Mark and Graham wrote (08/08/2003):

"Lambeth Town Planning
First Floor
Acre House
10 Acre Lane
SW2 5LL

18/8/2003

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: DC/02/02308FUL/DC_CHD

187-191 Clapham Road, London SW9 0QE

This letter should be read in conjunction with our letter of 20/10/2002.

We have consulted the revised drawings submitted by the developers for the above site and would comment as follows:

1. The development remains the same gated community which makes no attempt to engage with its local community whatsoever. The only communal space within this excluding building (the space where presumably parties etc will be held) is around the main entrance on Clapham Road thus ensuring that any noisy events only affect the neighbours not the residents.

2. The removal of one story from the former eight-story block still leaves seven stories which is too high for such a lumpen block with no redeeming architectural merit. It will still infringe on the privacy of local residents, particularly those in the Stockwell Gardens Estate and those of us who live opposite the site, a privacy which we have always enjoyed. It will also overlook and cast a shadow over Stockwell Park School.

3. The sunlight study submitted by the developers, assuming it is correct, is for the 21^st June ? the day on which shadows cast are shortest. Taken along with the application being submitted in mid summer when many residents will be on holiday, and the privately commissioned Historical Building Assessment, which concludes that the existing buildings have no architectural merit, this contributes to a sense that, a ?whitewash? is being attempted.

4. The changes to the Clapham Road elevation, which remove the projecting shop fronts. suggest lip service to our complaint that the building projects forward of any other building on Clapham Road. However the bulk of the building is still forward of the Stockwell Gardens Estate buildings which are themselves further forward than any other building nearby. With few exceptions, the building line is consistent from Kennington to Lambeth North tube station. Furthermore the removal of the shop fronts (but not the shops themselves) makes this elevation even blander than it was before. The three shops would seem to share one very small door and one can only believe, if the shops are to be viable, that shortly after completion, works would have to be done to re-instate the shop fronts in order to make them function as shops.

5. Since there will be a minimum of 69 residents, the proposal to provide two disabled and two ordinary parking spaces is inadequate. Although the developers have said that students are not allowed cars, Unite’s own study carried out by Mori and quoted in the Guardian on Friday 9^th August suggests that 40% [of students] highlighted car parking as a decisive factor? when choosing accommodation.

It seems to us that the Council has a duty to protect the quality of life of all the residents in the neighbourhood, but that you have a particular responsibility towards your former tenants (now tenants of a housing association) on the Stockwell Gardens Estate, and you have an even greater duty of care towards the pupils at Stockwell Park School.

In conclusion, we would ask the planning committee to reject this application on several grounds:

• that the siting, bulk and design are inappropriate for a prime site in a conservation area;

• that its neighbours will lose light and privacy;

• that there is inadequate provision for parking.

We would like to emphasise that we do not oppose the development of this site, nor the use of it for low-cost housing for students. However, it is rare that development is considered for such a large site so centrally located in Stockwell. We would like to see all concerned use this as an opportunity to bring benefit to the area by agreeing to a building that would be worthy of such a prominent position. Since the site is being developed for The London Institute, a group of London?s premier art and design schools, who profess to aim for the best in modern design, it seems wholly appropriate for the Council to refer the proposal to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and to ask the developers to revise the specification for the site and to undertake an architectural competition so that Stockwell and the conservation area which forms part of it get a fine quality building.

Mark and Graham wrote (05/07/2003):
"Dear All

Ref: Planning application 187-191 Clapham Road (Council reference DC/02/02308/FUL/DC-CHD)

We have today received another planning application by LDC and The London Institute for demolition of the building and construction of the eight story student accommodation. Have you all received a copy?

There is no indication whether this is the same application as before, and if it is why we are being notified again with a date of 23rd August for comments. We will try and go and see the plans later in the week.

The officer in charge is Mr Christopher Dale on (020) 7926 1192. We need to know whether our previous letters will be included or whether we have to send them again.

One other question we should ask Mr Dale is whether the developers have submitted a shadow diagram for the development. This diagram would show the path of the shadow cast by the building both in summer and winter. If they have not then I do not see how any local residents can be expected to comment on the building until such a diagram has been supplied.

We might also ask him, or the Rector of The London Institute ( see previous correspondence) why this application is being submitted during the long summer break when there is no student body to comment (Remember The London Institute is an art school committed to the best in modern design - Hmmmmm)

You are presumably aware that on Thursday we have a by-election for our local councilor - the Labour candidate is Pete Bowyer and I suggest we all call him tomorrow (020 7840 0943) and ask whether , if elected, he would be willing to oppose the height of the proposed building and support our campaign for an improved design. He is much more likely to give us such an assurance tomorrow (and in writing preferably!) than he is on Friday! If anyone has a number for the Liberal candidate I would be grateful to receive it.

Best wishes to you all

Marc Ennals and Graham McKerrow."

.

This page was last updated on Monday, 25 October 2004.