My plan for Putney

Since December the Conservative-run council has been consulting on what is, effectively, a planning brief for key sites across the borough. Sites include those we've spent a lot of time on these past few years: Tileman House, Putney Place, the Riverside Quarter and Danebury Avenue, for example.

This the closest thing the Conservatives get to putting together a comprehensive plan for Putney - something I've been arguing for since 2003. But it is not a plan in itself. Here are the remaining steps needed to give us that plan.

1. A real plan

First, this document is informative but it is not genuine site-specific planning policy. That's because the planning policy governing these sites isn't new or site-specific: it's the same blanket planning policy that exists now. So pretty much every briefing on each specific site in Putney talks about exactly the same building heights being allowed. That's not site specific - it's general.

2. Cast-iron guarantees

Second, the plan constantly refers to buildings of more than twelve storeys only being given permission in "exceptional circumstances". But what is ?exceptional?? The Tileman House developers are appealing the refusal of their 16-storey block because they believe their building is exceptional. The design for Putney Place, rejected in 2008, could be regarded as exceptional by some. And just one exception could become the rule because of precedent: the planning rule that says that once one building of a particular type or scale has been approved that sets the benchmark for future development.

3. A comprehensive plan

Third, looking at specific sites in isolation isn't a comprehensive plan. Putney High Street, for example, is a poor quality environment that will only be radically improved if we have a planning framework that looks at it in its entirety - not just the three sites that have been identified (which are the Putney Cinema/Jubilee House block; the block on the corner of Putney Bridge Road where the Real Greek is; and the hideous block between Lacy and Felsham Roads where TK-Maxx now is, that I've already published an alternative plan for).

We need consistent design the length of the high street to improve the overall shopping environment; to tackle the pollution that makes Putney's high street the worst in London, to diversify the shops and make sure different use-types are better spread throughout the town centre and to give pedestrians more priority.

4. A clear vision of how Putney should evolve

And finally we need to have the political leadership to debate, not duck the controversial issue of capacity. One of the big problems with the Putney Place development was that East Putney station is already full to capacity. So is Putney Station. Our local schools are expanding because their capacity is being reached. Our major roads are often gridlocked because they are full beyond capacity. The only way Putney can handle an increased population of the scale the Conservatives seem to want will be for massive investment in improved infrastructure: and that's simply not on the cards.

We also cannot duck the fact that while it is Putney's character that makes developers want to build huge amounts of extra homes in the area, were we to succumb to their overdevelopment plans the very character that makes Putney a target for development would be changed significantly - perhaps beyond recognition.

Now that's not an argument for mothballing Putney; for never allowing any development here ever again; to try to freeze our area in time. But there are clearly two entirely incompatible agendas for Putney here: the Conservatives that believe skyscraper development in Putney is not only inevitable but desirable - and my Labour view that Putney's character is not high-rise but human scale and that this is the constraint any future development needs to operate within.

It's a straightforward difference of opinion between the Tory MP and her 18 Tory councillors in Putney, and me. You get to choose which side you stand on at the elections later this year. But be in no doubt: if the Conservatives win, their vision of Putney will be writ large - irreversably -by the time the next elections come around.

You can read my formal submission to the council 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.

Wandsworth under siege

Only yesterday I wrote about the massive new application for the Riverside Quarter which seeks to cram an extra 109 homes into what was an already overdevelopment they have permission to build.

Well here's another one - not on that scale but still a dramatic increase in size and footprint compared to what's there now. What was a four storey building would become 8 storeys - twice as high. Zero homes there now, 24 under these plans. How many affordable? None. And yet another Putney site lost to office use.

This site is right on the edge of Wandsworth Park where Northfields becomes Point Pleasant. At the moment, there's an exceedingly bland, empty, grey concrete office block - and no one, certainly not me, is going to argue that this is the best use of this site.

What I am going to argue - strongly - is that whatever building replaces it, it should be of broadly the same scale and height as what's there now. Not exactly, just broadly. Here's roughly the same view as above, but as it is now. Look at the contrast in bulk and scale!

In no way can developers claim their sticklebrick construction meets that simple criterion. It's like a building trying to explode out of itself, over the park, over the car park that provides some light and space for residents of River House and Park House in Northfields; and over Prospect Quay directly opposite it. Laughably, the developers claim that this represents a "scaling back" of bulk and height from what was originally dreamt-up.

It's getting to the quite ridiculous stage where I could almost start a separate website solely devoted to the overdevelopment tidal wave the Conservatives have unleashed on our area. This isn't progressive, trendy and clever development: it's the character assassination of Putney and Wandsworth.

The contempt developers and local Conservatives so obviously have for long term Putney residents - as though you are an irrelevance to the whims of architects obsessed with winning design prizes and utterly disinterested in the rest of us who have to live with the results of their oh-so-clever, ugly creations for decades - is sickening. If you want to stand with me on these applications please object - the planning reference for this scheme is 2010/0271

Where is Putney's Conservative MP on this, the single biggest threat to Putney? Has anyone seen the invisible woman? Is that really what we need at a time like this? Of course it isn't.

Small mercies

Just about the only thing the latest plans for the Riverside Quarter have going for them are that they aren't this idea they came up with - and fortunately withdrew - in 2008.

"Thank heavens for small mercies" is an understandable feeling looking at this alien monstrosity - but just because the new plans aren't this awful doesn't mean they deserve approval.

Another massive Riverside Quarter application comes in

Despite residents still reeling from the approval of a 21-storey tower and other associated buildings on the Osiers Gate, the owners of the boarded-up section of the Riverside Quarter have returned with a planning application for the slice of land between Eastfields Avenue and Osiers Road.

They already have permission to develop this site, granted by the Conservative council back in 2001 and 2008 but in summary, they are seeking a new layout that will construct six buildings ranging in height up to fifteen-storeys to provide approximately 504 apartments and 8,733 sq.m. of commercial floorspace.

It's really hard to keep track of all the different applications for the Riverside Quarter so here's a summary listing everything that's been built, has permission to be built, or is being applied for in this application. But it does not include Prospect Quay - the very first "new" development built here in the 1990s, or the existing buildings in Northfields.



So that's 1,205 homes, and probably getting on for 2,000 residents. We already have traffic gridlock in central Wandsworth, overcrowded, unsatisfactory stations at Wandsworth Town and Putney, and the site has poor public transport accessibility generally with just one third (422) of these planned homes built.

So I don't think in any way it's unreasonable to expect the Council to address how on earth they believe the area can cope with this scale of development.

And of course the developers are at it again:

• They want to pile in even more homes: 504 compared to 395 in the old permission - of which just 3 of the extra 109 homes will be affordable - nowhere near an acceptable proportion
• They want generally higher buildings than they already have permission to build - the highest remains too high at 15 storeys, but others rising to 8- and 9-storeys
• They want to clump the affordable housing on the site into one tiny block stuck at the back of the site with no riverside views, surrounded and overshadowed by other buildings two or three times taller when they should be dispersing affordable housingt throughout the development;
• They are providing no credible answers to the traffic problems this development will create.

I want the Conservative council to insist upon five key conditions, without which their plans should not receive our support:

1) A substantive amount of open space for residents - not patchy ornamental gardens crammed in between blocks but space residents, visitors and businesses can use to relax alongside the Thames. The presence of Wandsworth Park is great, but it's very much an active space rather than a relaxing park and it would be nice to have some significant public areas by the river where people can just sit quietly or chat. That's surely the recipe for a more successful development than packing every available centimetre with huge buildings?

2) Building capped at no higher than the existing four blocks along Eastfields Avenue. This will mean far fewer residential units - but the same developers who have applied for this scheme managed to turn a very comfortable profit with buildings of this height, so let's dispense with any economic arguments obliging high-rise overdevelopment.

3) A higher proportion of affordable housing, the majority of it to rent, not shared equity (because as I've shown recently, shared equity housing simply is not affordable housing) and integrated throughout the development rather than clumped together in yet another isolated block as though affordable homes are some kind of lepper colony

4) Substantial funding towards the improvement of Putney station: because if the stumbling block holding up the overdue work to Putney station is money (as South West Trains claim), then we need to find other streams of funding to deliver this much needed improvement

5) For once a credible answer to the question: how can Wandsworth's road network cope with all this development? Not just here, but the 42-storey Ram Brewery towers, the still expanding Hardwick's Way site; the other new riverside developments in Wandsworth and Battersea and the plans we've blocked for now along Upper Richmond Road. Until this question is answered honestly by the Conservatives, it is simply irresponsible to keep approving these unsustainable massive developments.

None of this, I believe, is unreasonable. In fact, I'd say it's essential to create a truly successful Riverside Quarter that attracts new residents AND holds onto those already here. It can be done. But it requires local leadership so far abjectly lacking from the Conservatives.

View from Sudbury House

Here's a photo my campaign team took from about half way up Sudbury House, above the Southside shopping centre in Wandsworth at twilight today.

The orange building right in the centre caught our eye. That's the sun reflecting off Trellick Tower, a well-known London landmark right in the farthest northern corner of Kensington near Paddington Station - here it is enlarged somewhat:



That chunky building in front of it is Empress Place, right next door to the Earls Court 2 Exhibition Centre. As well as looking pretty amazing I'm always surprised quite how far across London you can see from parts of our area. This, incidentally, is a view that will be lost if the twice as high towers planned for the Ram Brewery site in the foreground get the go-ahead.

And this photo is of the new Hardwick's Square development just behind Wandsworth High Street, again taken at twilight this evening:



Just posted it because it's a nice photo!

My Riverside Quarter page

I've set up a page on my website for residents of the Riverside Quarter to let me know what they think about the Conservatives' Osier's Gate towerblock and other issues in the area.

It's at www.stuartking.net/riversidequarter

Before and after

Sometimes it's quite hard to keep together all the disperse overdevelopment threats there are to our area. But these two "before and after" pictures of the Riverside Quarter show, I hope, why this is such a critically important issue.

They're from the developers' architects themselves, submitted as part of the planning application and still available on the council website.

Here's what the Riverside Quarter looks like today:



And here's how it will look as a result of a series of planning mistakes the Conservatives have made for this area:



To me, the first looks like Putney. The second one looks like a scene out of Miami Vice - garish modern buildings, out of all scale to the human environment, piled up one on top of another. And just to put the sheer scale of this in perspective: the 21 storey tower I've been opposing is barely visible to the left at the back - still sticking out above other tall buildings closer to the river clumped around it.

This isn't how the rest of Putney has to end up. Fortunately we have Wandsworth Park to stop the type of development that has turned the Thames into a canyon from Wandsworth right up to Vauxhall encroaching any further our way. But then remember that the developers aren't even looking at this as an opportunity - they want to run their towers up Upper Richmond Road and down Buckhold Road, gridlocking central Wandsworth and packing even more people into an area where the infrastructure is already bulging at the seems.

Breaking news: Osiers Tower approved

Conservative councillors voted unanimously last night to approve the 21 storey tower on the Osiers Gate site in the Riverside Quarter.

The two Labour councillors on the committee both spoke out against the plans - which breach all sorts of planning rules and are a gross overdevelopment of the area - but also voted against, too. But the Tories have a big majority on the committee and couldn't even be bothered to respond seriously to the criticisms I, in my formal objection, and my Labour colleagues on the night (and even one of the Conservative ward councillors in a letter) expressed.

This isn't just bad planning and a terrible insight into what the Conservatives want for Putney - it's abject contempt of democracy. The councillor for the area who sits on the committee wasn't present (I'm not suggesting she was absent to avoid this issue, but her voice might have carried some weight). Nor was the Leader of the Council, who also represents this area. Imagine the impact he could have made had he shown up and said no to it.

This is the second controversial issue the Tories have bludgeoned through in the very first week of January when they hope no-one is looking (the other being the sell-off of Dover House playing fields for 57p). It's what happens when one party - any party - gets hold of every single seat in an area, as the Conservatives have in Putney.

And it only changes if you change it. Because let's be clear: if you vote Conservative again, in four years' time Putney will be overwhelmed by a tide of towers like these and there will be nothing I or any other opponent of this vision of our area's future can do about it.

Dover House survey results

In the Autumn I spent a week talking to residents of the Dover House estate in West Putney about their issues and concerns.

As part of that week I sent a survey round - the results of which I've now published, here.

The big concerns, as I've written about before, were the lack of children's play facilities for such a large area with so many families. A thumping 84% of respondents support my campaign to get the council to provide a toddlers play area on Roehampton Fields at the top of Dover House Road.

Even more people - 90% didn't think there were enough activities on the Dover House to occupy teenagers, which isn't really surprising given that there are none at the moment.

A majority of residents - 53% rated traffic problems on the estate in the top two quintiles - that figure becomes 88% if you include the third quintile too. While this is a really difficult issue to tackle, it deserves being taken seriously. I feel that the Conservative council hasn't done that: instead fobbing off the estate with crazy and doomed-to-fail ideas like the unpopular ban on right-turns from Roehampton Lane that a huge majority rejected.

A separate majority share my cocnern about the overdevelopment threat to Putney which the Conservatives are responsible for encouraging. 64% said they were either worried or very worried about it - and that rises to 84% if those "quite worried" about it.

The week spent on the Dover House estate produced a raft of casework which I've spent the Autumn taking up; parking problems, dog fouling problems, problems with broken pavements, cycling problems, refuse problems, planning problems and many more. I'm happy to take these issues up because the Dover House estate is a lovely area and deserves better than it's currently getting.

Council wants to approve ANOTHER Putney tower

The Conservative council is recommending giving another green light for developers to build a 21-storey tower block - this time in the Riverside Quarter development.

Read the report recommending the plan here.

21 storeys is higher than Putney Wharf Tower by Putney Bridge and it's of comparable size to the Putney Place development that we saw off in 2008. It would, however, be dwarfed by the Ram Brewery towers at 42 storeys if the Conservatives get their way from the planning inspectors.

I wrote objecting to this latest tower - the summary of my concerns in the report is below; as did the Riverside Quarter Residents Association and there is not a single letter of support for the application on the council planning site (there is one comment recorded as in support, which is actually an objection as well!).



Even one of the Conservative councillors for the area has written in "with reservations" - he's been ignored, too! So much for electing councillors from the ruling party for their influence - but nonetheless I welcome his intervention because it is thoughtful, detailed and honest.

Remarkably, the report notes that this application is in breach of several of what exist of the Conservative council's weak, weak, weak development rules - but they still say it should go ahead because the regeneration opportunities outweigh the damage this will do.

I disagree. The Conservatives get it backwards. They think a plan - any plan - will supposedly be better than what's there now, and therefore that it deserves support. That's what's led them to support the 42 storey Ram Brewery towers It's why they've backed overdevelopment after overdevelopment. And it's an approach that is blighting our borough.

They've turned the Thames into a canyon with huge developments right along from Wandsworth to Vauxhall Cross. They've created massive problems for the residents of these developments: just look at the parking debacle they caused on Whitelands Park.

And spare a thought for the existing Riverside Quarter residents who bought their homes without realising the overdevelopment nightmare they were buying into. They've created substandard affordable homes, tacked onto the poorest quality parts of each sites; and still they're unaffordable to anyone on much less than twice the national average income.

I've pressed my Labour colleagues on the Planning Committee to argue for the defeat of this application on Thursday.

But come the elections later this year, you'll have to decide: do you choose overdevelopment by voting Conservative; or do you stop it in its tracks by voting for me and electing Labour councillors who'll introduce - as a priority - a proper Plan for Putney?

Tower Blocks excite local Tories

This is the view from the top of Sudbury House - a view that will be obliterated by the twice-as-high towers planned for the Ram Brewery in the right foreground. All Saints Church in Wandsworth High Street is in the bottom left, and in the top left you can make out the terracotta of Putney Wharf Tower.


In the latest sign that Putney and Wandsworth Conservatives are hand-in-glove with developers, one of the Tory Councillors for the area that includes the Ram Brewery site, Stuart Thom, testified at the Public Inquiry into the 42-storey towers that they could be "the most exciting thing since the Surrey Iron Railway? came to the borough.

He just doesn't get it, does he?

The prospect of the tallest building in the Putney constituency - Sudbury House that towers above the Southside shopping centre - being dwarfed by two new towers almost twice as high is not "exciting".

The prospect of the most congested part of the borough attracting thousands more car journeys and thousands more people into the middle of choc-a-bloc Wandsworth is not "exciting".

The prospect of the precedent these towers - if approved - will set for the developers queueing up to submit their skyscraper plans right through Putney is not "exciting".

The prospect of not a single one of the new homes being proposed being affordable to ordinary Wandsworth people when homelessness and waiting lists are on the rise is not "exciting".

It's why Labour councillors and the Labour MP for the Ram Brewery site Martin Linton have joined the Battersea Society, the Putney Society and the Wandsworth Society, in testifying against this grotesque overdevelopment.



Every time a local Conservative opens their mouth about these nightmare skyscraper developments they emphasise the two big criticisms I have of Putney Conservatives: they lack judgement to make the right call on defending the character of our area; and they lack the leadership to stand up both to their own council bosses and the developers who are determined to transform our patch into a blighted, high-rise hell-hole.

We need to clean house in May and replace these Conservatives with Labour councillors who'll work with me to protect Putney. That's the only way to protect Putney from councillors who seem ignorant of what our area needs.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Council-sponsored vandalism

This rubble is all that's left of the lovely - if neglected - tudor lodges on Upper Richmond Road by Putney Park Lane.

Despite strong opposition from residents and the Putney Society, the Conservative council felt that this part of Putney's heritage wasn't worth saving - and in a few months' time we'll have yet another bland block of flats instead. After all, we don't have enough of those do we - especially when compared with the abundance of tudor lodges throughout the constituency.

Forgive my sarcasm but this is a dreadful decision that is irrevocable. It appals me that the Conservatives keep dancing to the developers' tune, whether it's building huge tower blocks no one wants, or allowing buildings that they should have listed and defended to be smashed to pieces.

If this makes you angry too, please don't just sit on your hands. Vote for change.

Credit-worthiness?

In some recent posts, I've remarked upon the trait of local Conservatives to claim credit for things they're not responsible for delivering, like:

• The redevelopment of Putney School of Art (paid for largely by the Labour Government)
• The plans for a playground on the Dover House estate (paid for by the Labour Government)
• The opening of SureStart Centres around the constituency (paid for by the Labour Government)
• The rebuilding of local schools (paid for by the Labour Government)

The list goes on and on. And on.

This trait has also been noticed further afield - by the non-political Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG): the group set up to stop the 42-storey Tory towers there which they defeated four months ago. They've received a copy of the Conservatives' newsletter for that area - Shaftesbury ward, which covers the Lavender Hill are - claiming credit for all sorts of things they had absolutely nothing to do with.

You can read their line-by-line debunking of Conservative claims here.

I understand the desire of politicians to be identified with major issues in their patch. There's nothing like being associated with a good news story if you're trying to win votes. But there's a big distance between trying to get associated with something going on, and claiming that you're responsible for that issue being resolved - as the Conservatives time and time again do. Isn't that a little shoddy - disreputable?

I think it is. So let me make this promise which you can hold me to.

I will not claim credit for something I have not been involved with. I will not claim sole credit for something I have worked on with others - be they the Putney Society, local residents, residents associations or anyone else. When the Conservative Council is solely responsible for an improvement I welcome, I will acknowledge their responsibility for it.

Now - will the Conservatives make an equivalent pledge?

Overdevelopment Groundhog Day

There's a scene in the book and film "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham where the defendant in a civil trial has to admit that they wrote to the victim denying their claim for a health insurance payout in these terms:

"On seven prior occasions we have denied your claim in writing. We now deny it for the eighth time. You must be stupid, stupid, stupid."

I have to say that this is how I felt when I came across the headline above buried away in today's Evening Standard. Three tower blocks up to 150 metres tall (25, 35 and 46 storeys) on the New Covent Garden market site in our borough.

Stupid, stupid, stupid is how I would categorise those developers who don't seem capable of processing the message that our borough is not the place for skyscrapers. Have they not been paying attention as people-power has consigned plan after plan to the dustbin?

Ultimately, I'm being a little unfair on the developers: you can't really blame a developer for trying to develop. The only reason they keep bringing these damaging and destructive plans forward is because the Conservative Council has sent every signal possible to developers is that Wandsworth is open for their business.

Remember: the skyscraper threat began with Ram Brewery - plans the Conservative Council not only approved but actively encouraged because of the prospect of a massive amount of cash promised by the developer for the councillors to play fantasy traffic management in and around Wandsworth town centre. That plan's only stalled because the Labour Government ordered a public inquiry that begins this week.

Since then?

Clapham Junction.
Putney Place.
Tileman House.
Riverside Quarter.
Battersea Power Station (repeatedly).
Now New Covent Garden.

All the while, Putney's Conservative MP stands on the sidelines doing nothing that even vaguely resembles the leadership needed to protect Putney from the towerblocks.

This Conservative lack of leadership has to be ended. We have to decide exactly what sort of borough we want to live in - and then elect the leaders who will ensure we get it. If you vote Conservative you're voting for this never-ending conveyor-belt of tower-block plans. Aren't you tired of waking up every few weeks to hear about the latest of these sky-scraper threats to our community?

And before you say: this is Battersea - it doesn't affect me" - just remember that the reason developers will argue that these towers are acceptable is because they're not that far from other skyscrapers in central London. In other words, precedent matters: and in due course, that will be the argument, citing these New Covent Garden towers, for plans ever closer to Putney - and eventually in and through Putney.

These plans do affect Putney. And so does this lack of Conservative leadership.

My objection to Osiers Gate planning application

Osiers Gate is the third stage of the Riverside Quarter development, currently being considered by Wandsworth Council planners.

A few days ago I reluctantly submitted an objection to this application.

I say reluctantly because I recognise that the Enterprise Way part of the development on which Osiers Gate will be built needs to be regenerated and because several aspects of the plan are positive.

But there is one aspect that is completely unacceptable, and that is the 21-storey tower block the developers are proposing to the north of this small site. Leave aside for one minute the questionable design of this block and just consider that there is no building remotely comparable to a 21 storey high rise block within the Riverside Quarter. There is no high rise building of 21 storeys anywhere in Putney - the tallest, Putney Wharf Tower, is 18 storeys, and tiered to reduce its impact.

This 21-storey block will be visible from much of Putney and Wandsworth but at the same time it will offer its residents very little in panoramic views of our fantastic riverside; in part because two ranks of substantial buildings will stand between it and the Thames (the already-built Eastfields Avenue blocks, and another row yet to be built in the second stage), but also because the Waste Processing plant the other side of the Wandle obscures views as the Thames curves round into Battersea.

The developers in their supporting documentation, which you can view here, showed six plans they worked up before deciding which to support. Other models provide for lower density buildings by adding a new building next to the railway track. Although the developers are right to be sensitive about the quality of life afforded those who might live alongside the railway, this is what architects exist for: to design buildings that shield residents from such challenges - there are plenty of examples of their success, including the SW15H site alongside East Putney's district line railway. By adding a building here, the developers can lower the height of what is currently their 21 storey tower, and add more innovative, sensitive and in-keeping design.

Also in my submission to the planners I raise concerns about the traffic impact of the Riverside Quarter on the Wandsworth road network and question whether a case does not now exist for a new station here given the site's equidistance between Putney and Wandsworth Town.

And while welcoming the provision of affordable housing to rent in these plans we need even more to start addressing Putney's housing crisis. It's also really important that affordable housing is integrated with shared ownership and full-market cost housing; and that parking is available to all, not just those who can pay £10,000 a year for a space.

You can read my submission here.

BREAKING NEWS: Tories finally drop Danebury demolition disaster

The Conservatives have finally bowed to the inevitable and are going to drop their dreadful plans to demolish the top end of Danebury Avenue.

A report going before councillors next Monday, 2nd November, will cite unfavourable economic conditions as the reason for the abandonment of the plans. I wonder whether that's really the reason - it seems to me far more likely that council elections next May would have become a referendum on their plans - and the Tories would certainly have lost.

I'm delighted that, for whatever reason, these calamitous plans have bitten the dust: I've been working hard with residents on the Alton for almost two years to stop these crazy plans and put forward new, affordable and sustainable ideas. We need new ideas that:

* Don't send thousands of cars and articulated lorries down Danebury Avenue
* Don't reduce the amount of affordable homes to rent in the area
* Don't reduce the number of family-sized homes in the area
* Don't concrete over the green in front of Roehampton Library
* Don't threaten Roehampton's local shops by opening a massive supermarket
* Don't close three youth clubs and open just one tiny one in their place

That's not really asking that much. It was only the dogmatic arrogance of Putney's Conservatives who were the ONLY ones supporting these devastating, flawed and deeply unpopular plans, that kept them alive for so long, blighting the lives of so many residents.

I'm delighted to have played my part in bringing this flight of foolishness crashing down.

The Conservatives have wasted years and years endlessly talking about their intention to regenerate Roehampton and they have delivered absolutely nothing. Consultations have been ignored, consultants hired at huge expense to taxpayers have accomplished nothing; not a single life has been transformed for the better; Roehampton remains the most deprived part of the constituency.

This is simply not good enough.

Roehampton has been run by the Conservatives for thirty years: and it's just got worse and worse. It's had Conservative councillors for nearly twelve: and they've achieved exactly nothing for the area - name one thing they've done for you that's made your life better.

If that isn't a more compelling case for change in Roehampton, I don't know what is.

Here's the report that consigns this disaster to the dustbin.

Boris Towers

This is the 63 storey - let me repeat that: SIXTY THREE STOREY - skyscraper that Boris Johnson has just insisted be built in Docklands.

In case you need reminding, Boris Johnson is the man who won thousands of votes in the London elections barely a year ago by promising to reverse fomer mayor Ken Livingstone's plans for skyscrapers.

Yet the moment he was elected the Tory changed his tune. He gave the green light to a skyscraper in Ealing Broadway. It was the Labour Government that had to halt them by calling a public inquiry.

Wandsworth Conservatives then approved their twin 42-storey towers on the Ram Brewery site. Boris Johnson failed to block those plans. It was the Labour Government that had to halt them by calling a public inquiry.

Boris Johnson has caved-in over skyscraper after skyscraper: he had no objections in principle to the 40+ storeys at Clapham Junction.

And now he's given the go-ahead - which the local Labour council refused - for this 63 storey tower in Docklands.

Now I should be clear. The centre of London, and an area like Docklands, is precisely the area where high-rise buildings should be built. I am not against all skyscrapers anywhere.

I do have concerns about the desirability of buildings of such heights.

But this isn't about my views on architecture: it's about one of the most spectacularly cynical U-turns by any politician ever seen - it is just 15 months since Boris Johnson promised us that he'd oppose such plans, and in just 15 months he has broken that promise over and over again.

Danebury demolition delayed again

There's nothing like decisive decision-making, is there? Just last week we were informed by a senior officer in the planning team that the Tory Danebury demolition plan would be back before councillors next Thursday for rubber-stamping.

Today we learn that, umm, no, it won't be. It appears that the Conservative council STILL hasn't done enough to persuade Boris Johnson's London planners that the plans are a good idea. I'm not entirely surprised by that given that the plans aren't a good idea, but it's somewhat surprising that Wandsworth's Tory council and London's Tory Mayor haven't been able to come up with some sort of fix.

My advice to the Conservatives is abandon your dreadful, damaging demolition derby and start again on plans that will actually improve the Alton, rather than reduce even further affordable homes, increase traffic massively, turn public open space private and bulldoze over the green.

Riverside Quarter plans out for consultation

Plans for the next phase of the Riverside Quarter development between Wandsworth Park and the river Wandle have been submitted to the council. You can download the consultation letter here.

The plans are for:

• A further eight buildings ranging in height from 2 to 21 storeys comprising 275 flats of which 89 would be affordable;
• 3,508sq.m. of commercial floor space to include shops, financial and professional services, a restaurant, food and drinking uses, office, storage and distribution, health and leisure uses.
• Basement car parking for 165 vehicles with vehicle access onto Enterprise Way
• Provision of landscaping and ecological enhancements, including new surfacing to Enterprise Way and Wandle riverside area

Comments should be submitted in writing by 15 October 2009, quoting the reference 2009/3017.

I am obviously concerned about the 21-storey block the developers want to build: that's twice as tall as any of the riverside blocks already built on this development. Putney Wharf Tower - the tallest building in Putney is just 18 storeys. The developers will again have to be reined-in on this one.

I also think the council and developers alike have to come up with serious answers about the additional traffic this plan will create given the congestion that has been caused by the Riverside Quarter already. And this in central Wandsworth which is already notorious for its traffic gridlock.

Given the poor quality of some of the affordable housing on the site - tacked on at the least marketable corner of the site next to the railway - I want guarantees that the affordable housing here will be properly integrated: in an ideal world it should be absolutely impossible to know which properties are private and which are affordable. And a large number of the affordable homes should be rented accommodation, rather than shared ownership.

But we also have to recognise the need for the Riverside Quarter to be completed and the improvements to this corner of the constituency it has brought. I support greater access to the mouth of the Wandle.

So do continue pressing our case against overdevelopment: the rejection of a 21-storey tower on the Riverside Quarter will greatly strengthen our hand when it comes to getting the Planning Inspector to turn back the 42-storey twin towers proposed on the next door Ram Brewery site later this year.

Tories' Danebury demolition returns

Bad news for the big majority against the dreadful Conservative plans to demolish the top end of Danebury Avenue, concrete over the green, scrap council flats and replace them with very poor quality private homes and build a massive supermarket that will send Heavy Goods Vehicles and hundreds of cars a day onto the Alton Estate.

Despite opposition from residents, English Heritage, the Mayor of London and, of course, Labour in Roehampton, the Conservatives are driving ahead with their demolition plan with a report recommending approval going to Planning Applications Committee on 8th October.

The Conservatives have a massive majority on this committee and there is little prospect of their councillors putting the best interests of Roehampton first and rejecting these plans.

The only way Roehampton can now stop this Tory Danebury Demolition is at the council elections in May. Let me be clear: a vote for Labour will stop this dreadful plan dead in its tracks - and Labour councillors for Roehampton will then work with the community on the things you've already told us you do want.

So, if you want the traffic, the windswept town centre, the concreted over green space, the loss of affordable homes and the further damage to the Alton Estate vote Conservative.

If you want to stop it vote Labour.

Buildings at risk

One of the reports going before councillors tonight is about buildings at risk throughout the borough. This follows English Heritage adding East Putney to its list of conservation areas under threat a few weeks ago.

I thought I'd reproduce those sections relevant to Putney, Roehampton and Southfields (although they're all about Roehampton) below - the full report can be read here.

Montague Arms, 3 Medfield Street, SW15 (Roehampton):

This building was added to the register last year because it became vacant and was in poor condition. In October 2008, a Planning Officer noticed building works had started. A site inspection determined that the works would require consent, and an Enforcement Officer advised that work should stop immediately.

A follow-up inspection on 27th October, revealed that the works had not been stopped so an injunction was served by Enforcement the following day. Following discussions with the owners, architects were appointed to produce an acceptable scheme and obtain consents.

Planning and listed building consent applications were approved in June this year for a change of use from public house to retail (A1), financial or professional services (A2) or office use (B1) on the ground floor with residential flats on the upper floors.

Works to implement these consents have stopped as the owners are facing financial difficulties. Discussions with the owners are under way.


Lodge to Grove House, Roehampton Lane, SW15 (Roehampton):

Works to overhaul the roof were carried out in 2005. The building is now vacant. The owners are carrying out a review of security on the site and are considering using the lodge as a 24-hour security office. A comprehensive refurbishment scheme is now proposed, bringing forward funding under a Government initiative to support the building industry.


King?s Head Public House, Roehampton High Street, SW15 (Roehampton):

This building became vacant in 2006. Applications for planning and listed building consent for the conversion of the building to residential use together with additional residential development within the grounds of the building were refused in February 2007 and further applications involving alterations and extensions to form seven flats plus the erection of two pairs of semi-detached houses were refused in June 2008.

The Council has requested the owners to ensure the building is being properly secured against unauthorised access. Fresh proposals based on a possible hotel use for the building are expected to be submitted before the end of the year.

Temple to Mount Clare, Minstead Gardens, SW15 (Roehampton):

This building was added to the register in 2007 following a break in, resulting in damage to the windows and architectural ornamentation. The owners, who are examining proposals for the building?s future, have made the site secure.

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.

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.

The Putney Paper - new edition out now

I've just taken receipt of 35,000 copies of summer 2009 edition of The Putney Paper. The headline is a message I think needs saying because too many Labour MPs have let the public (and yes, my party too) down really badly.

As well as setting out my position on the expenses scandal, the Putney Paper also contains stories on our continuing battle against Tory overdevelopment plans for the area - check out the Overdevelopment Line to see just how much of our borough is - quite literally - under threat.

There's also an update on Southfields Station's lift, the really unfortunate sell-off of Arton Wilson House by the NHS; some of the work the Government's been up to nationally which has gone largely unnoticed because of the expenses scandal; and our usual news round-up and su doku on the back page.

And if you've got a local gripe about a problem or issue, you can use my "Get it sorted" slip to let me know. Or alternatively, click here to go to the Get In Touch page and report it right now!

35,000 copies is the largest circulation of any publicity Putney Labour Party has undertaken in years - every single copy is delivered by local volunteers. We don't use a delivery company and not a penny of public money funds The Putney Paper. We do this because you deserve to be able to make the most informed choice possible at the next election. Such a wide delivery demonstrates that there are no no-go areas for Labour in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields.

You can read the latest edition of The Putney Paper right here.

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.