Hi all
Further to the below, please help fund an expert's report to oppose this excessive development scheme.
A heritage report by RMA Heritage (https://www.rmaheritage.com)
The developer's daylight and sunlight report confirms that the scheme would cause light levels to fall to below the BRE guidelines in at least 135 neighbouring properties (1-49 Sherwin House, 1-60 Kilner House, 233-235 Kennington Lane, Imperial Court, 257 Kennington Lane, 352 Kennington Road, 356 Kennington Road, 350 Kennington Road, 231 Kennington Lane).
Delivering housing is a priority across London. However, this shouldn't ride rough shod over local heritage and the the local environment, which of course is what makes London a place that people want to live. It is our shared inheritance. And with the small number of units this proposal would provide this site is not even significant in terms of providing homes for Londoners.
Delivering housing is a priority across London. However, this shouldn't ride rough shod over local heritage and the the local environment, which of course is what makes London a place that people want to live. It is our shared inheritance. And with the small number of units this proposal would provide this site is not even significant in terms of providing homes for Londoners.
The report will need to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority very soon. Please help with the cost if you can. Any amounts big or small are welcome. Thank you.
Please also circulate this email to anyone who is affected by this application.
It is still important to post your comments on the scheme - details below from my email of 29th May.
Best wishes
Tom
354 Kennington Road
p.s. Cathy - if you could please circulate to Kennington Lane and Imperial Court and anywhere else you see fit.
---------------
Sent by me 29/5/20
Dear all
You may be aware of the planning application ref 20/01086/FUL to build blocks of up to 11 storeys on the TfL site next to Imperial Court. This is more than double the height of the bottling plant demolished 20 years ago and will obviously have a significant effect on surrounding properties. To quote the Daylight & Sunlight report they submitted:
1.20. There are nine properties which will experience changes in daylight and/ or sunlight which are in breach of the BRE Guidelines. These properties are as follows: 1-49 Sherwin House, 1-60 Kilner House, 233-235 Kennington Lane, Imperial Court, 257 Kennington Lane, 352 Kennington Road, 356 Kennington Road, 350 Kennington Road, 231 Kennington Lane
- count this up and it's over 135 individual properties!
Please may I encourage everyone to make comments on the Lambeth website. The link is here and deadline is 8th June. Comments are usually accepted for some time after the official deadline however obviously the sooner the better. Write your own.. or for speed you can copy and paste the objections at the bottom of this email if you agree with me. You can also email the case officer Cuma Ahmet: CAhmet@Lambeth.gov.uk.
I am also looking in to getting a paid-for independent expert’s report on the harm to heritage.
Feel free to circulate this to others who may be interested. I hasten to add that I am not against a suitable redevelopment of the Montford Place site.
I hope you are keeping well.
Tom
-----
Objections include:
· The excessive bulk and height of the development would result in substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets, including the listed buildings on Kennington Lane, Imperial Court, and Kennington Green. Kennington Green is a set piece including two Grade II* buildings which is typical of the conservation area. This harm would not be outweighed by public benefit.
· The site is not identified as a location for tall or large buildings in the borough’s Local Development Plan.
· The scheme is double the height of a scheme designed in line with the heights outlined in the OAKDA Masterplan.
· Unlike the Gasholders/Tesco sites, this site is wholly within the Kennington Conservation area, and is surrounded on 3 sides by nationally Listed Buildings.
· As detailed in the Daylight –Sunlight report, the scheme would cause light levels to fall to below the levels in BRE guidelines in at least 135 neighbouring properties (1-49 Sherwin House, 1-60 Kilner House, 233-235 Kennington Lane, Imperial Court, 257 Kennington Lane, 352 Kennington Road, 356 Kennington Road, 350 Kennington Road, 231 Kennington Lane). This is a substantial impact. The Daylight & Sunlight consultants reason that because there used to be buildings on the site previously, it is ok to put buildings back; however, the previous buildings on the site (the bottling plant and office) were only about half the height of the current proposed building.
· The site has a long history of, and is currently zoned for, employment use. Both current and draft policy requires development to protect and increase the borough’s stock of business space including offices and creative digital industries. The application does not deliver on this as it provides only 2700 sq m employment space on a 0.4 hectare site.
· The applicant argues that the site is not viable without the proposed bulk. However, the viability statement identifies that it has a value in excess of £5million if developed in line with existing policy. Therefore the applicant has the option of conducting a profitable development without inflicting substantial harm on heritage assets.
· The proposal fails to meet the emerging policies in the Revised Lambeth Local Plan. Policy H12 requires that the units are legally obliged to be rental units only for 25 years. The applicant is refusing this and proposing only 15 years.
· The application, particularly the Transport Statement neglects to consider the impact of fast food deliveries to the development. 139 flats and the commercial units will result in tens (at least 30 per day) deliveries from companies such as Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Just Eat. These deliveries are often made via motorbike, and as locals we know the drivers often ignore the gate at the south end of Montford Place. The transport statement’s statement that “all deliveries and servicing trips will enter and leave via the northern end of Montford Place” is therefore incorrect. This high number of daily ad hoc deliveries would create a significant disruption and air and noise pollution to surrounding residents and it should be comprehensively examined and suitable solutions put in place. The proposed application does not do this.
· The windows, roof terraces and balconies of the proposed development would impinge upon the privacy and amenity of surrounding dwellings, and also their outdoor space, in contravention of planning policy.
· In 2003, a planning application was made (02/02411/FUL) to add an additional, sixth storey to Imperial Court. This was refused on grounds that, by virtue of its position, height, bulk and massing, the proposed development would be damaging to the character and appearance of the Conservation area and would have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring listed buildings on Kennington Road.
· The site is not identified as a location for tall or large buildings in the borough’s Local Development Plan.
· The scheme is double the height of a scheme designed in line with the heights outlined in the OAKDA Masterplan.
· Unlike the Gasholders/Tesco sites, this site is wholly within the Kennington Conservation area, and is surrounded on 3 sides by nationally Listed Buildings.
· As detailed in the Daylight –Sunlight report, the scheme would cause light levels to fall to below the levels in BRE guidelines in at least 135 neighbouring properties (1-49 Sherwin House, 1-60 Kilner House, 233-235 Kennington Lane, Imperial Court, 257 Kennington Lane, 352 Kennington Road, 356 Kennington Road, 350 Kennington Road, 231 Kennington Lane). This is a substantial impact. The Daylight & Sunlight consultants reason that because there used to be buildings on the site previously, it is ok to put buildings back; however, the previous buildings on the site (the bottling plant and office) were only about half the height of the current proposed building.
· The site has a long history of, and is currently zoned for, employment use. Both current and draft policy requires development to protect and increase the borough’s stock of business space including offices and creative digital industries. The application does not deliver on this as it provides only 2700 sq m employment space on a 0.4 hectare site.
· The applicant argues that the site is not viable without the proposed bulk. However, the viability statement identifies that it has a value in excess of £5million if developed in line with existing policy. Therefore the applicant has the option of conducting a profitable development without inflicting substantial harm on heritage assets.
· The proposal fails to meet the emerging policies in the Revised Lambeth Local Plan. Policy H12 requires that the units are legally obliged to be rental units only for 25 years. The applicant is refusing this and proposing only 15 years.
· The application, particularly the Transport Statement neglects to consider the impact of fast food deliveries to the development. 139 flats and the commercial units will result in tens (at least 30 per day) deliveries from companies such as Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Just Eat. These deliveries are often made via motorbike, and as locals we know the drivers often ignore the gate at the south end of Montford Place. The transport statement’s statement that “all deliveries and servicing trips will enter and leave via the northern end of Montford Place” is therefore incorrect. This high number of daily ad hoc deliveries would create a significant disruption and air and noise pollution to surrounding residents and it should be comprehensively examined and suitable solutions put in place. The proposed application does not do this.
· The windows, roof terraces and balconies of the proposed development would impinge upon the privacy and amenity of surrounding dwellings, and also their outdoor space, in contravention of planning policy.
· In 2003, a planning application was made (02/02411/FUL) to add an additional, sixth storey to Imperial Court. This was refused on grounds that, by virtue of its position, height, bulk and massing, the proposed development would be damaging to the character and appearance of the Conservation area and would have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring listed buildings on Kennington Road.
No comments:
Post a Comment