The agenda for next week’s planning applications committee has just been published.
You can read the full report on the council’s website.
Many, however, will be interested in the planning departments recommendations which are that the main application be refused.
The recommendation is for two reasons:
- Officers believe the application does not provide sufficient benefit to the transport infrastructure.
- Given the late change to the financial package the authority is not satisfied affordable housing should be omitted from the scheme.
Also recommended for refusal are the plans for a temporary station and the application for conservation area consent. The reason for recommendation in both cases being the absence of an approved scheme to replace.
As I have pointed out before, I have reserved my position so, in the event of the application going to full council, I can retain my vote and am presenting this purely for information. The actual decision will be taken by the planning committee at their meeting next week.
Thanks James, I did not have a chance to look at the report but I noticed that it was indeed a recommendation for refusal.
However it seems very disappointing that it does not say anything about massing, height, etc.
As more than 80% of the protest was firstly on the scale of the buildings… (hundred of very accurate and detailed letters) it seems incredible that there is no consideration on that. It is definitely of the foremost importance to have that mentioned in the planning committee decision… or it would mean that the councillors/members of the Planning Committee do not take care of their constituent opinions…
This (as I think you know) is the report of the planning officers. You cannot use it to draw conclusions on the opinions of members of the planning committee who haven’t even met.
[…] pointed out by James Cousins (Councillor – Shafestbury) and Tony Belton (Councillor -Latchmere) by emails, the agenda for […]
James> That’s what I say in the article:
“My first assumption is that the Planning Officer was concentrating on technical details and following rules dictated by Wandsworth Borough Council policy regarding the appropriate location for tall buildings.
It depends now on the members of the Planning Committee (list here – in the middle of the article) to represent the view of their constituents and definitely put an end to what some called “phallocratic” designs during the last electoral campaign.”
I am still a bit flabbergasted with the lack of consideration shown in the report on the main and foremost concern of the residents… and of some representatives.
[…] seems to boil down to the officer recommendation to refuse permission with Metro Shopping Fund saying they ”have invested significant resources to date, however […]