20/03257/FUL
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.