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.