit from the development to repair them.
  • No details are given as to how in future Dorchester Court will be managed in a way to avoid the problems of maintenance that have plagued it for several decades and seen it placed on the Heritage at Risk Register.
  • The applications conflict with several Policies spelt out in the Lambeth Plan. Permitting these applications will not secure the long term future of Dorchester Court and will not secure benefits that outweigh the negative effect of breaching established planning policies. … Failure to classify this application as an enabling development and disregard of the Historic England policy and guidance could expose the local authority to legal challenge in its decision-making process.

Lambeth officers are now presumably trying to digest all this before briefing the members of the planning committee. As far as we know, no date has been set yet for the planning committee to meet.

Dorchester Court updates

Visitors to this blog will have seen an earlier report about the crisis affecting residents – our near neighbours – just up the hill in Dorchester Court.

In the news

Yesterday’s Mirror carried an article highlighting the residents’ deep concerns about the defective planning application submitted by the landlords. The link is here.

There was also an article dated 19 May in the  South London Press reporting the residents’ requests to the landlords for rent reductions during the pandemic.

Petition

In addition to opposing the planning application, the residents are asking as many people as possible to sign their petition to Lambeth. That petition can be accessed here.

The planning process

The Herne Hill Society have composed a powerful response to the owners’ planning application, which will be released shortly. We will post a link here as soon as it is available.

Herne Hill magazine free online this time

Herne Hill is the only magazine dedicated to news and features about Herne Hill, and is written and edited by members of the Herne Hill Society and other local people.

Normally it’s delivered to members three or four times a year.

But it’s not possible to print and safely distribute this spring’s issue, so it is being made available online free to anyone.

Herne Hill magazine, Spring 2020

You can read or download Herne Hill magazine #148 (Spring 2020) here as a PDF (recommended).

You can also read Herne Hill in page-turning format on the Issuu website.

Spaced-out queuing for Dough

Dorchester Court in danger

Fawnbrake residents will be familiar with Dorchester Court, the imposing 1930s apartment blocks sitting between Herne Hill itself and Dorchester Drive.

Dorchester Court, from the original sales brochure (from the DCRA website)

It is now threatened with wholly unsuitable development, as set out in a planning application submitted by the notorious and neglectful landlords. (Helen Hayes MP apparently described them as “one of the worst landlords I have ever come across”.) The landlords’ deliberate and cynical neglect over the years has made some parts of the estate almost uninhabitable, and indeed dangerous.

Yet Dorchester Court is a Grade 2 listed building, and is one of only two 20th Century listed buildings in Lambeth

it was designed by renowned architects Kemp and Tasker. Built in the 1930s in the British Moderne style, it is the only example of a residential block by the designers, who are known for their Art Deco cinemas.

The landlords are in fact the ultra-rich Heinrich Feldman and family, sheltering behind Manaquel Ltd, one of their many holding companies. Manaquel Ltd acts as the landlord for Dorchester Court

The long-suffering Residents Association are fighting back and have created an information-rich website which is well worth looking at.

You can also follow them on Twitter.

 

Onslaught on the twin towers

Plans for the twin tower development proposed for Loughborough Junction, featured in our last post, have been comprehensively rubbished in a formal objection now tabled on behalf of the Herne Hill Society.

The main thrust of the Society’s objection is that a decision to allow the proposed development would go against the Lambeth Plan for new developments, as well as the London Plan and indeed the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework.

This sounds academic, but demonstrating how the proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the Council’s own planning guidelines makes it very difficult for the Lambeth planners to give it the green light – though of course there’s no guarantee that they won’t find a way to wriggle out of this.

The draft new Lambeth Plan lays down many requirements that new developments must respect, including the principle that the design of a new development must be a response to the good aspects of the local context and historic character in many detailed ways.

The proposal flouts Lambeth’s own standards

As the Society’s magisterial demolition of the proposal states, the architects have signally failed to meet these policy criteria. “Two towers rising to 29 and 20 stories are not a positive or contextual response to the character of the area. On the contrary, they are wilfully antagonistic to the character, creating densely congested structures with an overbearing presence out of any reasonable scale with neighbouring buildings.”

They go on to say: “The rationale of the designs stems solely from the maximisation of housing capacity on a small site, not from any response to local context.”

Rules for tall buildings

There is more. They note that the London Plan and the Lambeth Plan emphasise that tall buildings require excellent design and should be of “exemplary standard”. But as the Society points out, “the towers stand out for their gross incongruity in the local context not for any outstanding design quality or distinct architectural expression.”

They also flag up the proposed towers’ harmful effect on heritage assets, particularly views from Ruskin Park and Brockwell Park where what is proposed is a “markedly intrusive, permanent alteration to views from the park, one that makes no positive contribution to the park and its local context.”

The proposal’s airily dismissed references to potential bottlenecks in public transport (mentioned in our last post) are also painfully exposed and politely savaged in the Society’s response.

There is more: it’s well worth a read, and shows the importance of having a strong local Society, supported by experts who know their stuff. The upshot is that their demolition of the tower development proposal,  while elegantly written, is comprehensive and enough to make its architects blush. (Don’t count on it.)

Read it all

The full text of the Objection can be read in a PDF found via a new page on the Herne Hill Society’s website, through this link.