My priorities for Putney: fighting overdevelopment

The overdevelopment of Putney and Wandsworth is the biggest local threat our area faces. The Conservatives here have a stack-em-up, pile-em-high mentality without consideration of quality of life, the character of our area, the strain on roads, services and infrastructure or the desirability of burying Putney under skyscrapers. All the time Putney's Tory MP has tried her hardest not to get involved in this critical issue.

Putney is not Manhattan. The principal reason Putney is such a great place is because it is a human-scale built environment.

That's why I was involved in the battle to stop the Putney Place, Tileman House and Danebury Avenue overdevelopment plans; and why I continue to fight hard to stop the overdevelopment of the Riverside Quarter and the Ram Brewery site.

We can't just be against progress of any sort - and I'm not. I believe we need a strong plan for Putney that tells developers clearly what is and is not acceptable here. That should avoid them wasting time and money on consultants and campaigns; and save the community time and effort fighting battles that sheer weight of numbers will eventually win. I've set out time and again what I want to see instead in my plan for Putney, and that's what I'll work to implement if I become your MP.

Read the news articles I've written on this website about overdevelopment here

Visit my pages on the Riverside Quarter overdevelopment

Visit my pages on the Tileman House overdevelopment from 2009 here

Visit my pages on the Putney Place overdevelopment from 2008 here.

Visit my pages on the Danebury Avenue overdevelopment from 2009 here.

Read the "No more towers" edition of the Putney Paper from summer 2008 here.

Read my "Plan for Putney" edition of the Putney Paper from New Year 2009 here.

Last night's Putney Society meeting & a Plan for Putney

Wandsworth Council has published draft new plans to guide future planning applications and redevelopments across the borough. The plans are out for consultation, and as part of this, Martin Howell, from the Council?s planning department, delivered a presentation at last night?s meeting of the Putney Society. Given the concern caused over the past few years by a string of inappropriate development applications ? some of which have been agreed by the Council in the face of fierce opposition from local residents ? the meeting was extremely well attended.

Along with the Putney Society I have been urging the council to produce a town centre plan for Putney for some time now, the absence of which has been a key factor in the propensity of developers to ?try their luck? with hugely inappropriate tall buildings proposals like Putney Place and Tileman House on Upper Richmond Road.

The Wandsworth Local Development Document comprises the Development Management Policies Document and the Site-Specific Allocations Document - Preferred Options. They can be viewed on the council's website: www.wandsworth.gov.uk/planning. I encourage you not to be put off by the somewhat impenetrable jargon and lengthy nature of the documents. By all means attempt to respond on the full range of issues being consulted upon; but I urge you to ensure that you definitely send in your comments on specific sites such as Tileman House, Capsticks and Putney Place ? stating the upper height limit you think would be appropriate.

The mood of last night?s meeting seemed clear to me: there was a definite consensus that the proposed upper height limit for tall buildings on certain sites was too high. For example, the council seems to think that a 15 storey tower would be appropriate on the Capsticks site. This for me continues to be too tall for this site and it would have a hugely detrimental impact on neighbouring residential properties. Other proposed heights are also alarming. I urge you to make sure your voice is heard, and take part in this crucial process.

I intend to submit my response to the consultation ahead of next Friday?s deadline. I?ll also post more on the council?s proposed plans once I have had a chance to go through it in more detail.

Tileman terminated

Councillors tonight voted unanimously to reject the Tileman House overdevelopment on Upper Richmond Road. Along with everyone else in the public gallery I was delighted that not a single member of the committee spoke in favour of the application.



Councillors Jeremy Larsson for the Conservatives and Tony Belton for Labour spoke firmly against the plan, while Conservative Council Leader Edward Lister supported the height and design of the building - but opposed the application because it was in "the wrong place".

This is another really significant victory for people power. Just consider that in a few short weeks we have gone from the East Putney Conservative councillors circulating a letter clearly advocating for this dreadful application, to a 9-0 unanimous vote against it. And it's because of the weight of representations, the strength of feeling among local people and the united, co-ordinated efforts we have all made to turn back yet another overdevelopment nightmare.

Another good night for Putney.

Tileman House rejection recommended (again)

Original post, 12.08.2009:
Council Officers are recommending to councillors that the revised Tileman House application be refused for the second time.

It will be interesting to see what the developers do now. Last time the officers came out with the same recommendation the applicants immediately withdrew their application, only to bring back an almost identical plan and make us all go through this charade again. To do so again would be outrageous.

The two grounds officers suggest councillors should reject this plan are height and scale and - irony of ironies for Wandsworth - insufficient affordable housing (though that was a question-mark raised by the Greater London Authority).

The Committee meeting takes place on Thursday 20 August from 7pm at Wandsworth Town Hall.

We've now turned back Putney Place, Tileman House (twice) and Clapham Junction. Let's hope developers are starting to get the message.

UPDATE 14.08.2009:
The officers' report on this application can now be read here.

Tileman objections keep on coming

Tileman "doesn't comply with London Plan" says Boris

The letter above is the first page of a 16-page submission to the council from the Greater London Authority, objecting to the Tileman House application. You can read the complete document here.

This is a significant, surprising and welcome contribution to the debate on Tileman House, and I don't see how on earth this application gets approved in its wake.

• Instead of a 15 storey building the GLA wants to see an 8-10 storey building that respects the existing variances in heights.
• It questions whether the derisory amount of affordable homes represents the "maximum reasonable amount that could be provided".
• And it suggests that the planned Tileman building would not be "green" enough in terms of both its polluting biomass boiler and its failure to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

If we are to believe the developers and the local Conservative councillors, 15 storeys is the minimum height at which this building can be financially viable, then insisting on a lower height means the application must fail.

Of course, the developers should not be believed on this - they could achieve a better design with more floorspace for retail and more affordable homes - it's just that the massive profit margin they hoped for will be reduced as a consequence.

So I welcome the GLA's contribution to this debate. With each submission the council receives those supporting the Tileman application become more and more isolated from the mainstream. That's good news for Putney.

Tileman latest

Click here to see the complete list to date.

New housing design plan for London

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has published a detailed design plan that sets the standards to which all new homes in the capital should aspire in future.

It's a comprehensive and well-argued document that seeks to learn lessons from housing mistakes in the past, as well as adapting for the changed climate London appears likely to esxperience in the future.

There are one or two points I can take issue with: the argument that there should be no more than eight properties accessed from any communal space is one such; and I suspect anyone wanting to take issue with developments like Tileman House could find plenty to bolster their arguments against it in here, but these are all technical quibbles in what is a thorough and wide-ranging guide.

We all have an interest in improving the design of our environment because design directly influences life chances, community safety, quality of life and how we interact with each other. If you like this sort of thing, you'll enjoy the design guide, which you can read here.

Falling into line

Justine Greening has, apparently objected to the revised Tileman House application.

I very much welcome Miss Greening's decision to stand with residents rather than her Conservative Councillors - this is the first time she has taken a different view to her council colleagues on any issue, ever - so it clearly must have been a difficult decision for her to break with her party for the first time in her political career.

I am also delighted that Miss Greening has also decided to support the arguments I have been advancing for over 12 months now, that we need a comprehensive plan for Putney. It's something that is so important to protecting Putney that I'm pleased, albeit belatedly, that she has now joined those of us who've been campaigning on this issue for years - in my case since Autumn 2005.

But for her opposition to Tileman House to mean something, then she must back up her words with some hard lobbying of Putney's councillors, every single one of whom - 18 out of 18 - is Conservative.

The planning applications committee meets to consider this application towards the end of August. How Conservative councillors vote at that meeting will be one measure of how deeply felt her objection to Tileman House is.

As of Friday...

Yet more evidence that the Tory Council is pushing for Tileman

Below is a letter the council has sent to itself arguing for the Tileman House planning application. The letter is from the council's economic development officer, who is also the lead officer responsible for the unpopular plans to redevelop Danebury Avenue around Roehampton library.

This letter again demonstrates the lack of any coherent and cohesive plan for Putney at the very heart of the council. Of course Upper Richmond Road needs redevelopment - but for the Conservatives that evidently means redevelopment at any price.

I say No.

The sort of development Upper Richmond Road needs is similar to the Castle Court building on the edge of Brewhouse Street. That is: a development of no more than five or six storeys with ground floor retail opportunities and a sizeable proportion of affordable homes. That's sustainable economic development that strengthens our local economy, meets community need, preserves Putney's human-scale environment and enhances Upper Richmond Road.



You can click on the image for a larger version.

My Tileman House formal submission

I have just now submitted my formal objection to Tileman House, which you can read here. I've reattached my original objection to it, as the applications are so similar that all the points I made then apply now.

The deadline for submitting your views is today, but I have received an assurance that officers will accept responses up until the planning committee, which will now happen towards the end of August.

So there you have it. The clear choice on overdevelopment. Conservatives locally for it. While I stand with you against it. No ifs, no buts.

My response to the Tories' Tileman letter

Putney Conservatives have made some quite extraordinary claims in a letter to residents encouraging them to support the Tileman House application. Highlighted below are the most contentious and self serving of them:



I agree that the building (there's only one) is in need of substantial refurbishment, but to suggest that redevelopment of a large, prime town centre site could not be "economic" is absurd. The developer is seeking permission at the depth of a global recession. The situation in six months, or a year, or two years, will be unrecognisable to that of today. It does not mean that we should agree to whatever gross overdevelopment anyone tells us Putney needs out of blind panic or hysteria.




"Somewhat higher"? "Somewhat higher" is, in fact, twice the height of the adjoining building: No.125. Four times as high as the beautiful curved Victorian terrace that leads round to Putney Hill. That's not my definition of "somewhat" - it's what I call "significantly higher". In any other planning authority we'd have elected representatives standing up for the wider public interest, not swallowing the developers' spin without question.




Of course there's a risk of it standing empty - indeed it has for stood empty for some time now. No one is suggesting the site is not in need to regeneration and development. But the Putney Conservatives evidently believe that standing empty is worse than a massive overdevelopment that we will be saddled with for years and years to come.




A reduction of 10 flats does not represent major change. And here's the context, which is missing from the Conservatives' letter: there are currently fifteen flats in Tileman House; the developers want to increase that number six-fold. The building remains 15 storeys at its Upper Richmond Road frontage. Twelve storeys at the rear will not consequentially alter the blight residents of St John's Avenue will suffer.





While I'm delighted at the recognition that Upper Richmond Road is in need of substantial improvement, we're again only being presented with a "my way or the highway" argument from the Conservatives. But we don't have to choose between the less disastrous of two dreadful options: we can have regeneration of our town centre; more commercial opportunities and some affordable housing without making Upper Richmond Road into an even darker canyon with massive tower blocks. But only with strong leadership, willing to stand up to developers, enshrined within a crystal clear plan for Putney. We're lacking both in spades from the Conservatives.




These are statements of fact. But the key word in this sentence is "any" - any redevelopment, not exclusively this disaster of an overdevelopment, would provide planning gain for Putney, and could diversify our local economy for long term benefit.




This is the most bizarre claim of the Conservatives' appalling letter. Putney is not in competition with Wandsworth: they are entirely distinct town centres catering to different communities. But hidden in this sentence is the real Conservative agenda for Putney: they want to emulate the same sort of 42-storey skyscrapers they're pushing for on the Ram Brewery site in our area. The Conservative effort to replicate massive out-of-town developments like Croydon as if there is some sort of prestige to subsuming our area beneath tower blocks is really alarming.




Where do I start with this sentence? Well, how about the fact that the building to which they refer is in Brewhouse Lane, not Brewer Street. There is no Brewer Street in Putney.

But more substantively, this building is - at most - five storeys high; it's also, incidentally, a block of entirely affordable housing - another problem with the Tileman House scheme. So if they want to use this site as an example of best practice, I'm with them on that: submit a five storey Tileman House plan, with exactly the same sort of "versatile trading space" and a similar proportion of affordable homes and it could well command my and residents' support. The current plan for Tileman is nothing like the Brewhouse Lane development and it is duplicitous to say otherwise.

I know some residents, at least initially, questioned whether there really was a link between the overdevelopment plans our borough has been bombarded with and the Conservative Party locally. With each passing piece of evidence I present - on this and all the other overdevelopment plans they're pushing, it is clear that the link is not only there - it is significant and inseparable.

Here we have the current Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, Conservative Councillor Leslie McDonnell, and his immediate predecessor, Tory Councillor Ravi Govindia, presenting the developers' case to residents. It shows the utmost contempt for the hundreds of objections sent in by local people and The Putney Society. It demonstrates that their priorities are the developers' interests, not Putney's interest. And as usual, Putney's Conservative MP is nowhere to be seen.

No leadership, no accountability, no representation. That's what you're currently getting from the Conservatives. It's in your power to change things. Please object to this planning application and then decide how best to respond at the elections for your MP and Councillors due next year.

Tories push developers' case FOR Tileman House

Further proof that local Conservatives have completely lost the plot over Tileman House and how Putney should develop emerged over the weekend.

Some East Putney residents received a letter from two of their councillors (plus a third who represents the Balham area but who they want to move to East Putney at the next election) presenting what amounts to the developer's case FOR the application.

This is an extraordinary turn of events, not least because one of the East Putney councillors who has signed the letter is also the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee. This has caused some conasiderable concern amongst local residents who are now openly speculating that the Tories have decided to support the "new" application. Iin fact there is very little new about it - it's close to identical to the previous application so overwhelmingly opposed by local residents; the same residents Councillor McDonnell and his colleagues were elected to serve.

I'm reproducing the Conservative letter in its entirety below, and will leave readers to judge what confidence they can have in the role that will be played by their Conservative councillors. Later today I will respond to the claims they make. The highlighted sections are ones I've marked, as these are the most extraordinary claims of an extraordinary letter.

English Heritage says East Putney under threat

English Heritage, the body with responsibility for all aspects of protecting and promoting the historic environment in England, has named three areas of our borough - including the East Putney conservation area - as under threat in a nationwide survey.

East Putney is the part of our area that is under greatest threat from overdevelopment: there are at least three local sites: Putney Place, Capsticks/Carlton Place and Tileman House that developers want to pile-up huge towerblocks on. One of the other borough sites English Heritage have highlighted is Clapham Junction - again, under threat from massive overdevelopment.

I do find it remarkable that there is such a widespread coalition against overdevelopment - one that includes the Putney Society and English Heritage as well, of course, as myself and local residents. The only people who just don't get this are the Conservatives, who at best can be described as dithering over this issue - and at worst are complicit in creating the overdevelopment problems we're battling against.

You can download a whole range of information about the English Heritage campaign.

And here's how the Wandsworth Guardian is covering this story - focussing on Clapham Junction.

Tileman returns

As you may have heard, the Tileman House planning application has been resubmitted with very few changes to the original submission at the start of the year. You can download the planning newsletter on this new application here.

In my view, this is a cynical and shoddy attempt by the developers to wage a war of attrition with local residents - amending their application slightly in the hope that more and more will get disheartened and not bother to object to their plans.

I am of the view that this application is so similar to the previous one that all the submissions sent in for the original application remain valid for this one. However, let's not take the risk. Please register your objection again - even if it's just resubmitting verbatim your old submission with the date changed. And, if you didn't send in your views for the original application please do so this time - if only to show your opposition to the tactics of the developers.

Remember - this application cannot be viewed in isolation: if a 15-storey block is approved, it sets a precedent for the entire stretch of Upper Richmond Road and will shape the decisions on Carlton Place (the Capstick application) and Putney Place (as and when that one returns). Everyone concerned about the overdevelopment threat needs to stand together to turn back this threat so we can draw up a Plan for Putney as our area now is - not in the shadow of planning consents that will set precedents we cannot undo.

To submit your views, write to Helen Keegan, Planning Service, Town Hall, Wandsworth High Street, London SW18 2PU or email planningapplications@wandsworth.gov.uk citing reference 2009/1773.

As ever, if you could copy me in on your submission it would be helpful in making sure I can best represent local residents on this issue.

Wandsworth Guardian report on Tileman House

BREAKING NEWS: TILEMAN PLANS WITHDRAWN

Residents: 3 - Overdevelopers: 0

The developer of the controversial and unpopular Tileman House site has withdrawn his planning application for the site.

This is great news - provided that the developers have withdrawn it because they have heard the local voices about their plans. But if they are hoping the objectors will fade away or be worn down by drawing out this application they won't succeed.

So that's:

• Putney Place - plans rejected
• Ram Brewery - plans called in by our Labour Government
• Tileman House - plans withdrawn

Let those who believe local action doesn't make a difference see that it can.

Tileman House revised planning application

Just a quick note as a few residents have been in touch wondering whether they needed to write in again about Tileman House following the very minor revisions to the plan made by the developers recently.

You don't have to write in unless you want to: the original objections will still count. The only thing the changes do is push back decision day as the council is obliged to hold another consultation on the "new" plans.

If you do want to have your say on the revisions, however, email planningapplications@wandsworth.gov.uk citing the new application number 2009/0595.

More on the Town Centre Partnership's Tileman response

For those of you who, like me, struggled to believe that Putney Town Centre Partnership could fail to find anything to say about a planning application of such consequence to our town centre as Tileman House - other than to ask about the future of three trees - here is their submission.

Even confining themselves to the issues of "townscape" alone, does not a 15 storey block affect the townscape? Is the fact it comes right up to the pavement, whereas the current Tileman House is at least set back from the street not worthy of observation? What about the relationship between this building and the adjoining beautiful historic terrace?

If anyone from the Putney Town Centre Partnership would like to explain their incapacity to say something about a major part of Putney Town Centre, I suspect the hundreds of Putney people who have managed to voice an objection to this plan would like to hear from them.

Who represents you best?

Below are two responses to the Tileman House planning application. One is what the council officers have described as a "general comment" from Justine Greening - probably because they can't work out whether she's for or against the application. The other is my response. Which one better represents - and advocates for - local opinion?

Click on each image for the larger version.

Final days to have your say on Tileman House

The deadline for having your say on Tileman House is Sunday 01 March, so you have today and the weekend to get your views in.

So far we've had another huge response to the campaign to halt the fifteen-storey tower on Upper Richmond Road: over 150 local people have had their say using my survey; and a similar number have contacted the council direct.

Barely a dozen people have submitted comments in support of their ; and of these it seems that some come from an address that doesn't appear to exist or are in fact objections mistakenly logged by the council as supportive comments.

If you want to have your say before the deadline, the quickest way is to email planningapplications@wandsworth.gov.uk citing application 2008/5428. Do please copy me - stuart.king@putneylabour.org.uk - in on your email as it will help me to better represent local opinion on this issue.

Town Centre Partnership not fit for purpose

Last week the Putney Town Centre Partnership held one of its regular meetings. This body is a collection of representatives of local business leaders, a couple of Conservative councillors, John Horrocks of the Putney Society and Labour representative John Slater, a Putney solicitor and Honorary Alderman of the borough.

At my request, I asked John Slater to raise the Tileman House planning application at the meeting: because the substantial loss of office space these plans entail and the impact that will have on the local economy should be something that concerns the partnership.

I was immensely disappointed with the response of the Partnership, which I would go so far as to characterise as pathetic. Despite support from John Horrocks, the meeting - chaired by Tory Councillor Jim Maddan - decided that the only aspect of the plans it felt worthy of comment was the fate of the three trees that will be removed by these plans.

All well and good, but what about the loss of employment opportunity - and the knock-on impact that will have on the retail and food and drink sections of our local economy? Surely these are matters a town centre partnership should be concerned with.


The Conservatives have a long track record of neglecting our town centre - which is why it's in the state it is today. But what is the point of having a town centre partnership if it can't even find something to say about plans that will have such a significant impact on the town centre and its economy.

Putney Society look set to oppose Tileman House

Last night, while Justine Greening was representing the Conservative Party on the Question Time panel in Bath, I was representing the concerns of St John's Avenue residents - and others -at the Putney Society's Buildings Panel meeting.

The proposed development of Tileman House dominated proceedings. Not a single person spoke in favour of the application and it was clear from the discussion that Putney Society members have a raft of concerns about the application, ranging from height & light, density, overdevelopment and the loss of office space. The other big concern expressed - and one which I have talked about in great detail - is the precedent that the approval of this application will set for other applications along the Upper Richmond Road. I was pleased at how unequivocally the Buildings panel was in calling for this application to be rejected.

The panel's recommendation will be debated at next week's meeting of the Society's executive committee, but all present - including the chairman - seemed confident that the committee would endorse the panel's view. This is an important achievement in the campaign to stop this overdevelopment.

Tileman House consultation problems

A number of local residents have contacted me directly to complain that they have not received the consultation notice from the council regarding the important Tileman House planning application.

In addition, a number of irate residents have posted similar concerns on the local putneysw15.com website. Given the significance and controversial nature of this application I contacted the Borough Planner on Monday to raise these concerns.

I was pleased to receive a very prompt reply from him which I am reproducing in full below as I believe it is important that people have full confidence in the consultation process.

I welcome the acknowledgment that there has been a problem, as I do the action proposed to remedy the situation. I will be doing my bit to help ensure that those residents most likely to be affected by this application are aware of it, and have a full ability to let their views be known.

Here's the reply:


Dear Mr King,

Thank you for your email.

I think it is fair to say that we have had some problems with the company we used on this occasion to deliver the newsletter. Although from the information they have provided to us I hope the number of addresses missed is not as great as suggested.

When we have a major application that is likely to generate more than normal public interest we use a newsletter to notify people in the area. Often, as in this case, the newsletter is in colour and includes visual images from the submission information. So I hope it isn?t binned with other junk mail.

We provide basic details of the application, say where further information can be obtained and invite comments. We adopt a neutral stance, neither in favour or against the application and, in order not to lead respondents, we invite comments rather than objections. Where we use a newsletter, the extent of consultation is wider than would be the norm for most applications where we consult by letter.

For this application I wonder if the boundary of the area could have been more tightly drawn? The map of the area has been posted on the website. In addition, of course, for an application like this we post site and press notices.

We had a number of newsletter drops due to go out around the same time for major applications, including for the Springfield hospital site. Given the pressures this places on using planning staff who often distribute newsletter at the weekends, we took the opportunity to market test and obtained prices from specialist leaflet distribution companies. We received a competitive price from a company and decided to test their services.

We?ve been disappointed with the outcome and it has generated much additional (and unwanted) work for the case officer. She has followed up some emailed complaints from residents that they haven?t received the newsletter with a PDF emailed copy. She has also followed the matter up with the distribution company and has a list of the addresses they concede they have been unable to deliver to. She will try to deliver those herself or put a copy of the newsletter in the post to those addresses, so all the addresses we identified should be covered. On the evidence to date, it seems to me that our market testing exercise shows that our in-house staff are more reliable and do a better job.

If people have internet access then they can get information from the Council?s website. Click on the planning service page, the first thing to come up under planning headlines is "Redevelopment proposed for Tileman House". If you click on that you get:

Redevelopment of Tileman House, Upper Richmond Road
The council has received an application for planning permission to redevelop the site at 131-133 Upper Richmond Road, to construct three linked blocks alond Upper Richmond Road of 12 storeys, 15 storeys and 8 storeys in height, and a 12 storey block to the rear, providing 99 flats plus office and commercial units. For more information contact Helen Keegan on 020 8871 8411. Comments must be received by 1st March 2009.

More information: consultation leaflet

More information: search the planning register and enter application number: 2008/5428

At the moment, I?m keeping an eye on what has happened but, provided the case officer doesn?t have difficulties dispatching the newsletters, I don?t think we will need to either extend consultation or the consultation period.

Please let me know if you need any more information.

Have your say on the Tileman House application

In response to the widespread public concern about not being adequately consulted by the Council over the significant Tileman House planning application I have today launched my own consultation here online.

It contains all the information you need about this application and the opportunity to have your say via my online survey.

The address is www.stuartking.net/tileman - you can also access it from the drop down Campaign HQ menu above - it's the first link.

Every survey you submit I will send on to the council provided that you tick the box giving your consent.

And don't forget that there are two ways to keep up to speed with all the overdevelopment issues facing Putney: by visiting my overdevelopment page in the issues drop-down menu, or by subscribing to my e-news bulletin: as well as the regular fortnightly bulletin I have a special group for anyone especially interested in these overdevelopment threats.

Office space - especially now - is vital for Putney's economy

In an earlier post I outlined the three big concerns I have about the Tileman House planning application. These were:

1. Height
2. Loss of office space
3. Housing - too much and not enough of it affordable

I'm going to talk a little about the second of these, because it is an issue that often gets overlooked. I've written before about the concerted attempt by developers to keep office blocks in Putney empty for years, so that they can exploit another Tory planning loophole that allows them to change the use of the buildings after a period of time into much more lucrative housing.

Tileman House is the classic example of this. The office part of the building has been empty for years - I can't actually remember the last time it was occupied. The only use made of the building in recent years has been the occupation of 19 residential flats.

In recent years Putney has become far more dependent on restaurants and cafes, while losing the wide range of shops and market stalls it used to benefit from. Many of these food and drink outlets depend on the lunch trade which in large part is made up of those who work in Putney's office blocks.

The parts of the country weathering the current bad economic conditions the best are those that have a diverse jobs base drawing equally from different sectors of the economy. The Conservatives locally are pursuing the diametric opposite of that sensible, pragmatic policy: reducing the diversity of Putney and, in so doing, weakening the remaining sectors such as our food and drink outlets.

One of the reasons we so urgently need a plan for Putney - other than the need to stop the slew of high-rise overdevelopment - is to close the loophole that's allowing this loss of office space and threatening our economy. We can all see how damaging the lack of a plan for Putney is: our High Street remains a disgrace, the lack of diversity in our shops is ridiculous and the empty shops that have for years been evident in the High Street itself are now spreading into Putney Exchange for the first time.

The Conservatives lack any vision for Putney and any local leadership to provide it.

How high is high enough?

In my earlier post I promised to post some photos I've taken from the block next door to Tileman House, No.125 Upper Richmond Road. These were taken from the 8th floor a few months back. Although at the resolution I'm using to fit them in here you can't see it, take my word for it that you can see the City of London, the Wembley arch, the Post Office Tower and much more from the top of this building.

And just as importantly, you can see 125 Upper Richmond Road - and most of the other blocks along this stretch of Upper Richmond Road - from Putney Bridge. These are highly visible buildings, made more so because Upper Richmond Road is slightly elevated up Putney Hill. In short, the views from and to these buildings is incredibly important. Before too long, we could see at least three high rise overdevelopments in this stretch, to mix in with the sixties office blocks that add so little to the environment.

That's not the Putney I know - and it's not the Putney I want. How about you?

Tileman House planning news

The Council has at last got round to producing a Planning News leaflet on the Tileman House application for Upper Richmond Road near the corner with Putney Hill. You can download it here.

My initial reaction when I opened the file is that we're on course to have exactly the same issues here as residents are having with the Clapham Junction towers consultation (and Danebury Avenue), namely the questionable veracity of the artists' impressions of the impact of the plan.



Take this one: you'd never take from this impression that Tileman House is almost TWICE the height of the brown building this side of it - the Heathbridge Clinic building - 125 Upper Richmond Road. Later on I'll post some photos that I've taken from the top of 125 Upper Richmond Road just so you can see how high this building is - Tileman will be almost doubly high.

The elevations also employ considerable artistic license: the one below is supposedly the "rear" elevation - ie the view as it towers over St John's Avenue. Curiously, all the blocks in St John's Avenue have vanished, to be replaced by lovely trees.



The plans for Tileman House are clearly of a superior design and fit less badly into their surroundings than the Putney Place towers, further up Upper Richmond Road did. They are also an improvement on the current Tileman House. But the fact that they are better does not mean they are the best they can be - and design alone is not the biggest problem here.

That would be the height, followed by the loss of office space, followed by the housing. And I'll write more about each of these in subsequent posts.

The tower plans came in two by two...

Plans to redevelop Tileman House, at the Putney Hill end of Upper Richmond Road have just been unveiled.

Tileman House, like Putney Place, is currently an eyesore building. The office space element has been empty for years, while the residential side has become more and more run-down. In the photo to the right I'm standing in front of Tileman House.

The new building could be up to 16 storeys tall.

That compares with 25 and 18 storeys at Putney Place, and a proposal for a 22-storey Carlton Tower on the Capsticks site. You'll find the artist's impression of the new Tileman House at the foot of this post.

Here's the good news: the design is nowhere near as garish as the Putney Place towers that were rejected a fortnight ago.

Now the bad news: they're twice as tall as the next door building, No.125 Upper Richmond Road (the building that houses the Heathbridge Doctors surgery), and four times the height of the beautiful curved Victorian terrace that sweeps round onto Putney Hill. The buildings are also well over twice as high as the abutting apartment blocks in St John's Avenue: Albany and Marlin House as well as No.18 St John's Avenue.

The developers want to provide 2,322 sq m of office space coupled with 106 apartments (that compares to 19 flats in Tileman House). You can read more on the website skyscrapernews.com.
I am, to say the least, exasperated with the developers, and with those elected representatives locally whose do-nothing approach has led to the situation we're now saddled with. It is totally unfair to the local community to have to fight and fight again to defend Putney from these threats. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is a campaign of attrition by developers to wear residents into submission in the knowledge that if only one application can be forced through the precedent will be established that will open the floodgates.

The new blocks, while architecturally better than Putney Place, reminds me of Campden Hill Tower that looms over Notting Hill Gate. I have to question the wisdom of replacing one genuine sixties monstrosity with a new neo-sixties monstrosity of even greater size.

So, I hope you have one more good battle within you - I do, and I'm up for the fight. We've defeated one set of poor plans: now its time to cross swords with another!