THE DESTRUCTION OF PLOUGH GREEN
The Plough @1650 - 2007
This is an account of the proposed destruction of a small park, perhaps garden is a better term, that has quietly offered a little respite on a busy corner in Battersea for many years and that has been sold to developers along with part of the public footway by Wandsworth Council. This particular local authority, (why is it that in this country we have local ‘ authorities’ rather than in say, Italy, the equivalent body is a communale ? ) has a particularly arrogant attitude to its less influential residents and a distinctly obvious pro major development stance having let such companies as St. George build pretty much anything that takes their fancy along great swathes of the riverside. This takes the form of enormous towers of high-end apartments with underground car parking and anonymous empty areas around them that have no facilities nor offer anything other than a view of the river to those that don’t happen to have the necessary half a million pounds for a stake in one of the shiny new buildings.
Back to the little park. As I best understand it the history is thus. At some point there were some buildings on the site, but this would be over a hundred years ago, I saw a picture of a single storey shop. These are long gone and it was turned into an enclosed area with trees and planting. One thing that has always struck me about it, given it being in a busy area and one that was generally not very well to do, is that it was not abused or vandalised and even though there was a pub opposite, it did not become a haven for bad behaviour.
It was owned by the GLC. When this institution was scandalously abolished by the Thatcher regime all its assets were transferred to a shadowy, unelected quango known as the London Residuary Body. Even the very name is grotesque, conjuring up a quite accurate image of a bunch of butchers carving up the residuary remains of London. This is the outfit that sold off the County Hall to a dodgy Japanese businessman for £40 million, and just look at the chaotic and meaningless series of attempts to turn this administrative building into a ’ tourist attraction’ that still go on and blight that section of the embankment.
Now the London Residuary Body is gone, it has done its dirty work, and by the way, where did the money from these sales go, exactly ? It is no more, it is an ex-quango. So, the remaining bits that they had not flogged off reverted to the various local authorities. This is where the little park fell back into Wandsworth’s hands, who have decided they don’t want it, despite it being in established use as a public garden and providing a welcome bit of green and human scale interest in an otherwise heavily built up area close to Clapham Junction.
The formal planning application went through and was approved in exactly eight weeks from validation to the decision to grant permission. This is for a four storey building over the whole site and extends beyond encroaching on the public footway removing additional trees outside the garden, a telephone box, bicycle racks and a post box.
I have considerable experience of the planning process, coming at it from the applicant’s side. I can say that no application that I have ever been involved with has been determined in the eight week target. The usual scenario is that you would allow eight weeks and then it might be possible to start working towards getting a decision from the relevant planning department. Even with a simple domestic extension with no contentious aspects I have never known it to be determined in just eight weeks from validation of the application. Furthermore it appears that many residents in a building that borders the garden were not informed of the initial application.
Having looked through the files there is on record a response from the Chief Engineer which is against the proposal because of the loss of public highway, the trees etc. and the effect it would have on safety at the adjacent crossroads. Incredibly a letter from the architect is effectively telling the planners that this is not the case and, regarding the phone box, it states that ‘virtually everyone has a mobile phone these days.’ These are subjective opinions, what about people that don’t have mobile phones, they do exist, and why is the opinion on the impact on pedestrian safety from an architect employed by the developer to be accepted over that of the Chief Engineer at the Council ? It just all feels wrong.
Apart from all this the actual design of the new building leaves much to be desired, it is a crude attempt to butt a pseudo-1930’s Art Deco façade against a bland brickwork building which also attempts to be what it is not, a Victorian terrace. To cap it all, they have now applied for a basement addition to be used as a bar and restaurant. This has not yet been granted permission but given the way that it has been handled so far I see no sign that it will not be granted.
The whole story reeks of short term asset stripping in the manner of the 1980’s, selling off perfectly decent and useful public facilities for a quick buck with no regard to the wishes of the people in the locality or the loss of the amenity it provides to all.
On the opposite corner there has been a pub since at least 1650. This was the Plough and it has now been demolished to make way for a substantial block of flats with some sort of bar and restaurant within. It will never be a true pub again. This too was an important facility, being a well established locals pub, serving the large nearby Peabody Estate, and despite being nothing much to look at, it had been rebuilt in 1956 after suffering a direct hit in the 2WW, it was a proper all-comers pub with a surprisingly homely atmosphere, particularly in the Saloon, where people of all different ages and types were welcome. Years ago this corner was called Plough Green and it was used for gatherings particularly to protest about the Spencer family selling off parts of the Common to various parties. No one will be able to gather there anymore, not even in the old car park in the front. In a strange way it seems that the small garden opposite could be seen as the last remnant of that green. Perhaps if you feel as strongly as I do that the unwarrented and high-handed proposed destruction of this garden should not be allowed to happen a meeting could take place there once again, in a final attempt to save Plough Green.
Back to the little park. As I best understand it the history is thus. At some point there were some buildings on the site, but this would be over a hundred years ago, I saw a picture of a single storey shop. These are long gone and it was turned into an enclosed area with trees and planting. One thing that has always struck me about it, given it being in a busy area and one that was generally not very well to do, is that it was not abused or vandalised and even though there was a pub opposite, it did not become a haven for bad behaviour.
It was owned by the GLC. When this institution was scandalously abolished by the Thatcher regime all its assets were transferred to a shadowy, unelected quango known as the London Residuary Body. Even the very name is grotesque, conjuring up a quite accurate image of a bunch of butchers carving up the residuary remains of London. This is the outfit that sold off the County Hall to a dodgy Japanese businessman for £40 million, and just look at the chaotic and meaningless series of attempts to turn this administrative building into a ’ tourist attraction’ that still go on and blight that section of the embankment.
Now the London Residuary Body is gone, it has done its dirty work, and by the way, where did the money from these sales go, exactly ? It is no more, it is an ex-quango. So, the remaining bits that they had not flogged off reverted to the various local authorities. This is where the little park fell back into Wandsworth’s hands, who have decided they don’t want it, despite it being in established use as a public garden and providing a welcome bit of green and human scale interest in an otherwise heavily built up area close to Clapham Junction.
The formal planning application went through and was approved in exactly eight weeks from validation to the decision to grant permission. This is for a four storey building over the whole site and extends beyond encroaching on the public footway removing additional trees outside the garden, a telephone box, bicycle racks and a post box.
I have considerable experience of the planning process, coming at it from the applicant’s side. I can say that no application that I have ever been involved with has been determined in the eight week target. The usual scenario is that you would allow eight weeks and then it might be possible to start working towards getting a decision from the relevant planning department. Even with a simple domestic extension with no contentious aspects I have never known it to be determined in just eight weeks from validation of the application. Furthermore it appears that many residents in a building that borders the garden were not informed of the initial application.
Having looked through the files there is on record a response from the Chief Engineer which is against the proposal because of the loss of public highway, the trees etc. and the effect it would have on safety at the adjacent crossroads. Incredibly a letter from the architect is effectively telling the planners that this is not the case and, regarding the phone box, it states that ‘virtually everyone has a mobile phone these days.’ These are subjective opinions, what about people that don’t have mobile phones, they do exist, and why is the opinion on the impact on pedestrian safety from an architect employed by the developer to be accepted over that of the Chief Engineer at the Council ? It just all feels wrong.
Apart from all this the actual design of the new building leaves much to be desired, it is a crude attempt to butt a pseudo-1930’s Art Deco façade against a bland brickwork building which also attempts to be what it is not, a Victorian terrace. To cap it all, they have now applied for a basement addition to be used as a bar and restaurant. This has not yet been granted permission but given the way that it has been handled so far I see no sign that it will not be granted.
The whole story reeks of short term asset stripping in the manner of the 1980’s, selling off perfectly decent and useful public facilities for a quick buck with no regard to the wishes of the people in the locality or the loss of the amenity it provides to all.
On the opposite corner there has been a pub since at least 1650. This was the Plough and it has now been demolished to make way for a substantial block of flats with some sort of bar and restaurant within. It will never be a true pub again. This too was an important facility, being a well established locals pub, serving the large nearby Peabody Estate, and despite being nothing much to look at, it had been rebuilt in 1956 after suffering a direct hit in the 2WW, it was a proper all-comers pub with a surprisingly homely atmosphere, particularly in the Saloon, where people of all different ages and types were welcome. Years ago this corner was called Plough Green and it was used for gatherings particularly to protest about the Spencer family selling off parts of the Common to various parties. No one will be able to gather there anymore, not even in the old car park in the front. In a strange way it seems that the small garden opposite could be seen as the last remnant of that green. Perhaps if you feel as strongly as I do that the unwarrented and high-handed proposed destruction of this garden should not be allowed to happen a meeting could take place there once again, in a final attempt to save Plough Green.
posted by GORDON COMSTOCK @ September 26, 2010
2 Comments
