Demolition of a garage and construction of a two bedroom house - re-application

The Camberwell Society considers that the revised application fails to meet the design quality required of a building in a conservation area. It is poorly planned, with different uses awkwardly grouped together and there is no outdoor amenity space except for a small balcony which faces the street and is only accessible from one of the bedrooms.

The elevations are a confusion of styles and materials - some of the windows resemble Victorian timber sash windows, but they are to be casement windows constructed of aluminium, the downpipes are to be cast iron and the ‘faux garage doors’ located above ground level with a Juliet balcony in front of them defy explanation, as does the round topped feature window glazed in obscure glass which is to face the rear of number 163.

There is a better way than this of developing the site.

The three windows proposed for the party wall with number 165 would blight possible future development there and should not be permitted.

21/AP/4490

Redevelopment of an existing community centre (Class F) to provide a six storey building with community centre (Use Class F) at ground floor and mezzanine, and five upper storeys to provide 45 residential units (Use Class C3), with associated landscaping, public realm improvements, dedicated plant and storage facilities, and other associated works

Planning Application Documents

The GA Plan Set (1:100 and 1:200 @ A1) as noted in the Planning Issue Drawing Issue Sheet are not available on Planning Portal. The below comments reference plan sets read within the Design and Access Statement only.

Development in Principle

The Camberwell Society welcome a mixed-use scheme proposal for the site, providing a high-quality replacement of the community centre on a like-for-like area basis. It is assumed that the facilities for the Hollington Youth Club have been developed in partnership with the club and provides the requisite amenity and support spaces to fulfill the club’s needs. Residential accommodation above first floor level is welcomed.

Community Centre

The proposed community centre provides an active frontage to Redcar Street and Comber Grove. The proposed central access to the community space and improved public realm will provide a focal point at the corner and contribute to an animated street scene, to the benefit of the wider neighbourhood.

There is no level access to the male changing room. Inclusive, equitable, and dignified access should be provided to all communal spaces. Alternatively, an additional private changing room with shower at ground floor level could be provided.

Height, Bulk, and Massing

The proposed height is acceptable for the site, responding to immediate context and character.

Reductions in separation distance towards Laing House and Grenfell House have resulted in poor outlook and issues of overlooking, as noted below.

Future Occupiers

The scheme proposes 64% dual aspect units. There is a single stack of north-facing one-bedroom single aspect units. This is contrary to London Housing Design Standards.

The 2B3P unit at the north of the plan – whilst dual aspect – has poor outlook and will be largely overshadowed.

Outlook for units facing towards Laing House and Grenfell House are substandard. There is also overlooking issues between habitable rooms and private amenity at the south-east of the site, towards Grenfell House.

There are a few units where the only glazing to LKDs lie behind deep recessed balconies. There is concern that these will not provide quality daylight to living spaces.

Appearance and Detail

Insufficient contextual analysis has been documented to justify façade proposals and materiality.

A proposed residential scheme will infill the corner and complete a composition with Laing House, Grenfell House, and Moffat House. The Camberwell Society believe that a red brick and/or stock brick would be more suitable, as it will be more characterful and contextual. Additional cues for façade detailing should be inferred from neighbouring residential development.

The prevalence of floor to ceiling glazing should be reconsidered, to prevent overheating.

Conclusion

The Camberwell Society welcome the re-development of the site as a mixed-use scheme. The scheme proposes a high-quality community space for the Hollington Youth Club, and an improved public realm, which is supported.However, there are concerns about the quality of accommodation, issues of overlooking and separation distance, and materiality and detailing proposed for the residential component. For these reasons, the Camberwell Society objects to this application.

COMMENT ON REVISED PROPOSALS MAY 2022

Two changes have been made to the proposals:

1. Reduction in the height of blocks A and B towards the centre of the site from 7 storeys to 6. This is a step in the right direction but these blocks are still over dominant in their context. The height to the blocks should be reduced to 5 storeys.

2. The increase in the size of the open space at the junction of the two passageways is welcome if limited.

Changes that would improve the scheme:

1. Reduce the height of the block facing Cottage Green to 3 storeys – 4 stories is over dominant in relation to the adjacent buildings.

2. Introduce some colour and variety into the street elevations of the two blocks.

The Camberwell Society objects to this revised application for the above reasons

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.