Over 300 people packed into St Mary’s Church, Putney Bridge last Thursday night to discuss the “Putney Place” tower blocks proposal. The vast majority were concerned residents – and they certainly weren’t afraid to let the developers and their team who were also present know their thoughts.
It was obvious from the outset that the developers hadn’t gauged the strength of opposition to their scheme. If they had, they certainly wouldn’t have tried what came across as a pretty weak sales pitch.
They began their presentation with an introduction to Will Alsop’s architecture, given that he has designed the “Putney Place” tower blocks. They showed us pictures of several modern glass clad buildings that he has designed – all of which looked no where near as tall as the 26 and 21 storeys that he is now proposing for Putney. The relevance of showing us images of a building in Ontario, Canada, escaped us.
Just as the developers were ignorant to the depth of opposition, they also seemed quite unaware of the urban context within which the tower blocks would sit. They showed us drawings of how high the proposed tower blocks would be in comparison to other tall buildings and structures in London - including buildings in Canary Wharf and the Crystal Palace Television Transmitter. This did little to please the crowd – after all, we didn’t come along to learn about building heights elsewhere – we came to see how the developers could justify buildings of such excessive, uncharacteristic height in Putney.
They tried to justify the height of the tower blocks by saying that they saw their site as being suitable for “landmark” buildings for Putney’s Town Centre. While they recognised that the Upper Richmond Road was in need of some modernising and regeneration, they thought that they could quell residents’ concerns regarding the precedent that the tower blocks would set by arguing that they thought that the building heights along the Upper Richmond Road could taper downwards the further away one moved from East Putney tube station. We’d be interested to hear what the owners of these properties might have to say – we very much doubt that they’d be so gracious as to accept a reduction in their sites’ development potential simply so that “Putney Place” can be contain the “landmark” buildings along the Upper Richmond Road.
The developers also seemed to shy away from the fact that there are several two and three storey dwellings which lie to the north of the site, some of which are a mere 60 or so metres away. They tried to downplay the impacts that their proposal would have on these properties, neglecting any real explanation of the extent to which their tower blocks would overshadow and overlook these dwellings. Residents in the audience asked why the shadow diagrams which were submitted with the planning application were so limited in their geographical coverage and why they chose only to submit diagrams for March and June when we all know that the shadows are at their worst in December (winter solstice). The developers failed to come up with any explanation.
The developers concluded their presentation with a short movie of what they envisage “Putney Place” might look like if built. Animated images of people idling through hotel-like corridors to one of the 300 flats proposed did little to win over the audience.
After the presentation by the developers, three Putney residents were given the opportunity to address the crowd and express their concerns. They brought a sense of reality to the proceedings, saying that while many residents are not opposed to the principle of redevelopment, the current scheme is more about lining developers’ pockets and massaging architectural egos than creating sophisticated buildings designed in full appreciation of their surrounds and context.
The concerns raised by the residents included:
- the height of the tower blocks;
- how incongruous and uncharacteristic they would be in the Putney context;
- the adverse visual impact;
- the design of the buildings;
- the precedent that would be set for the redevelopment of the Upper Richmond Road;
- overshadowing / loss of daylighting;
- overlooking / loss of privacy;
- the safety and usability of the public space;
- the safety implications for Woodlands Way;
- the impact on social infrastructure (eg. schools, doctors, dentists);
- the added pressure on public transport / the road network;
- the car parking impacts upon neighbouring roads.
It was clear that the residents in the audience also shared these concerns.
In closing the meeting, the Chairman of the Putney Society expressed dismay at the poor quality of the developers’ presentation and suggested that, in the light of the strong opposition, they rethink their approach to the development of the site. He asked the audience for a verbal vote as to whether we wanted these tower blocks in Putney…….and the answer which resonated through the church hall was a clear and loud “NO”.
A big thank you to the Putney Society for organising the meeting. Thanks must also go to those Ward Councillors who took the time to come along and listen to the concerns of the people of Putney.
No comments:
Post a Comment