Forum Topic

45 - 53 Putney High Street & 327 - 339 Putney Bridge Road SW15 1SR 

I learnt earlier today that the appeal for application 2017/1874 on the demolition of existing buildings and new building of some 10 storeys high was approved at the end of July 2019.I am appalled, though not surprised, by this decision.  A 10-storey building on Putney High Street and Putney Bridge Road?  Hmmm, anybody heard about pollution on the High Street?  How is this tall building going to improve matters?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2639d8 Comments

A person may be forgiven for thinking that the LBW Planning Committee are more aligned with the needs and wants of developers than with the actual needs and wants of local people: what we have here are yet more high-rise flats for commercial profit when we all know that what London needs is affordable and low-rent housing for those in housing need - one may also be forgiven perhaps for thinking that high-rise expensive commercial residential accommodation may be more suited with ambitions of political alignment than not, but who knows when there is so much political deceit floating around Brexit, I simply pose the question, that is all.

Clifford Cowell ● 2639d

http://www.putneysw15.com/info/conlevellers005.htm

PutneySW15 Editor ● 2639d

To be fair to WBC, they did oppose the scheme but were overruled as the piece posted by the Editor (thank you!) makes clear. One thing that swayed the Inspector  seems to have been the "public square" that's being provided. The problem with that is that it's at first floor level and anyway, being next to a very tall building it's likely to be windswept and not a pleasant place to linger, even though a cafe is supposedly included. Altogether a disappointing decision.

Richard Carter ● 2639d

Yes, as I mentioned in my post above, the appeal on the planning application was approved.How a so-called "public square" on the 1st floor could sway the Inspector is rather puzzling.  How does the public reach the first floor as, by definition, this type of building will have some sort of in-built security?  Yes, there will be a café, also on the first floor....  The Inspector made 43 recommendations on the development and noted that "The site is in an Air Quality Management Area and that mitigation measures should be included in the design to ensure no deterioration in air quality".  What does this actually mean?  I suppose the developers have one idea, the Inspectorate another, the Council a different one and we probably have another.  As you say Richard, disappointing decision but I would perhaps use a more folkloric word?!  I too say thank you to the Editor for providing the link to the article.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2639d

Another issue with the Leveller's Court site is that the Council tried, but without success, to get the developers of the corner site (the Brazilian Restaurant etc) and those of Leveller's Court to cooperate in developing the two sites together. This would have made for a much more coherent whole. However each blamed the other for not playing ball!

Caroline Whitehead ● 2639d

WBC twice turned down this proposal, hence the developer's decision to appeal to the Secretary of State.Those who wrote in objecting to the proposal were notified by letter that their objections were for nought. It is an appalling decision.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2638d

Love the idea of the public square, even on the 1st Floor.  Let's see what happens.  With that and the plan for the Exchange car park, I think this is an interesting and innovative rethink on the High St.

Bunny Payne ● 2638d

Apparently, to start with anyway, there's supposed to be a concierge, so the public can't gain access to the building in general, and just to the public square. We'll have to wait and see what's special about it to encourage us to go there - why would we want to go to a square that will be in the shade all the time? I think it was a bit of a trade off for the height. ''You'll get a public square and we'll get 10 storeys''

Victoria Diamond ● 2637d