Ann Kenrick reports on developers “in discussions” with planners after new expert objections
The repeat application to redevelop the care home site in Love Walk has run into fresh expert objections. After Historic England and two firms of specialist architects criticised the proposal Southwark planners have announced that the Council was “re engaging” with the applicant and “in discussions” with them. The current building is a low-rise 20-bed facility built in the 1960s on a site that borders the Camberwell Grove Conservation Area. The owners want to demolish and replace it with a multi-storey 63-bed unit.
Nobody has opposed redevelopment in principle. Objectors say the proposal is out of scale, poorly designed and would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Critics of the previous application included Southwark Council’s Conservation Area Advisory Group, The Camberwell Society, well over 100 residents and Historic England, the statutory heritage body.
The Council granted permission but that decision was quashed by the High Court. The developers have submitted an identical application. It has attracted objections from all the same quarters and more. Grove Lane Area Residents Association has identified five key “asks”: reducing the height by one storey, removing the atrium, vertical not horizontal windows, setting the building back by at least 3 metres, and removing the proposed pavement on the north side of Love Walk. Southwark’s promise that this time the case would go to its Design Review Panel seems to have come to nothing because the applicants have declined to present their case to the panel and the Council says it cannot force them to do so. Objectors approached design and heritage experts. Care specialists Pollard Thomas Edwards were unimpressed with the scheme’s design. Donald Insall Associates highlighted the negative impact it would have on the conservation area.
In late July Historic England added their critique, even stronger than their previous report. HE offered to discuss improvements with the applicants. This all seems to have prompted some degree of rethink from the planning department. Residents have also pointed out an apparent error in the application drawings. The Council says the application will go to a fresh planning Committee and that a decision has been postponed to next year as they discuss further with Mission Care.
