Unfortunately they seem to have been rather active in Photoshop and inserted trees that don't exist to make it look like there is less impact than there actually will be. e.g. On page 33 of the above, there is a very large tree growing in the middle of the Valentine's pub redevelopment site.
Somehow that doesn't seem like a very fair assessment of the likely impact.
Looking at the consultation responses so far, the proposed height of the development seems to be the main point of objection.
Wow. I live in 197 Long Lane facing the current warehouse, and the reason why I chose the flat was the unobstructed view I got from my 3rd floor apartment (I can see the Shard, the London Eye, the Tate Modern, and the closest building is the Valentine development, 1 block away !). I am only a tenant, but I feel really sorry for all the owners (I will probably change flats, but I'm thinking of the poor people who owned flats overlooking the warehouse).
I have just read the report, and it is completely unacceptable.
SIGNIFICANT DAYLIGHT REDUCTION :
Point 50 : "If the VSC (Vertical sky component, measuring available light) is greater than 27 per cent then enough skylight should still be reaching the window of the existing building. Any reduction below this level should be kept to a minimum. The guidance states that If the vertical sky component with the new development in place, is both less than 27 per cent and less than 0.8 times its former value (more than a 20 per cent reduction), then occupants of the existing building will notice the reduction in the amount of skylight."
To then happily say :
Point 67 : "The report notes a loss of daylight to windows at second to third floor levels with a VSC loss ranging from 25 per cent to 44 per cent. (...) As with 171 Long Lane, windows at first to third floor level will be impacted by any form of redevelopment on this site which results in an uplift in height over the existing warehouse."
And come to this completely (il)logical conclusion :
Point 68 : "The loss of daylight to 193-197 Long Lane is not so significant as to warrant refusal of an otherwise acceptable scheme."
BUILDING TOO CLOSE :
Point 70 : The Residential Design Standards SPD (2011) sets out standards in relation to separation distances to ensure that no overlooking results from new development. To prevent unnecessary problems of overlooking, loss of privacy and disturbance, development should achieve the following distances:
• a minimum distance of 12 metres at the front of the building and any elevationthat fronts onto a highway
• a minimum distance of 21 metres at the rear of the building.
Of course, none of this is respected :
Point 72 : Opaque glazing is proposed for the east facing windows of the units adjacent to 193-197 Long Lane, at first to fifth floor levels. There are balconies and windows on the western elevation of 193-197 Long Lane facing towards the proposed development, and the separation distance is just over five metres at the closest point. However it is considered that the opaque glazing overcomes any overlooking from the proposed units. There are a number of terraces and balconies which fall within 21 metres of the neighbouring properties, but the expected level of use and in most cases the oblique angle would not lead to unreasonably obtrusive overlooking.
So basically, I will have a wall with opaque windows 5 meters from my balcony at the closest, and hiding up to 44% of the light I used to have. How has this development even been accepted in the first place
Judging by the activity today (demolition crew on site, half a warehouse was gone as I was leaving for work...), it looks like it's on?!
Yet when I check the link with the planning permission, it shows as "not yet validated".
Does anyone know the latest status?
We live on a low floor and are on the side facing the site, so of course completely gutted about this!!
Thank you James. That's not good news. Wondering if they are going to move on to the building work straight away. Not looking forward to suffering noise and breathing dust for months on end! (and I thought it was already bad with the construction of the Valentine building!!)
They must just be carrying out some demolition to keep the existing planning permission in place. I may not be entirely correct here, but my understanding is that if no work is done within a certain period of time (three years / five years perhaps) the planning permission lapses and the developer has to start again from scratch.
This is what happened on the 20 Blackfriars Road site (now 18 Blacnfriars Road). All the buildings were emptied years ago and left to deteriorate without any demolition taking place, then about 18 months ago the developer demolished one building (the one closest to the church gardens) and we were told it was to keep the planning permission 'open' and still in place.