Forum Topic

Pergola mark 2

Putney Exchange and Incipio (the company behind the pergola) are proposing a new rooftop venue, renamed the palmhouse.  It’s changed the proposed position to the front above H&M They have a display board going up in the exchange on the following times:-Wednesday 14th 18.00-20.00Saturday 17th 12.00-15.00In the circular I just received they say and I quote“You may recall that a planning application was submitted in February of this year which, despite being widely supported........” choke!Let’s hope it’s a lot better, quieter and for far fewer people, although hard not to have reservations.I’ll certainly go along, and hopefully more people can to find out about the plans and whether the many local concerns from the original planning application have been addressed.

Mike Warman ● 2924d52 Comments

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mike. Please could you update after you see the display board as I won't be able to get there either date.Is there a planning application number mentioned in the circular by any chance?

Lucille Grant ● 2924d

Hi Lucille, This is pre planning application.  In the circular they said that it is due to be submitted during December.

Mike Warman ● 2924d

Thanks Mike.

Lucille Grant ● 2923d

I was against the Pergola but this looks much better and very different in terms of what’s being offered. Better position too.

James G Francis ● 2923d

It looks lovely, be interesting to see what kind of food outlets they have.  I will be away unfortunately when the displays are shown.  Look forward to seeing what happens.

Bunny Payne ● 2923d

Agree a better position and a better look, still interesting to hear the proposed capacity and whether there will be music etc.  Better for me - an extra 20m from my back garden but I suppose the questions are still how much noise will there be and whether it will impact the houses immediately behind (new location definitely better for that) and capacity/ drinking hours etc and whether there will still be possibly hundreds of drunk people spilling onto the high street at night.Seems this is now reported on the main page here and they’ve asked some questions so this will be far more in the spotlight than previously.

Mike Warman ● 2923d

Mike the result of it moving 20m away from your back garden is that it has now moved 20m closer to mine.  If the venue plays music and opens beyond the opening hours of the exchange it is still completely unacceptable.

Nick Austin ● 2923d

Hi Nick,I’m still dubious about this and hope all local residents find out more and if necessary co-ordinate feedback appropriately.  I think that they will argue though that they listened to local residents and moved slightly away from the worse affected houses in stratford grove, lifford street etc (which they have) but of course closer to Montserrat, token yard etc.We will have to see how much else has changed in terms of potential noise generation and venue numbers.  At least there is more awareness now and more time to respond.  Better had they dropped the plan to put a party venue there but worth finding out more before working out a response.  I’m sure many people said that there was a planning covenant that the roof only be used for cars, and also that in building the H&M extension one justification was for required parking space

Mike Warman ● 2923d

How is it any different, by calling it' Palm Court' ??is this supposed to make it seem more palatable and have some kind of middle class snob connotation. The expression Wolf in Sheep's Clothing comes to mind!

Susan Seth ● 2922d

There is a large board outside Waitrose, near the trolleys, dressed up with  an illustration of palm trees supposedly harking back to a time of long forgotten elegance as enjoyed in Putney by our ancestors. Like most advertising its design is intended to seduce and create a false sense of need. Same company just a different form of attack. But it has all the details of the meetings etc.

Susan Seth ● 2922d

I think it looks quite nice, completely enclosed etc. I agree it's very early to say but looks much improved on their previous attempt.#prepares to be shouted down

Matt Palmer ● 2921d

@Matt#don'tfollowtheherd 😉

Sue Hammond ● 2921d

Matt, it's not about what it looks like it's about the impact on surrounding residents, pollution etc and if a few palm trees would solve the pollution problems on Putney High Street why don't we just ask the council to plant some !!

Susan Seth ● 2921d

@SusanIt doesn't say anything on the news article on this website about it trying to reduce pollution. The palm trees are just to make a nice feature on the inside.I have no idea of the impact on residents (not sure anyone can at the moment) but the fact that its completely enclosed is surely better for noise levels than an open air disco?

Matt Palmer ● 2921d

Won't it be a bit like a greenhouse?  So not great in the summer when you want to cool down after a day at work?

Alan Sherman ● 2921d

'dressed up with  an illustration of palm trees supposedly harking back to a time of long forgotten elegance as enjoyed in Putney by our ancestors. Like most advertising its design is intended to seduce and create a false sense of need'Yes. It will be Putney Riveira next?

Jane Carter ● 2921d

Palm trees in Putney? Thought this was a climate change thread ...

Michael Ixer ● 2921d

Well it'd make the Putney Parrots feel at home.. :)

Mark Derry ● 2920d

Yes, Matt the words "mitigation' of the pollution  are on the Putney newsletter and also on this link. Beware the wolf in sheeps clothing! https://putneyexchange.co.uk/visit-us/the-palmhouse/

Susan Seth ● 2919d

having just attended a meeting in the Putney Exchange with local residents and personnel from Incipio, I can confirm not one of them could explain how the project, which is being marketed on the basis it will "contribute to the mitigation of the high degree of air pollution in and around Putney", would actually achieve that. Bearing in mind it would generate its own levels of pollution of various types and considering the trees and planting will be under  a 'lightweight structure" how is it possible the project can mitigate pollution. The director confirmed he is hoping for around 3000 visitors a week with a seating capacity of 580 at any one time, and tried to convince us none of them will arrive or leave by car! The next meeting is by Superdrug in Putney Exchange on Saturday 17th at midday.

Susan Seth ● 2919d

I think its a wonderful idea.  Putney is dying and there is almost nothing left there to go visit the centre for.  Perhaps something like this will bring people back to the high street and then the good shops might come back again! lets get behind the regeneration of our high street! I have visited another of this groups sites and they are wonderful spaces with fantastic food and a delightful place to meet friends and family! They even do family days especially for parents and kids.  I think its wonderful!

Valerie Crosthwaite ● 2916d

This 'new' Palmhouse development does not address one of the most serious local concerns raised by the original planning proposal: pollution. We all know Putney High Street is blighted by toxic air - far exceeding the legal limits. This new development will attract large numbers of visitors from outside Putney, some of whom (no matter what the developers say) will arrive/leave by car or uber and therefore increase the deadly pollution. Visitors parking in nearby streets will also exacerbate the existing parking problems for local residents. Both air, light and noise pollution is bound to increase. In their marketing material the developers say the design will: "contribute to the mitigation of the high degree of air-pollution in and around Putney High Street". Actually, having a few palm trees and some green planting inside a plastic enclosure will be an insignificant contribution to any mitigation of the air-pollution. If only it were that easy! On the contrary... the extra cars, delivery vans, refuse collection, cooking smell extraction, energy use and waste - combined with the air-conditioning the 'enclosed' three restaurants & kitchens require, can only add to the pollution. The number of potential visitors is really concerning. Look at the Incipio Group's website and you will see the numbers of visitors to their existing (similar) restaurants & bars: the Pergola Olympia attracted 15,695 bookings before it even opened, their outlet in White City attracted 120,000 visitors in its first year, in Paddington 180,000 visitors in 6 months - this company is in the business of catering on a very large scale. How would this affect those living close to this proposal? Some houses back directly on to the Exchange and I'm convinced their lives could suffer - residents are understandably very concerned at the possibility of their evenings being blighted by noise, light pollution and cooking smells. And the departure of that number of customers late in the evening could result in other anti-social issues for locals. I'm amazed the developers have the nerve to re-apply at such a totally inappropriate location knowing full well the distress their original plan caused. This new plan is simply trying to mask their intentions: get as many people as possible, to consume as much food and alcohol as possible. The council should be taking urgent action to help existing businesses - some of the smaller local restaurants are struggling - this new development could well make things tougher for them. The council surely wants to reduce pollution, not allow a development that could make it worse. Developers providing ecologically-sensitive schemes that enhance the quality of life of residents & visitors to Putney and create vibrant successful businesses should obviously be encouraged but this proposed development is attempting to mask the damage it will cause by including palm trees & green planting in the interior, and using claims that cannot be substantiated in their marketing material. Please don't be influenced by the marketing ploy that this development will somehow alleviate some of the toxic air-quality in Putney - or the way Incipio have linked this with the Royal Horticultural Society. The display/marketing material at the two consultation sessions includes the following: "the project also comes with the full endorsement of the Royal Horticultural Society" - I hope the RHS will come to realise they have linked themselves to what is clearly not a 'horticultural project' but an environmentally-damaging food & beverage outlet on a huge scale. Incipio's website states: "We go into an area and create hype", so I assume they also do this with their marketing material - it also says "No project stays the same for more than a few months with themes, restaurants and sites revamped and relaunched regularly to keep the venues varied and current", so the twee, deceptively environmentally-friendly named 'Palmhouse' theme could suddenly be changed into what?This development would be a blight on the environment and on the lives of Putney residents. I encourage everyone in Putney to check out the reality of this proposed development and hopefully like me, strongly object to the proposal when it reaches planning stage.

Sandra Phelan ● 2916d

I agree with your point about smaller businesses struggling especially restaurants/cafes etc. Sandra.

Lucille Grant ● 2916d

Valerie, just out of interest, what do you mean, 'Putney is dying'? apart from the numerous shops, cafes, restaurants, theatre and cinema, on and around the  High Street itself, Putney Exchange lists 43 shops in the exchange alone.

Susan Seth ● 2916d

Have seen the plans today and my major concern is 580 people leaving the  Exchange at 11.30 pm and the potential of more anti social behaviour on the High Street outside, and the amount of police time having to deal with it ..all surrounding streets will have a extra  pressure on on street parking , also no doubt later they will apply for licencing extension for party events ..can't see the proposal  helping local existing businesses or benefitting the community ...

Penelope Becker ● 2916d

580 people at any given time throughout the days and evenings Wednesday to Sunday inclusive adds up to potentially several thousand across the week, many looking for parking spots, especially as the structure will use up parking spaces, and /or Uber pickups and delivery vans adding to our already polluted High Street. Feel very sorry for the residents who live right near it. How do we find out about the planning application?

Susan Bloomfield ● 2910d

I am personally in favour of this proposal and from my discussions around the area so are most of the residents - the silent majority! So many of the discussions on this forum are around how we can attract inward investment into Putney and the High Street and as soon as a company announces a significant investment it appears people are worried about attracting visitors to Putney! Perhaps some of the 3000 visitors per week will spend some money in the shops and encourage retailers back to the Exchange and the High St?I have some sympathy for the resident who live behind the exchange and their issues around the potential noise need to be considered. My sympathies are however tempered a little as the residents chose to buy a house directly behind a large shopping centre and busy High St with a Bus depot at one end, the Coat and Badge at the other and the Jolly Garners behind the street, all of which is under a flight path with planes flying over every 90 seconds!This clearly isn't a nightclub as some would have us believe but a high end eating establishment which can only benefit Putney and our ability to attract inward investment to the High St.

David Fox ● 2910d

Agreed, it doesnt come across as anything like the previous proposal.

Matt Palmer ● 2910d

I agree with David. Why are we against something that will only bring more people and more investment into Putney? Re delivery vans etc how can you be for making sure shops etc come back to the high street then complain about delivery vans to service them?I understand it will take up car parking spaces.  Maybe ask the exchange for the number of spaces that will go and the amount of time that those spaces may be needed (i.e. when is the car park completely full). It won't bring additional cars into the area as no-one is going to drive to a bar.

Gabrielle O'Mahoney ● 2910d

David, I’m not sure where you live but if you ask the residents who will be impacted by this proposed development (and that takes in quite an area of Putney) you will be hard pushed to find anyone in favour. The majority of the houses in the conservation areas were built before the shopping centre (1986), high street and bus station were built and many people are long term residents so it’s unfair of you to say they bought their properties in full knowledge of the nightlife. Also, the proposal says the venue would open in the evening (ie after the shops have closed) so they are unlikely to benefit.The venue is a bar catering for large group bookings (will take bookings up to 199 people) with three small food outlets as an add on. It is not a high-end eating venue. Did you see anyone sitting eating in their mock-up picture or even a knife and fork?No one is against making Putney a better place to live but this development is not suitable on the car park roof.  Planning permission for the shopping centre was only, ONLY given on the condition that the car park was not used for any other purpose in order to preserve the quality of life in the surrounding streets. What has changed? 

Jenny Traynor ● 2910d

They may not all drive Maxine but those that don’t will book an Uber home! And the ones that do will have to park in the surrounding already congested streets.

Jenny Traynor ● 2910d

I agree with you Jenny. This isn't a solution to Putney retailers woes and makes life  more difficult for current eateries and bars to attract custom. As for no-one will drive there - while many may resort to Uber/public transport plenty of people still prefer to use their own cars. How has the issue of security in the Exchange  (after the shops close) been addressed?

Lucille Grant ● 2910d

Jenny,As i said previously I empathise with the noise concerns of the residents immediately adjacent to the Exchange but i believe the reality is that the majority of Putney residents would be in favour of the proposal. You asked what has changed since 1986! Clearly many many things have changed however in particular planning permission for a car park would never be given now and i suspect to lose 50 car parking spaces would tick a lot of boxes for local and central government in terms of congestion and pollution.

David Fox ● 2910d

DavidThe last time this proposal was submitted for planning, the department was inundated with objections so I’m not sure I agree that the majority of residents are in favour. But of course, time will tell if an application is submitted.My point regarding what has changed was referring to the rights of the surrounding streets to have quiet enjoyment of their home life. Indeed, when the exchange was given the go ahead, the owners signed a legal agreement to “permanently restrict that area ... only for the purposes of car parking” and there were also planning conditions imposed to this effect too. Surely the Putney community should be able to rely on these legal obligations to be upheld and not cast aside?I’m sure you are right that some may be pleased at the loss of parking spaces but sadly I believe it will only increase pressure on surrounding streets during the day.  There will also be the issue of visitor parking/waiting taxis in the evenings when the whole car park is closed.

Jenny Traynor ● 2910d

The retail world has moved on significantly in recent years and will continue to do so.  Giants that have ruled High Streets for years have either gone to the wall or are facing significant problems - Woolworths, BHS, House of Fraser, Debenhams, M&S, WH Smiths etc.  Even that darling of the middle classes, John Lewis, now does a third of its business online, a figure that is likely to grow to nearer 50% in the next three years.  As a result they’re  rumoured to be considering a programme of store closures.    Maintaining multiple expensive buildings is no longer a viable option for most retailers, hence the increasing number of store closures.  Only the most attractive and vibrant destinations can expect their High Streets to survive in the traditional format.  For me, Putney is no longer a destination place for shopping - even Wandsworth now has more to offer.  The only hope for Putney High Street (other than a dramatic rethink of rents) is innovative attractions that act as a USP and might persuade more people to come.  Only a significant increase in overall footfall would make the type of retailers mentioned on this forum consider opening in Putney.  Without initiatives like the Pergola (with the various noise checks and balances in place) I think we’re just looking at a future of more discount shops, empty units and the eventual conversion into residential usage -which will mean more apartment blocks.  Of course some people might prefer that?Those, however, simply waiting expectantly for the likes of M&S to return or for their dream shops to suddenly appear might, I fear, just as well wait for a new Morecambe & Wise Christmas special to be produced  It’s change or die.  My vote’s for change...and eventually a John Lewis (my vote’s always for John Lewis)

Craig Fordham ● 2910d

'High end eating establishment' are you having a larf David?

Susan Bloomfield ● 2909d

Firstly just a point of order the exchange was built in 1990 not in 1986.  As a result it comes under the revised town and county planning act.  It means that if planning were to be granted the legal restrictions signed have a very good case for judicial review.  As such a judicial review would uphold these legal restrictions at appeal stage and overturn any planning granted.  I have also heard on the grape vine that to company is now looking at sites in Wimbledon(in the town not in the village).  I think they would get even greater opposition in Wimbledon Village than here in Putney.  I can only make an educated guess that now this is being explored the consultation was not a huge success.  I went to both meetings and did not hear one voice of support at either of them.  That silent majority seems to be very dumbstruck indeed.  I did suggest to them that they might like to look at the M&S site which vacant and in great need of a new lease of life.  It is a large open space which I am sure they can put lots of palm trees in and make it look very tropical and inviting.  They are also safe in the knowledge the palm trees in there will have the same environmental impact on the high street as in the current proposal, which is no impact at all.  I am sure they can also approach Positively Putney(not sure what they do either if anything).  I do know they love to go on about a living wall though so the whole front could be a living wall.  They wouldn’t have the weather issues they will get with being in England.  Best part is although M&S is exactly the same distance from my house as the current proposal, it is a nice sturdy brick structure that will be better insulated and sound proofed.  Not a big plastic monstrosity that provides no sound proofing and has a devistaing environmental impact.  Also the systems needed to heat something like that and cool it during a heatwave will make the noise from Concorde seem pleasant(those who remember those days here in Putney).

Nick Austin ● 2909d

Nick, apologies for the date error. Not sure why 1986 was stuck in my head!

Jenny Traynor ● 2909d

Does any one have a link to a copy of the original permission and planning covenant regarding the car park?

Mike Warman ● 2909d

If you go to the Wandsworth planning page I think the application number is 86/W/3766. All the documents are there.

Jenny Traynor ● 2909d

I can't believe how negative everyone always is on here. Well, the majority anyway. From the sounds of this this is really aimed at the younger Uber generation where not that many own cars. It's not a bar, but food will be sold alongside any alcohol. If the current restaurants and bars are struggling to attract new people, then having this new one will bring new people to Putney, and perhaps they'll have a chance to look around and discover that there are other places to eat, and places to shop. We don't have trouble with rowdiness and drunks from the restaurants round here - it's the bars that cause the problem. I doubt we'll be getting 500 plus people a night every night. I've heard that it's worth going to Olympia or Paddington to see what they have up and running to see that it's actually no bad thing and would be an asset to Putney. Additionally, as long as the Councillors put in some sort of 'if you make a noise or cause problems' we;ll curtail your hours etc. There are ways and means and we need to stop all being so negative

Alison Fraser ● 2908d

Alison,You’re exactly right - it is the bars that cause the problems and a bar is sadly what this proposal is. They take bookings for up to 199 people so think stag dos, hen parties, office parties, etc. This is not a nice family restaurant where people go to eat. My neighbours and I have had to live with all sorts of unsavoury behaviour when people come out of the existing bars (fights, sickness, various sexual activities, drug taking) so having more large drunken crowds out on the streets at night is not something we look forward to. As for controlling the development once it’s there, well we already have controls in place in the form of the restrictions on the building put in place when it was originally built. If you’re happy to ignore those, why would anyone take notice of any new ones imposed?

Jenny Traynor ● 2908d

Susan, I'm prepared to take back my 'high end' comment - is it too late to replace it with 'good quality/popular' or maybe just plain 'expensive' eating ;-)Nick, i do stand by my previous comment that the silent majority would be in favour of this development - they are not dumbstruck just not as bothered! It seems that many people these days get confused with people making a 'noise' on social media or on websites as being the voice of the majority. My view (and it is only an opinion) is that most of the dissenters on this thread are mainly the voice of the community behind the exchange. Here is a link to the Putney facebook page which appears to show 152 likes and 31 comments in support and only one mildly negative comment.https://www.facebook.com/PutneySocial/photos/pb.59530657724.-2207520000.1543176342./10156036742837725/?type=3&theater It's grim reading for you but this website nor Facebook should be taken in isolation as most people are probably mildly in favour (and would never post or attend a meeting - why would they!?)  whereas the residents of Lifford St will no doubt be fiercely against and attend all the meetings. As I said previously i understand their noise concerns and they need to be considered but to blindly say this proposal is bad for Putney with very little support is a very blinkered view. I am however undecided on the other plans Incipio are considering - apparently they are going to work with the Spencer Arms and put one of these structures over the benches on the Common so they can be used 12 months of the year. I'm not sure is this is a good idea?Whatever your view i hope you enjoy the rest of the weekend

David Fox ● 2908d

Thanks Jenny.Here’s the linkhttps://planning.wandsworth.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Decision%20Notice-4581054.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=4581054&location=dtlDCfiche1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1Section 10.2 is the relevant one, and it only says covenant with the council not to use unless the council expressly permits, and granting planning permission would be expressly permitting, so I’m not sure it’s that useful.

Mike Warman ● 2908d

That last paragraph is hilarious....I think i may have just heard John Cameron implode...

Matt Palmer ● 2908d

I don’t think it is funny.  John Cameron was right.

Martine Guy ● 2908d

Have no problem with the benches but I would be fully against that ever happening......

Emarisa Battoia ● 2908d

Thanks Mike. Yes that is true - it does have that catch all statement so that the council’s hands are never tied but I think given the raft of conditions to protect the locality and the legal agreement put in place, residents should be able to rely on the council not allowing development without an unequivocally good reason. I have to say I’m not aware of anything that has changed in the relationship between the Exchange and the surrounding conservation areas.

Jenny Traynor ● 2908d

I see from the news page that the Royal Horticultural Society is not very pleased at Incipio’s claims that they support the pergola plans. All reference to RHS to be removed!

Jenny Traynor ● 2895d

The High St is undeniably dying as a shopping destination, although there are still plenty of useful shops for us locals.I see no reason why not make it a destination for fun and going out, especially for the young.  Bars, restaurants, cocktail clubs, dancing, fast food for the journey home.  It's a lovely area just near the Bridge and the Thames, why not let the young ones have fun, at least you know they're not up in the West End.  And I think the Pergola fits in perfectly.  I doubt the 'noise' will go on much after 11pm.

Bunny Payne ● 2894d

Royal Horticultural Society has withdrawn its endorsement !

Susan Bloomfield ● 2864d

does any one know if the new planning application has been submitted yet?

Susan Bloomfield ● 2863d