Demolition of 16 garages and 10 bedsits and redevelopment of the site for the construction of 5 terraced three storey houses and a 19 unit four storey block of flats providing a total 24 new homes at 100% social rent | Seavington House Champion Hill London Southwark

It is disappointing that, having withdrawn its 2018 on this site Southwark has submitted a new application which repeats and emphasises the faults of the original.

The principal technical problem remains the proximity of the 5 x 3 storey houses proposed in the current application to the permitted development at 1A Dog Kennel Hill. They would be between 10.5m and 12.7m from the houses, whereas, according to Southwark’s guidelines, this distance should be 21m.

The result is that 17 of the 27 windows to habitable rooms in the north elevation of the 1A Dog Kennel Hill houses would lose more than 20% of their daylight, which according to the Building Research Establishment would be noticeable and produce an adverse effect.

The proximity of the proposed development to 1A Dog Kennel Hill would also affect the privacy of the future residents of the houses. The Planning Statement attached to the application suggests that the scheme has been designed to avoid direct overlooking, but it is difficult to see how this can be the case where 24 new windows onto habitable rooms in the proposed development face 27 windows onto habitable rooms at 1A Dog Kennel Hill.

The same factors of loss of daylight and privacy would of course also affect the future residents of the houses proposed in this application, with the additional disadvantage that 1A Dog Kennel Hill would cause them loss of sunlight, being on the south side of the new development, as well as loss of daylight and privacy.

The Champion Hill estate is composed of free-standing blocks in a park setting. As the Design and Access Statement points out the estate “has large areas of green open space around the existing buildings, however this seems under-utilised and large areas are fenced off”. Our solution would be to move the development, too big and too close to the road on its current site, to another part of the estate where more dwellings could be happily accommodated.

The Camberwell Society objects to this application.

Application Reference: 21/AP/1342

Address: Burgess Industrial Park Parkhouse Street London SE5 7TJ

Proposal: Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 386 residential units (Class C3), up to 4,410sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Class E) and 112sqm of community floorspace (Class F) within 12 blocks of between 2-12 storeys (max AOD height 48.25m), with car and cycle parking and associated hard and soft landscaping and public realm improvements.

1. Height and Visual Impact

The tallest block has 12+1 storeys (48.25m, more than 6m taller than the refused scheme), which in our view is too high and extremely overbearing.

As per our previous comments, it remains our opinion that tall buildings are not appropriate for this site as they will have a negative impact on daylight /sunlight. The proposed tall buildings will also appear over dominant in relation to the nearby Grade II listed former church of St George.

2. Exemplary Design

The amended plans do not suggest any improvements regarding the quality of the design, which would make it exemplary. The proposal, therefore, is not of exemplary architectural design as needed for tall buildings and would not comply with planning policies.

3. Transport Capacity

The revised transport assessment states that the site is ‘well connected to the surrounding public transport networks’, although the site is still located in an area with a very poor PTAL rating of 2.

The amended documents do not suggest a significant decrease in the number of proposed occupants, which means that the following conclusions made by the Transport Consultant John Russell in his review of the original appeal scheme remain valid:

‘With regards to journeys by rail, my analysis shows that the Appeal Site is remote from the four existing network rail / overground / underground stations. Three of these are more than twice as far away as the recommended reasonable walk distance with the fourth being just under twice as far away. My conclusion is that residents will choose not to walk to reach the railway stations but instead use other modes of transport, most probably local bus.’

‘With regards to journeys by bus, my analysis shows that 9 of the 11 bus routes relied on by the Appellant in assessing the impact on bus capacity are further away than the recommended reasonable walk distance. My conclusion is that residents are more likely to use the limited services provided on Wells Way than the more comprehensive services provided on Camberwell Road.’

Therefore, we still believe that the local bus network cannot accommodate the increase in commuters from the proposed scheme and other emerging developments nearby.

4. Conclusion

Based on the above observations and on the grounds of over-development, the Camberwell Society objects to this application.

21/AP/3255 – 137 Camberwell New Road

Erection of a two-storey rear extension in connection to the conversion of a single dwellinghouse into two self-contained flats. Ground floor to be converted into a two-bedroom flat and the first floor to be converted into a three-bedroom flat. Proposed roof terrace above the flat roof of existing extension.

Camberwell Society support the principle of conversion from one dwellinghouse (of 5 bedrooms), into two self-contained flats (retaining 5 bedrooms in total), to allow a downsizing of accommodation for the existing resident/client (and so allowing them to remain at their present address) without a loss of bedrooms.

Camberwell Society appreciate that both flats will exceed minimum space standards and achieve good levels of natural daylight to all habitable rooms. The proposed addition to the rear extension is positioned so as not to have any overbearing or overlooking issues to neighbouring property or amenity.

However, Camberwell Society object to the provision of rooftop amenity, which will have a detrimental affect on the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring property at 139 Camberwell New Road. This form of rooftop private amenity does not have precedent in the Conservation Area, or nearby properties. Further, the proposed obscured glazing balustrade at 1.5m will increase the visual bulk of the building, which already has an uncharacteristically large rear extension, especially affecting the neighbour at 139 Camberwell New Road.

A shared garden with access from the rear of level 01, or a private balcony at the rear of level 01 is deemed a more appropriate means to provide private amenity, so as not to unduly affect privacy, amenity, or overlooking to neighbouring properties.

The Camberwell Society’s only reservation is the height of the proposed mansard extension to the buildings along Camberwell New Road which will create a top floor significantly taller than the floors below. Whilst some increase in height is justifiable on the corner plot, a lower mansard roof would be more appropriate.

There is apparently development potential on this site, but this scheme does not make good use of it.

What is proposed is a confusion of building elements which together create a distinctly impractical and unlovely dwelling: a confusion of different roof pitches and heights, a bedroom on a different floor from the bathroom, a kitchen/dining room with no external walls, a wasteful double height living room, a cramped staircase, an over-large porch which uses up half of the ground floor external wall and no landscape layout or provision for bicycles or rubbish.

The Camberwell Society objects to this application on the grounds of poor design.