1-11 Pytchley Road development

[Jeremy]

I'm not sold on the one-way system, I don't think it makes sense for the buses to trundle up that hill only to come right back down it.

[HarrietMoore]

I had an update from Diana Hall saying that we should here today but haven't heard anything as yet. Has anyone else had any further information?

[HarrietMoore]

Still no news....

[Jeremy]

Did you all get the latest email from Diana Hall? The huge 9MB mail with several detailed PDFs attached...

They've not really addressed the parking issue adequately IMO.

Apparently the "cage" will be relocated somewhere else within the estate, and the existing lawns will be flattened out to make them more useable.

[chrism]

Yes, got the email - not had time to absorb all the detail of the plans, but my gut reaction to the block on Bromar is that it is a horrible juxtaposition of a bland, uninspiring block, plonked next to an attractive Victorian terrace with no effort made to blend the two. I'll distribute the plans to my neighbours (two of which are architects) and try to feed back.

[Jeremy]

Yes it is certainly uninspiring, but still infinitely better than having a derelict building on the corner. I think we need to stay away from arguments based on personal taste, and focus on practicality.

[plimsoul]

not received email, is the block as bland as the one that is on the corner of bromar/ivanhoe? i agree that it's better than a derelict building but if there's an opportunity to improve it should not be missed. have they planned for planting trees along the pavement in front of the new block?

i also assume that bins/refuse is dealt with away from the pavement.

[Jeremy]

The new blocks are all of a similar design... so I guess, yes. By all means voice your opinions about the aesthetics, but I doubt they will be taken on board.

The diagrams do show trees in front of the building. There is a bicycle store, but only a handful of parking spaces. I'm sure that refuse will be dealt with away from the pavement, as you say.

If you want to send me your email address, I can forward you the email.

[chrism]

Hi Jeremy

I don't agree with you about aesthetics - I get fed with walking past / looking at poor buildings going up in areas in which I live and work. Southwark in particular seem to be cramming in more huge buildings into tighter spaces. Of course the plans are better than a derelict building, but I think architects and planners show a lack of vision in terms of aesthetics and sustainibility. In this case the buildings are taking up a considerable footprint so they have a big impact.

Regarding trees, there are some shown along the Pytchley Road side, but none on the Bromar Road frontage.

[plimsoul]

i work in hackney and the council seem to be dropping the same looking horrible block into any gap. the plans i have seen so far are not as bad as those in E9.

i totally agree with you chrism but sadly think that jeremy is right, they won't listen. however they should as i thought the whole point of local building now was to 'design' out bad behaviour by designing buildings and areas that the community can be proud of.

however, i realise that this is a digression off topic.

either way there's still a lot to do at the junction as a whole.

[Jeremy]

Actually, maybe I was wrong... looking into it, perhaps design/appearance is valid ground for a planning objection.

Certainly if you feel that strongly about it, it can't do any harm to raise your concerns with the council.

[HarrietMoore]

I am going to do the same with my neighbours. My first reaction is that the parking survey MUST be done before the plans are approved and that the relocation of the cage is a condition of planning permission. In addition I agree that the plans for the Bromar are not in keeping with Bromar Road and will also feed this back.

[Jeremy]

The problem is, how do you build something new which matches (or at least compliments) Victorian terrace housing? Do you have any examples we can see (e.g. on Google Streetview)?

[plimsoul]

i think that the idea of trying to match to victorian style is a red herring, sorry i don't mean to say that it's wrong and your point is not valid, simply that good design works with good design. look at the pompidou in paris, i'm not saying you have to like it but it works and is surrounded by absolutely classic architecture.

therefore, the question is more how can these architects with the budget that the council has given them improve their designs. currently they are unimaginative and badly designed, i work in graphics and film so not in the best position to comment with regards building engineering, but to look at they're pretty bog standard.

examples that i can think of where public built works alongside old school i shall have to think of, the pompidou is not a valid example!

but, one thing that would be great to clarify is building materials. which are they looking to use and are they good quality?

[chrism]

Hi plimsoul

I'm not against modern buildings or design at all, but an ugly flat-roofed three story dark brick building replacing a much smaller block which faces Pytchley Road with a large garden on the Bromar Road side, slap bang to a pitched roofed terrace, is not what I'd call sensitive design. The block on Pytchley is simply oppressive. I've shown plans to a couple of neighbours and they are equally concerned. The response to our questions from Southwark, over parking, drainage, where exactly the play facilities will go, have not been addressed properly and there has not been proper consultation. I will be knocking on doors this week to guage the response of the rest of the road, and see if we can start a petition against the existing plans. If anyone wants to get involved please PM me.

Thanks

[plimsoul]

hi

i hope you didn't misunderstand me: i don't like what is proposed and agree with your points above. i was simply trying to open the debate to the fact that victorian housing stock is a hard act to sit next to as it is so classic.

i have emailed the councillor and stated that i do not like any of the designs proposed for the corner.

good luck with the petition, i'd be happy to sign.

best.

[chrism]

Hi Plimsoul

sorry - didn't mean to sound so grumpy! I take your point completely about the difficulties of trying to complement different eras and styles of architectures. The existing (now derelict) block isn't great either, but the garden at the back was a buffer between it and the Vic. houses, so the contrast wasn't so grating. I think the fact that the Council / developers are trying to squeeze a lot of building on to what is now quite an open site makes the design issues more crucial. Not sure what the answers are (not being an architect), but I think it's important to find out if there are other options.

[Jeremy]

It really would add weight to your case if you could show examples of new-build flats which you feel are more sympathetic. Just stating that it's ugly is not particularly constructive!

[plimsoul]

i agree jeremy and to that end i am looking to find those examples but not got the time!

chrism, the problem is that they are arguing that the current build is smaller than the original build. by current i mean the derelict building and by older i mean the block that apparently was there before and belonged to the original estate. but it does seem like they are cramming far too much into a little corner.

[chrism]

Jeremy - I have the same problem as Plimsoul - ie, no time to research this, at least not till Xmas is out of the way! One example of where they could improve it, though, is to have a pitched roof, rather than flat.

Plimsoul - the original block may have been larger but when the estate was built ED was very different - no Sainsbury's, no new builds shoehorned into scraps of land, nowhere near the amount of cars on the road, etc. Where it once felt suburban, it is now more urban and congested. There is more pressure on car parking, local services, etc, so these issues should be taken into account when rebuilding.

[Alan Dale]

removed

[intexasatthe moment]

I've not looked at the plans but am often depressed by the type of building that gets planning permission .

If it is to be a flat roofed dark brick building I think it will look awful on this site ( I used to live in Ivanhoe Rd and know the area well .)

As far as I know objecting to the asethics of the build is perfectly legitimate .

Planning applications for housing near where I live in East Dulwich have been rejected with following reasons given by Southwark

" proposed siting of residential units would result in an incongruous development that would display an unacceptable level of bulk and mass out of character with the pattern of development in this area and to the detriment of the amenity of the residents "

Proposal is therefore considered to be contray to policies 3.11 " Effecient use of Land "

3.13"Urban Design "

3.2 "Protection of Amenity "

I would look at other planning applications on line to get a guide as to what are considered legitimate objections etc .

Apologies for spelling and typos - in haste .

[Alan Dale]

removed

[Alan Dale]

removed

[Jeremy]

In response to Chris' comments about flat roof vs pitched... the illustrations I have include an "alternative" design with a pitched roof, which does look slightly better.

I would stop some way short of agreeing that they are "great", but certainly not the worst building I've seen.