20/AP/2633 | LAND TO THE REAR OF 163 CAMBERWELL GROVE LONDON SE5 8JS
| Demolition of garage and section of curtilage listed wall and construction of a 2 storey plus basement residential dwelling. This application is almost identical to the previous one except for the addition of drawings of the adjacent buildings and a design and access statement. These do not compensate for the failings of the design and we would therefore like to submit the Camberwell Society's reasons for objecting to the first application as also applying to this application as follows: |
20/AP/0887 | BROOKE HALL 17 FLODDEN ROAD, LONDON, SE5 9LH
Construction of a fifth floor extension to Blocks B, C, D, E and F, a fourth floor extension to Block A, new blocks H and G and infill units between Blocks A and B and to the rear of Block F (all 4 storeys) to provide 60 additional student rooms for the University of Arts London.
The existing main building is four storey in height and there is an existing three storey block at the rear of the site.
The proposal includes an upgrade of the facades along Flodden Road and Baldwin Crescent with brick and terracotta, which would certainly be an improvement.
In principle extending and upgrading an existing building is welcomed, as it should have a lower environmental impact than demolishing and rebuilding.
The proposed mansard roof addition to the main building is set back which will reduce the visual impact. However, it will create the tallest building in the area which is characterised by 2-3 storey residential buildings.
Due to the orientation of the existing and new buildings to the North side there should be limited overshadowing of the adjoining properties. Only part of the garden of the neighbouring property to the East will be overshadowed during the second half of the day.
The reason given for this development being necessary is to meet an increasing demand for self-contained studio accommodation from University of Arts London. The applicant has not presented a credible case that the demand for student accommodation is increasing.
The proposal is for a ‘car free’ development and removes the existing off-street parking and vehicle accessible service areas. The proposal makes no allowance for students move in/out parking bays, delivery bays and service staff parking, which should be addressed.
The provision for secure cycle parking appears to be below the requirements outlined in the draft London Plan and it should be increased to satisfy demand.
This planning application proposes an increase of 60 studio units in addition to the 109 existing studio units, which is an increase of more than 50%. There is a question how this can be appropriate in an area with a poor PTAL rating of 2.
Although the application has some good points the Camberwell Society objects to this application based on the above observations and on the grounds of over-development.
20/03257/FUL | GEOFFREY CLOSE ESTATE, OFF FLAXMAN ROAD, CAMBERWELL, LONDON
Demolition of
all existing buildings and the comprehensive redevelopment of the Geoffrey
Close Estate comprising the erection of 6 residential buildings ranging from 5
to 13 storeys providing 441 residential dwellings including affordable housing
(Use Class C3), associated community facilities, including; a residents
community centre and residents only gym, landscaping and public realm works,
including private and communal amenity space, car and cycle parking including
visitors cycle parking, and associated infrastructure works.
The existing estate consists of 4-5 storey blocks built after WW2. The estate would certainly benefit from improvements in the form of proper communal open spaces including planting and play areas, and a re-alignment of some of the buildings so that they address the surrounding streets in a more orderly way. All the existing open spaces around the blocks have hard surfaces and are devoted to car parking and a redundant basketball court. There are 134 social rented flats on the site with a site residential density of 360 habitable rooms per hectare. There is also a tenants’ communal room.
This planning application proposes replacement of the existing buildings with 6 blocks of flats between 5 and 13 storeys. The existing buildings in the immediate area are between 2 and 8 storeys, making some of the blocks overly domineering in relation to the adjacent buildings particularly the two storey houses in Kenbury Street.
135 of the proposed flats would be for social rent and 306 for private sale. The proposed residential density would be 1,143 habitable rooms per hectare. The density proposed is double what it should be for an area with a PTAL rating of 3 and more than the maximum allowed for an area with the top PTAL rating of 6a in central London, according to the London Plan.
The spaces between the blocks of flats are between 6 and 18m wide, which, together with the increased height of the blocks creates a series of ravine-like passageways. Open space, landscaping and children’s play spaces within the scheme are inadequate for the number of flats proposed.
The only communal facilities proposed for the increased population is a gym and a function room for the use of residents only. This together with the fact that the development is proposed as a gated community, locked at night, with no public routes through the site, will create an inward-looking city block, at odds with the lively community atmosphere of the surrounding neighbourhood.
The reason given for this development being necessary is overcrowding. This is not a convincing argument as the percentage of the new social rented flats which will have three bedrooms is remaining the same at 33% whereas 62% of the new social rented flats will have 1 or 2 beds. If the overcrowding is due to inadequate space standards in the original development this can surely be rectified within the existing buildings – it does not require a total re-development.
It is claimed that the existing residents of the estate support the application, but this is disputed locally, with objections lodged to the proposals by some of the tenants. In addition the scheme the tenants were originally consulted and balloted on was significantly lower in height and unit numbers than what is proposed now.
Parking: there are at present 45 parking bays on the site to be reduced to 22 on-site parking spaces by these proposals. The application states that there is adequate on-street parking provision in the neighbourhood to replace most of the parking spaces currently on the site. This is also disputed locally, with reports of cars touring the streets in search of parking spaces. The on-site spaces are also full.
In addition, the reliance on on-street parking for this new housing development goes against Lambeth Council’s own policy which states that residents of new developments should not have access to existing on street parking spaces in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). This site is in a CPZ.
The Camberwell Society objects to this application on the grounds of over-development, inadequate
representation of social housing, no public access through the site, inadequate public realm facilities
for the increased population and inappropriate parking provision.
20/AP/2768 | MAPOTHER HOUSE MAUDSLEY HOSPITAL DE CRESPIGNY PARK, LONDON, SE5 8AF
Demolition of the Michael Rutter Centre, Mapother House and Professional Building and construction of 3 new buildings fronting De Crespigny Park ranging from 5 – 8 storeys plus plant to create 189 one, two and three storey dwellings (use class C3), creation of a nursery facility at ground floor level complete with secure outdoor play space. Creation of communal gardens, play areas for children, cycle parking and other associated alterations and improvements to infrastructure. Creation of new pedestrian walkway to the east of the site with stairs and platform lift to improve connections with De Crespingy Park.
17/04899/FUL | 118 COLDHARBOUR LANE, LONDON, SE5
Removal of existing BT telephone kiosk and installation of 1 InLink kiosk together with the display of an externally illuminated 2 digital screens as integral part of telephone Kiosk.
The Camberwell Society objects to this proposed kiosk (and other similar applications by the same company, InLinkUK) for the following reasons:
- There are a lot of phone boxes, and many could be removed, and do not need to be replaced with an advertising sign/kiosk, as these are not needed, given that most people have a mobile phone.
- The real purpose of this proposed phone box (and other similar applications by the same company) is to act as advertisements. Such advertisements distract motorists, spoil the look of the street (and certainly do nothing to enhance it), endanger pedestrians (especially the disabled), and serve little or no public benefit. There are already boarded up and redundant phone boxes (Mercury) in this location cluttering up the pavement.
- Each proposed kiosk/advertising sign creates lots more clutter on the pavement at exactly the time that policies are aiming to reduce clutter and to make the pedestrian environment far better.
- Creating clutter in this way is contrary to Southwark Council's Kerbside Strategy (2017), the New Southwark Plan (2017) and the draft Mayor's Transport Strategy with its Healthy Streets agenda (2017).