Through the work of the sub-committee, the Society has been instrumental in saving many buildings of note including Addington Square, Denmark Hill Station and part of Windsor Walk. The Society has also been instrumental in influencing new development to make a positive contribution to the area, and works with local residents and tenants groups where there are common issues. The current composition of the Planning sub-committee is: Tim Gaymer, Anthony Kyrke-Smith, Elizabeth Borowiecka, Jason Leech, Robert Potz, Jonathan Hunt, Paul Cohoon, Somayya Yaqub, Michael Galt and Tom Harvey. Potential new members are welcome to attend a meeting as an observer initially. The Society is currently under represented by members from the Myatt Fields and Brunswick Park areas.
17/AP/4124 | 123 GROVE PARK, LONDON, SE5 8LD
123 Grove Park London SE5
Change of use from Class D1 with an ancillary Class B1 office function to Class C3 for residential use, including conversion and part demolition of existing main house to enable the creation of five new residential units and the construction of four new residential units in the rear garden with nine off-street parking spaces, associated communal and private landscaped areas.
This is the latest in a series of applications which grapple with the question of how to reconcile the satisfactory architectural development of the site with the requirements of the Supplementary Planning Document for its development, issued by Southwark in 2007.
Some design issues have apparently been resolved over the years since 2010 when the first application was submitted. These are:
- the appropriate number of dwellings
- the protection of species trees around the site boundaries
- the interpretation of the SPD requirement for the new building in the centre of the site.
The SPD describes this as “a single building of maximum two stories (plus attic) not greater in scale (floorplan) than 123 Grove Park itself” which has been successfully interpreted as four three-storey houses grouped together and built into the slope of the site.
The remaining conundrum is the extension to the existing building which the SPD describes as “a single or two-storey extension attached to the main building”.
This application has extended the house to the east in the style of the original Victorian house, but smaller and less flamboyantly, presumably to demonstrate subservience.
This approach has not been a success.
The Planning Inspector who turned down the appeal on the 2016 application said: “The existing building appears as a complete composition and the extension would alter it significantly.”
“In addition, the design of the extension has slavishly replicated the design of the original building including the gabled element which, while smaller, nevertheless competes with the main gable which is the focal point of the elevation”
The SPD does not require the extension to be in the same style as the original building, but that it should “respect the context of the Conservation Area” and employ “high quality materials in construction”.
This seems to open the way for an extension which does not impinge itself unduly on the original building, and perhaps is a little separate from it, built in a modern idiom compatible with the character of the Conservation Area.
In the interests of the existing building and the potential for development of the site, we hope that a satisfactory development along these lines can be agreed between the Council and architect/developer.