We’ve written a lot about the plans for a new hub for rough sleepers on Lavender Hill. Something which could actually be a decent idea, and which is an innovative way to tackle a difficult issue and help some of the most vulnerable people in the Borough. However the plan so far has been badly executed: the Council developed the plans in secret, and put a virtually content-free planning application through the planning system in a very quiet way (as a minor change of use), which meant that it didn’t go through the usual notification processes and came as a major surprise even to next door neighbours (who only found out about the plans because of our original article! Sometimes you need neighbourhood geeks who keep an eagle eye on the planning database…).

It caused a lot of concern on many fronts, not least because traditional homeless hostels provide an important service but are, in many cases, very challenging neighbours – and the lack of detail in the plans quite understandably led many to fear the worst, by drawing a population with many challenges from the whole of Wandsworth (as well as Richmond, as this would cover both Boroughs) to a fairly quiet residential area right next to a nursery, and near a mix of small independent retailers who really don’t need any more theft and trouble. For some it resurrected memories of the crime and antisocial behaviour that came from the now-closed St Mungo’s hostel on Cedars Road – which had a laudable aim but which really struggled to contain the impact on the surrounding estate.

Many hundreds of comments were made on the original planning application by neighbouring residents and businesses. Lavender Hill is a neighbourhood of sensible and thoughtful people who are clearly pretty aware of how difficult it is to be on the streets, and many of the comments fell in to the camp of being quite understanding what the Council was maybe trying to achieve here – but at the same time being very concerned about the secrecy of the Council process, the striking lack of detail in the plans, the risk that this will prove to be a badly managed hostel bringing all the trouble that a population with addictions can draw in their wake to a non-town-centre location. We wrote another article, summarising the comments made and drawing out a 12 point plan for how a hostel could be made to work.

The Council then ran a public meeting at Battersea Arts Centre late last year, which was quite a fiery affair at times – but where the Council officers did give a frank and decent insight to the thinking behind the plans, and also explained several changes they were making to the initial plans to address some few the concerns. It’s worth noting the Council officers were clearly thoughtful people, who were trying to do something positive with this project, rather than foist a nightmare on a far flung corner of the Borough.

We summarised the main points from the meeting in this article: about half of the 12 points we suggested based on the planning consultation responses were addressed in full (such as creating an internal living space, not throwing residents out to roam around the streets in the day, ensuring rooms & services were only available on an appointment basis rather than drawing large numbers of hopefuls to the site in the early evenings, and the like). There was less clarity on others, in particular those to safeguard neighbouring traders (for example by providing food vouchers to the population who probably wouldn’t have much of an income, to avert the shoplifting hotspots that cluster round some hostels), or on how security would avoid activities banned in the hub itself simply being displaced to quite nearby streets. They confirmed that they had (admittedly belatedly) started to work with the nursery next door and the police on how to design and manage the site.

A key point was about what the new facility is trying to actually do, and how it would work. The Council officers were at pains to stress that this was not supposed to be a ‘bed for the night’ place or a straightforward halfway house, both of which are the sort of accommodation that tends to be hard to manage, and which history has shown really does not work well in residential areas. It would instead a relatively innovative facility that would try to get rough sleepers back in to a stable environment and more permanent housing – with a substantial on-site specialist day staff getting people’s lives back on track by helping both hostel residents and others with appointments to find employment and more permanent housing, and nine rooms upstairs where the length of stay would usually measured in weeks rather than days or months. It would also have 24 hour security staff. It would have a room for clinical appointments, but was not a methadone dispensing location; and would also provide some daytime appointments for wider outreach services – again on an appointment basis. The key aim is to keep rough sleepers vaguely near their support networks, and the services they need to escape the streets – rather than the current approach of the Council having to ship people off to expensive and lonely temporary rooms on the outskirts of the city or even further afield, which tends to make their problems worse by making it far harder to them get employment, practical and emotional support. The staff also made the (fair) point that the most troublesome and menacing individuals many neighbours will have seen causing trouble in the Borough and London more widely, are frankly speaking not the type of people that are likely to engage with this new facility – it is more targeted at the quietly struggling and somewhat invisible wider population of rough sleepers. Now obviously it’s fine to say things, and some of what we heard was indeed reassuring – but none of this was spelt out in the planning application. More details, we were assured, would follow.

But they didn’t follow, because the case went silent – for many months – with no more details being provided on the planning case. So much so that we and our partner site Clapham Junction Insider reported on rumours that the planning application might have to start again at square one.

After a few months a leaflet was then distributed round nearby streets that included much of the content of the Q&A document that was distributed at the public meeting. And now there’s news: updated plans have gone in. And rather frustratingly, despite the talk of neighbourhood engagement, they have again gone in very quietly – in the form of a new document quietly slipped in to the back of the case file. As a result, we have yet to find anyone who has actually been properly notified that the clock is ticking again here,or that there is new information on the plans.

The main added material is a planning application report, which summarises engagement to date with the public and the Council’s response (and which is relatively open about the concerns raised), as well as changes to the plans. At the time of writing the Wandsworth planning database seems to have gone offline, so as a public service we’ve temporarily loaded up a copy of the most interesting new file here!

A quick skim suggests the main ‘new’ content is:

• Considerably more detail on how the building will be managed, with the Council agreeing to have the specialist ‘day’ staff on site half an hour before the nursery opens and after it closes every day, and a minimum of two security staff on site at all times, backed up by on-site CCTV (a helpful change, addressing what had been a widespread concern).
• The back of the building will now be inaccessible to residents, and windows will be frosted on that side (important – the nursery playground would otherwise be visible from a small number of bedroom windows; it’s not clear if the windows will open at the back, we’d suggest the ones on that side should be required to have restricted opening)
• The back alley will be gated (which is sensible – otherwise it risks being a gathering spot for things not allowed in the building – but there’s no clarity on how this won’t just go to the hidden away back car park on Sisters Avenue instead)
• The late night emergency beds have been removed and converted to a lounge for residents (definitely a good change – this needs to be stable and offer proper day- as well as night-time accommodation or residents to work)
• All residents required to sign a no-drugs-on-site agreement on admission, with a policy of temporary / permanent eviction for breaches.
• Confirmation no smoking or drinking ‘in communal areas’ (there had been concerns that a complete ban would merely displace that, and other problem behaviour, to the streets behind – this suggests it will be allowed in the private bedrooms which seems a reasonably sensible approach)
• No news on the previously suggested good neighbour plans, or on the ‘resident expectation document’ including requirements on behaviour in neighbouring shops – but there is a statement that on-duty staff will have ‘specific responsibilities to uphold the safety and wellbeing of local residents and business owners’ (which needs to be followed up on – retail issues are a live challenge we’ll be reporting on in a separate article).
• Recognition that there is a link between the underlying drivers of rough sleeping and wider behaviours including anticocial behaviour, burglary and shoplifting – and a statement that ‘The Hub aims to provide service users with essentials such as food, clothes and transport, as well as on site access to support services’ – potentially in the longer term reducing these challenges by getting its residents to a more stable living pattern (there’s not a lot of detail on how this will work in practice; we know it is a concern of some traders nearby).
• A 24/7 ‘hotline’ for residents to report problems, and a Council led ‘Local Residents Forum’ to inform the community of project updates and expected timescales prior to opening, as well as a platform for residents to ask questions and raise concerns during the lifetime of the project (all welcome and worthy aims albeit there’s no detail yet – this new application detail wasn’t advertised…).
• Various minor tweaks to the planned internal layout – to provide cycle parking, a laundry facility, more clearly separated staff and resident areas (as well as the sole female bedroom, which is deliberately a bit separate – noting that 13% of Richmond’s and 16% of Wandsworth’s rough sleepers are female), and a small residents’ kitchen that can (at a push) seat six.

You have 20 days to comment on this revised application – the comment deadline is 26th April (albeit there is usually a bit of leeway after then) – before it goes to the Planning Committee in May. It has the same case number as the old one, and previous comments are still valid. However the new plans include a lot more detail on some operational aspects, some of it reassuring, as well as some areas where there’s more to do – and we suggest many will want to revisit the case with further comment. The case has a good chance of approval – now that the plans are rather clearer (the previous plans were nowhere near good enough) – however there is plenty of space to make suggestions on how the operations can be made to work as well as possible, and in particular what aspects of the development and management of the site should be included as planning conditions (as without conditions, not much is really binding – even for simple things like frosting of particular windows).

To see the details, search for case 2023/3434 at wandsworth.gov.uk/planning. To see the main new document (the one we have included above) follow the link to ‘View associated application documents’, select ‘report’, ‘list documents’; the key one is called ‘Updated – assessment hub planning statement’. You can comment via the Wandsworth planning site or alternatively send comments to planning@wandsworth.gov.uk – make sure you include the case number in the subject line.

This is a quick post to share the news that there is movement again on this widely reported case – it’ll likely be updated further in the coming days with more detailed thoughts on the updated proposal. We’re also interested in your own thoughts on the case, via the comments or by direct message (contact us here).