This proposals fundamentally fail to respect the site’s unique woodland setting and the established character of the surrounding area.  It exhibits a lack of visual sensitivity, and an inadequate response to context in the massing and materiality of the proposed designs.

This is a very bland design, with the only variations being in the brick detailing. There is little to define a clear base, middle and top to the four main towers. The projecting balconies seem to undermine the architecture. The design could have included a mix of projecting and enclosed balconies.

The proposals are essentially a line of four tall buildings along the western edge of the site. These will present a long line of overlapping built development that will be very visible as a ‘wall of development’ from the Sir Joseph Hood and introduce a highly urban form into the surrounding landscape.

There should have been larger gaps between the buildings to give the development more of a parkland feel and to protect Metropolitan Open Land. Like the buildings, parking in a single line feels like convenience and this is a rigid arrangement. If parking was scattered around the site it would become less intrusive and use of ground floor parking courts for some of the building footprints could also aid creating more green space.

The design is a missed opportunity to create a development in harmony with its surroundings. There is little to no tradition of building in the immediate or extended area with this kind of mixed brick and the lack of facade texture and contrast sets it at odds with the surrounding neighbourhoods and its natural setting.  It closely resembles other Berkeley sites and is wholly out of keeping with the local vernacular. It shows little regard for the existing materiality of the site and its natural woodland setting.

Unlike the existing gas holders – whose skeletal, transparent form blends into the landscape – the proposed high-rise towers are dense, monolithic, and visually overpowering.  This stark change in character and massing is unjustified and disrupts the area’s visual balance.  The design disregards both the site’s ecological sensitivity and its visual impact on nearby residents.

Relevant Planning Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2024):

• Paragraph 135 (b): The proposal fails to ensure that the development is visually attractive as a result of good architecture.
• Paragraph 135 (c): The design is not sympathetic to local character and history, nor does it take account of the surrounding built environment or landscape setting.

London Plan Policy D9 Tall buildings: