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.
21/AP/1342 | Burgess Industrial Park Parkhouse Street London SE5 7TJ
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.