TOWN PLANNING: 

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND HONESTY FROM PEOPLE IN OFFICIAL POSITIONS WHO'S DECISIONS AFFECT EVERYBODY.

(Implications for all London and national boroughs).

1. Why are we challenging the planners decisions?

This concerns a wider principle given the dangerous precedents being set. 

We are focussing here on one "test case", a "Town Cramming" planning permission, (an official definition within the planning profession), squeezed onto two land-locked tennis courts with an extremely long, (over 25 metres), and narrow, (less than 3 metres wide) access way.

Responsible and beneficial development is extremely welcome but development at unlimited social and environmental cost for the benefit of corporate profit simply has to stop - for our, our children's and future generations' sakes. 

This is NOT about no development, it's about a), appropriate and responsive development using smart architecture and b), due process and accountability.

The "test case" - not so smart architecture - quick summary:

A previously approved strictly limited 2-house scheme has grown into an 8 house scheme on the same site over a four year period. There is no room on the site whatsoever for this scheme to meet the standards required:

There is not enough capacity for the refuse - The refuse arrangements do not meet local or BSI standards - do not meet policy.

There is no visibility at the dangerous entrance - against policy,

There is no play space - against policy, (new suggestion is next to bins!)

There is no disabled parking - against policy,

There is no vehicle turning space - against policy,

Roads in the site are too narrow - below required standards,

Cars will be parked against living space windows - against policy,

Cars will be parked against existing external amenity spaces - against policy,

Fire trucks cannot enter the site - against building and BSI regulations - this has huge implications in contagion fire terms to surrounding property and future residents.

2. Where we are now - specifics of the challenge:

Because of the above problems caused by overdevelopment, the planners have been systematically approving the various 13 conditions placed on the permission, despite not meeting standards, conforming to policy or satisfying the law. The claims concern: 1&2: Despite informing the planners, an adjoining piece of land was included in the permission - the owner does not want his land developed. The council's paper-work to fix this was flawed and process was incorrect. Two subsequent planning permissions were granted (superseding the original), but were invalid as per our advice because the whole scheme was not considered against all the issues (see list above). 3, The refuse scheme proposed falls so far below standards it will never work for the capacity of people/housing on the site. 4. Another application to approve materials was approved two days before another planning permission to which it referred  - even existed!

3. Our hope for this case:

A successful bi-product outcome for this case will be to force a re-think for this site, (by respecting the law and planning rules and policies), which works for everyone: Council, developer and residents. 

However and much more importantly, we hope it will have broader reaching legacy implications for other communities across the borough and further afield in similar situations now and in future. This should not be seen as just a "rap over the knuckles" in one individual planning case. 

Planners and Planning Committees need to take a breath and "re-set" their approach, follow the rules, apply policy, standards and the law, protect constituents' rights and amenity, be accountable and perform their jobs according to the Nolan Principles of public office and the LGA Code of Conduct.

Time stretched? - scroll down to 7 and 8 below for next steps

OR - read on for the detail ....

PLEASE PLEDGE AND SHARE THIS PAGE!

_________________________________

4. Detailed information about our "test case":

Eight 4 and 5 bedroomed town houses over 3 and 4 storeys including basements have been approved for "Town Cramming" onto a tiny site (formerly two tennis courts) with an unusually long, angled and very narrow entrance access-way.

We believe that the promise of a large CIL revenue, (in this case c.£530,000) has motivated the Council to approve this scheme which is flawed on too many levels, both in terms of processes of decision making and policy contraventions.

Despite many community funded, expert-authored reports and legal Opinions, showing planning policy contravention and unlawful decisions, the Council has simply ignored these and the hundreds of objections and approved the scheme regardless, forcing the community to take legal action. 

For example, the planners have decided that the number of bedrooms on the site are irrelevant when calculating the quantities of waste arisings, and the necessary storage. They have classified the eight 4 & 5 bedroomed family town houses as flats – that’s right, flats. They have crammed so many houses on site, there is not enough space for the legally required number of Eurobins for the waste. This is a dangerous precedent for Wandsworth.

In 2010 a scheme was approved for two large and integrated houses on the same site. At the time the Council's own engineer wrote to the case officer in an email as follows - (note his advice regarding car access, dwelling numbers, refuse storage / collection and fire access) ...

2010: approval for 2 houses with 10 bedrooms

2014: approval for 8 houses with 36 bedrooms

What's changed in four years? 

Policy hasn't. 

The restrictions of the site haven't.

That's a lot people, cars, refuse, overspill parking and impact.

This "maxed-out" scheme is SO squeezed that many of the Council's policies simply cannot be met:

There is majorly inadequate provision for refuse and consequently nowhere for the refuse quantity expected to be generated to actually go.

Future residents will have to PAY for refuse removal – in addition to the sum within Council Tax. The legal agreement will rely on a caretaker in perpetuity to wait for the refuse truck; the Council is refusing to share this agreement with the community which will be impacted by any flaws in the agreement before it is executed despite being required to do so.

Approvals still being sought and yet to be signed-off:

a) The Construction Management Plan (CMP) is yet to be approved. It will result in actual damage to private and public property because the trucks cannot safely reach and / or enter the site without climbing on the pavement or colliding with walls. The community has shown this via its own consultant, Ardent consultant engineers, (see link below).

The CMP also shows extreme danger to pedestrians and children at the entrance and an inability to internalise the construction because the trucks cannot access the site in a safe or timely manner. There are many other issues with it.

The planners are not, however, demanding the developer solve these issues.

This truck - typical of the size proposed by the developer, just could not get in, so it unloaded everything in the street. More than 2,200 trucks will be required for this development, and early on in the construction, the trucks will have to back into this site given the basement dig out will not allow the trucks to turn on site. This means >4,400 truck journeys to and from the site. This does not work and the Council knows it.

b) The S106 Agreement which will attempt to govern the refuse arrangements in perpetuity (whereby a caretaker is supposed to wait for up to 13.5 hours with no bathroom, shelter or subsistence), has not been finalised or published.

If the a) and b) proposals are approved as they currently stand, the community, with your support, will aim to challenge the legality of the decisions given the harm that will result. (We have already obtained a barrister's legal Opinion outlining the flaws with the CMP).

_________________________________

5. Committee members and planning Officers operating far outside the Nolan Principles of Public Office and the Local Government Association Code of Conduct.

The 8 house application and the applications to release the associated conditions are steadily being approved despite of all the planning and policy breaches. This renders the Committee Meetings a charade because the members are not asking the planners why the applications do not meet standards.

For example when deliberating on discharge of the refuse condition at the February Planning Committee meeting:

Mr Granger, (East area planner), when asked by the Chair of the PAC Ms McDermott, to name an example of other davelopments that use the caretaker arrangement, cited the Royal Academy of Dance in Battersea Square. The Academy is still in operation, the plans for its conversion to flats and houses haven't been approved and are nowhere even close to being built, let alone any refuse plan being decided upon!

More incredibly, at the end of his delivery the Chair, Ms Mc Dermott then stated that there is a development in her road where that happens - there is not! Listen to their statements here ...

6. How the council has behaved:

Incredibly - the council has gagged the democratic process by appointing an external law firm to deal with concerns and objections as part of the statutory consultations, also, the constituency's Ward Councillors have said themselves that they will not speak to their constituents but will need to communicate with them via the same lawyer!. Have you ever heard of this elsewhere?

1. This is a conflict of interest.

2. This is against the rules of public office.

3. Democratic representation has been removed by the local authority itself.

4. Constituents' Council Tax revenues are being used to block democratic representation.

All of the below have hidden behind this smokescreen:

The Head of the Council

The Council's head lawyer 

Senior and Area planning officers 

Planning Committee Members 

Ward Councillors

Other Council "expert" officers such as the head of refuse

The Council's lawyers themselves 

_________________________________

We and others in the borough have had enough.

Other areas in the Borough are experiencing similar treatment, (e.g. The Nursery fiasco by the Toastrack on Wandsworth Common and the Formula E debacle in Battersea Park, York Road and the Homebase sites).

The Council is sanctioning unparalleled maxed-out Town Cramming.

Wandsworth residents have been ignored for years by the planners. 

 “PLEASE PLEDGE AND SHARE THIS PAGE!”

7. Where we are today / legal status / next steps:

39 Essex Chambers and Walton & Co. are advising us.

Pre-Action Protocol letters and Grounds of Claim bundles have been served on the Council and Developer and also at the High Court in respect of recent decisions taken by the Council. We have received replies - the next step is for a Planning Judge to decide if the case is arguable at a full Judicial Review hearing if so, we will proceed.

We believe and hope this will be permitted, (the Council have already admitted in writing that they have made serious errors in one area of our challenge), after that, the funding raised here will allow us to go through the process and mount the CMP and S106 challenge if and when necessary.

8. Amount of funding now needed:

We need your help on this platform to raise an initial £5,000.00 and then if the Judge approves the full Judicial Review challenge, we believe we would need an additional £40,000.00 - making a total of £45,000.00, (includes the risk of having to pay the Defendant's costs if we lose).

Please give as much as you can - it all adds up.

Crowd funding means every donation makes a real difference. We need all the help we can get. This is social networking being used at its best - for the wider community's benefit - please share this page widely to your address books.

How much is democracy, reigning-in the planning mess in Wandsworth and our children's future worth to you?

Young adults are the true "social network" generation - encourage them to understand the importance of this issue and share it with their networks.

Please embed the link to this page within your email messaging and signatures. Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/flyers/blogs etc. - it all works!

We are extremely grateful for all the extremely generous support we've had to date which has enabled us to get this far ... thank you all.

Sincerely,

The Beecholme Tennis Club Community – (Thurleigh Road, Holmside Road and Old Park Avenue areas - and wider affiliates).

Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/Beecholme-Tennis-Club-826860737360844/

 “PLEASE PLEDGE AND SHARE THIS PAGE!” 

SHARE & LINK TO YOUR NETWORKS & CONTACTS.

Other links:

An overview "timeline" document illustrating how we find ourselves in this position: http://www.filedropper.com/time-line-thebeecholmetennisclub

The Ardent report (expert transport/construction plan consultant)

looking at the CMP: http://www.filedropper.com/ardent

Codes of conduct for Councillors and Planners - 

Nolan Principles - LGA Code of Conduct.

Other fights that our friends in the borough are involved with:

Formula E debacle in Battersea Park

York Road 

Homebase store at Wandsworth roundabout

About the claimant

We are a community group seeking to force the planning department to apply policy and standards according to the law. Pressure to deliver housing from central government should not mean that Wandsworth Council can be allowed to approve developers' schemes to build non-affordable homes (in this case 8x 4 and 5 bedroom homes estimated to sell for >£2million) in a small and restricted backland space. Individual existing householders should not have their lives blighted, amenity affected and suffer financial loss because the planners and the Planning Applications Committee choose to ignore their duty to 1), enforce planning policy, standards, rules and the law, and 2), to protect constituents' amenity. The Community Infrastructure levy will be c.£530,000 alone in this case, payable by the developer to the Council and the Mayor. Wandsworth are in effect implementing a policy of Town Cramming at the expense of residents in favour of private developers' profits. Learn more on our Facebook page: Beecholme Tennis Club: https://www.facebook.com/Beecholme-Tennis-Club-826860737360844/

Fast facts

Responsible development is good. Development at any social and environmental cost for the benefit of corporate profit simply has to stop - for our, our children's and future generations' sakes. Residents are fed up with having their lives blighted because the planners do not follow policies, standards and the law. Seeking funding for the full Judicial Review hearing and future challenge of final approvals of remaining condition and S106 agreement. 39 Essex Chambers