The proposal’s height, bulk, and massing have a negative impact om visual amenity. The development is also inappropriate for the surrounding context: Metropolitan Open Land and neighbourhoods of low-rise residential character.

The buildings are very similar and in a straight line, often overlapping when viewed from certain angles. Combined with a large footprint, this results in a ‘wall of development’ feel. Smaller building footprints and more variety in heights would break up this massing and add visual interest from mid-distance and longer views.

Berkeley claim their proposed massing is designed to create a sense of openness within the development.  In reality, cramming 586 homes onto such a small site necessitates excessive building heights, that breach local planning guidelines.  

The significant volumetric change from the massing undermines not only the character of the development, itself, but impacts the openness of the wider surrounding area. From certain angles there is no permeability as the buildings overlap to for a solid wall. A reduction in units and alternative massing would allow for more appropriate heights, while preserving openness both within and beyond the site.

Contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan, the proposals fail to enhance the local context by delivering buildings that negatively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with no regard to existing street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.

The London Plan (Table 3.2) states “The built form, massing and height of the development should be appropriate for the surrounding context, and it should be shown that alternative arrangements to accommodate the same number of units or bedspaces with a different relationship to the surrounding context have been explored”

Paragraph 3.3.8 states “massing, scale and layout should help make public spaces coherent and should complement the existing streetscape and surrounding area.”