Newbuilds in gardens - Hindmans Road

[MarkT]

technotom,

The deadline for submitting objections to the No 30 application is 22nd November. There's no benefit in getting your comments in early, so it's wise if you can to use the time for research to put together a good objection.

The Decision should be according to Policy. Southwark Council webpage has a section on planning policy. There's a range of documents; you could start with the Supplementary Planning Documents "Dulwich SPD" and "Residential Design Standards SPD".

They may not need your consent with regard to the party wall, but that does not mean they have a right to damage your property. Check the "Party Wall Act"; google it and find the .gov.uk site. I believe they must pay the costs of a survey before and after and cover the cost of any damage to your property resulting from the works.

Mark

[SL Architects]

We would like to introduce ourselves as the architects for the proposals at 30 Hindmans road. Please note that we are the architects and not the developer. We obviously have our client?s interests to protect but we would like to make ourselves available for discussion on your forum to further explain the scheme and try and allay any concerns you may have.

We realise that we will not be able to please everyone and there may be areas that you disagree with, but we hope that we can provide explanation and reasoning behind the design. There has been a rigorous design process behind the proposed scheme and we hope to show how we have tried to mitigate the impact of a development on the neighbours and Hindman?s Road as a whole.

We are more than happy to constructively discuss the proposed scheme, but we realise that this is an emotive subject for some and we will not respond to abusive comments. We reiterate that we are architects, not the developer.

We hope we can show you the positives of this scheme from an architectural and urban planning perspective.

[first mate]

I don't know the detail of either application but building on garden land is worrying for the simple reason that if any of these gets passed then it does set a precedent.

Interesting that the architects have been sent out on a firefighting/charm offensive mission.

This shows the location and relationship of site to to other buildings http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/394632_1.pdf

All too close for comfort in my view. Note the developer is a Mr Cotton from Wimbledon, no local interest then.

[intexasatthe moment]

I think that's very fair of the architects to come on the forum . I'm still looking at the application and can see how much work has gone in to it - much more than some .

I'll come back with specific questions if I have any .

[first mate]

I guess I just feel sorry for those who have for years looked at a garden next door to them but may now have to look at other properties. In isolation the buildings do look okayish- not my cuppa but tarted up with all the foliage they could be worse, however I am most concerned about the precedent of building on garden land to make more residential buildings, when the existing buildings are all so close together.

Yes, I can see that the architects coming on here is a great way to drum up support from those not close by. I just think would I like it next door to me.

[Penguin68]

Even where the build proposed is against your boundary, you are not obliged (I believe) to give access for any building work - so building up to a boundary may prove technically difficult if building works have to take place from the build side only.

The architects work to a brief from the client (obviously desiging within what they believe are planning regulations, although these are frequently a matter of interpretation) - their willingness at least to enter into discussion is to be praised. Not infrequently clients ask for designs which the architects may feel will not meet planning acceptance, but are still obliged at least to try this out where it may be an issue of interpretation. Sometimes architects know better than planners (the famous case of a building were 'planners' required supporting pillars, but the architect, Sir Christopher Wren, who knew they weren't required structurally, built them not actually to touch the ceiling).

Whilst no one likes change, a better understanding of what is planned and what the impct will actually be can sometimes alleviate those fears. Equally, architects may understand better how their plans do impact communities, by talking to them, and can adjust plans accordingly.

It (almost always) pays to talk.

[intexasatthe moment]

I agree Penguin .

And firstmate . no one will be drumming up my support .

[first mate]

P68,

I don't think it is a matter of finding change difficult. Many of us embrace change when it feels right and of benefit. Those next to the proposed development are already involved and those further are probably only affected by it in terms of precedents it sets.

I'm most interested to hear the thoughts of those closest to the development.

[Penguin68]

As someone who has (professionally) been involved in (organisational) change management, my experience is that those who embrace anything save the most gradual change (unless initiated by them!) are in a small minority. The status quo is almost always preferred to the unknown, and this is particularly true when it comes to changing the environment around you. Ideally, although many people actually like living in town, most would also like to look out of every window and just see nature. Where you have had a little view of nature, to lose that to a building, however well designed, is most frequently something not desired. When it comes to building close to you, what is being replaced has normally to be a very significant eyesore before any new building is welcomed.

Change which may actually benefit a community will still be loooked at askance when it comes to your personal amenity, and this is not unreasonable. You only have one life; it's quite an ask to sacrifice it on the alter of others' well being.

And you are right to consider that planning precedent set may mean that a development which may even be acceptable as a one-off would be wholly unacceptable if it became the norm.

[Jeremy]

My gut feeling is that increased housing density is an inevitability in a succesful city...

[first mate]

Penguin,

I think resistance to change is usually about perception, if something appears to be working the view may be why is it necessary to change..., so yes talking is good and perhaps I have in my cynicism too hastily dismissed the motivation of the architects in coming onto the forum.

My greatest concern is about setting precedents and glad you agree. Beyond that, from what I have gleaned, I would not want these built next to me, nor, long-term would I want to see our city gardens slowly eroded by ever more developments.

Jeremy,

Absolutely. London can also become another Hong Kong...completely feasible.

[MarkT]

I?m with P68 on the contribution of architects and engineers with regard to what is possible.

However, the fact here is that the Dulwich SPD rules out building on a previously undeveloped back garden. This is not about the expertise of architects compared to that of planners; it is a matter of community choice.

Planning Policies ? London wide, Borough wide and local ? define what is permitted, such as heights and densities, in different zones. In this part of the Borough, gardens are protected.

All sectors of the community had an opportunity to contribute in the making of the Dulwich SPD 2013. It therefore takes due account of history; buildings and nature conservation; transport, health and educational infrastructure, etc. Legally it required a long process of consultation, with wide publicity.

The law requires that individual applications are decided in accordance with the policies.

There is now a fresh opportunity for anyone, including this architect, to influence policy in years to come. The New Southwark Plan has just been launched for consultation. We have 4 months to contribute.

Yes first mate, visions of Walled City of Kowloon.

Mark

[MarkT]

Another point about the Dulwich SPD. It is not a NIMBY document, created by locals. It is a part of the Borough- wide plan, written by the Borough Planning Department, in accordance with the London Plan, approved by the whole Council and passed by a Government Inspector. All political parties contribute.

Mark

[Amoeba]

As the neighbour with the garden directly adjacent to the full length of the proposed development, firstly thank you SL Architects for making yourselves available for discussion. This is appreciated as are the evident attempts, within your brief, to limit the impact on ourselves and the broader Hindmans Road community. My fundamental objections are therefore very much with the brief itself and in particular the garden development rather than yourselves. For the lack of a better way of describing it, you have merely polished the turd.

Yes this indeed is an emotive subject for some, of course it is, for me it directly affects my home and my young family. That said, we will be endeavour to remain constructive (albeit not in the actual building on the garden sense).

The reality is that I have serious concerns over the impact of demolishing 1 x 2 bed property and replacing it with 4 x 2 bed properties. These concerns include, but are not limited to the negative impact on what you currently describe as a 'quiet residential street' but would be less so given your plans; the precedent such a development would set for the area; the inevitable disruption; contravention of the Dulwich SPD; the fundamental change to the environment provided by the gardens along Hindmans Road and those they back onto from Crystal Palace Road (it was for this reason we purchased our home over 10 years ago); the loss of the pear tree; the fact that I see no positive benefit to the immediate community; the prospect of further 'permitted development' etc etc.

Where I do agree however is that the existing building would benefit from modernisation, although perhaps not necessarily demolition and I would be very keen to discuss this in more detail.

Many thanks (redpencil, MarkT, intexas etc) for your suggestions, much appreciated, all further suggestions also welcomed as would be further engagement by SL and/or the developer.

[kate h]

Thanks to the architects for joining the thread.

So just catching up on all of this: we now have two proposed newbuilds on Hindmans Road. No. 30 (the most recent application) for two flats in a newbuild in the garden, and no 21. for a single house in a newbuild in a garden(Southwark say the application for 21 is going to be resubmitted). And both these applications have been put forward by the same developer (Arnold Cotton - Wimbledon).

SL Architects - could I just clarify something you mentioned in your post? You said a couple of times that you are architects not developers. I had a nice, amiable chat with two architects (you guys?) at the beginning of all of this, and my impression was that you owned a percentage of 21 Hindmans Rd (and as such, were 'developers'). So presumably the financial set up is different for no. 30? Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's important to be utterly clear - if permission is granted for one of the applications, I'd imagine it's more likely to be granted for the remaining one.

Also wondering about Renata's thoughts on the no 30. application...

Thanks again everyone.

K

[SL Architects]

Thank you for your comments and queries about the proposals at no.30 Hindmans Road. Please see below our comments which we hope provides some further explanation of the design, reasons for key elements and answers

some of your queries.

We would like to focus on the development application for no.30 Hindmans Road at this stage, having come to this discussion relatively late on in the process of the two applications. As Kate has mentioned we are the architects involved in the project at no.21 Hindmans Road, also for the same client, but we do not own this property or the property at no. 30. We of course have an interest in the projects, as should they become permitted projects we would be the designers and project managers on both sites, but no, we are not the owners.

An application was withdrawn for a new property on the land of no.21 Hindmans Road as the planning department informed us that the proposals would be recommended for refusal. We are currently reviewing all the feedback from the neighbours and the planning department before deciding how to proceed. Our brief was to investigate the full potential of the site.

Focusing on 30 Hindmans Road;

There are two distinct parts of the site that are up for discussion. While the scheme is designed as a complex of dwellings and the site plan is laid out such that the properties relate to each other, we understand why the proposals to the rear of the site are causing some objection.

Firstly, we strongly believe that from an architectural and urban planning perspective the building is incongruous on the street. Whilst Hindmans Road does have a number of different types of properties; houses, flats, maisonettes - all of differing style - they do actually have very similar characteristics that aren?t shared by the house on the proposal site. The existing dwelling, a three bedroom property, is also very poorly designed. The layout doesn?t offer itself to be easily converted into a family dwelling. At present one must walk through two adjoining bedrooms to access the one bathroom on the first floor, which itself has a ceiling height of less than two meters, making this room an unusable space.

The ground floor rooms do not relate to the garden and significant structural change and building work would be required to change the layout to address this.

The existing property also suffers from significant damp issues which would be costly to rectify.

Many of the existing elements ? windows, roof, doors etc would need to be replaced also in order to bring the house up to a comfortable standard.

Renovating the existing property, extending it to the side, rear and into the loft would be an option but the work involved is extensive and you would be ripping so much of the original building out that it wouldn?t make sense to do so.

With all these points in mind it was decided to demolish the existing building and design and build something new.

The proposaled buildings will be designed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes, Level 4/5 which exceeds the current building regulation requirements for its thermal performance and heating requirements, making these dwellings an incredibly comfortable and efficient place to live for the end user.

The disruption to the neighbour, ?Amoeba,? and the rest of the street would be much the same if the building was to be wholly refurbished or if a new building was to be constructed.

The proposed building to the front of the site has a very similar footprint to the existing built forms of no. 28 and 26 etc and the mass and form facing the street would be very similar. If you look at the plans and elevations of this building it can be seen that the rear of the building does not extend beyond the end of no.28 and the roof room is of a similar volume to the loft conversion and mansard extension on the neighbouring property. If the existing property was to be refurbished and reconfigured it would probably end up being a similar mass to this proposal, but with less architectural merit.

The addition of a basement to this building is one which was driven by the decision to include two maisonette properties in this building. Although this feature isn?t typical of dwellings on Hindmans Road, there is an example of a property with a basement further down the road, alongside the entrance to the new ?garage development site? behind nos. 16-20. There are however many examples of houses which have been converted into ?flats? on this road and as such proposing two dwellings in this one building does not feel out of place.

Secondly, much effort has been made to reduce the impact of the property to the rear which are explained below. To respond initially to the thoughts on building on backland sites or back gardens. Whilst some of the precedents shown in our design and access statement show different types of property they do bear similarity to this site in many ways and they were not included to mislead. In all cases the proposals show examples of designs that have been approved by Southwark Council in areas where no residential building previously existed, on sites located very close to neighbouring buildings. I draw your attention to the site behind nos. 16-20 Hindmans Road which proposes four new dwellings. The new property to the front of this site is a single storey property with basement, which sits very close to the rear of the properties facing the road. There is also the redevelopment of the Police Station site which has planning permission for the development of five new townhouses behind the original building which is being converted into flats. All these buildings are very close to each other and the density of this development far exceeds planning guidance.

Leading on from this, it is important at this stage that we mention that the Dulwich SPD, although a very useful document with some sound advice, is a guidance document. Information within should be used as a guide for design and redevelopment, but each application should be reviewed as a unique proposal and shouldn?t stifle innovative design solutions. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for example, which is the overriding planning document, states that, ?Local Authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability, because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design.?

The Mayor has also stated that he wants to maximise development in London to deal with the huge housing shortage that the capital faces. We would all prefer that no more houses needed to be built (apart from us architects perhaps), but we need more housing in London and we feel that finding suitable small scale areas can reduce the amount of true greenbelt open space that is being developed. Gardens are very important in the area, but what is being proposed provides in excess of the required garden amenity for four flat dwellings.

We would like to reiterate that the SPD is a very good and useful document but if always totally adhered to we would have no new flat developments in East Dulwich and the housing crisis would be further enlarged.

The site at no.30 HIndmans Road is unique in that its neighbours an industrial property and storage area. At present the single storey garage block on this land provides a unsightly border to the site which is overhung by builders materials. The existing condition that faces number 32 Hindmans Road is that the single story garage provides a direct barrier to the rear, leaving only a small garden for this property.

We agree that precedent should not be set for building in all back gardens, but this site is very unique and as such cannot be replicated in many areas, if at all. The proximity to an industrial site and the fact that adequate access to the rear can be gained through a building to the front adds to this fact. There are also not many situations where such long gardens exist in East Dulwich. As you move further south and Lordship Lane and Barry Road converge the back-to-back distances are reduced vastly and this type of building could not be replicated. It is also proposed that these buildings are exemplary in terms of design and sustainability and therefore not easily reproduced. Your ?average developer? would not go to the levels proposed in this design and therefore this type of proposal will not be seen regularly, or it would have been done already.

The proposals for the back of the site at no. 30 look to place a single storey building with a basement. This building has been deliberately moved away from the boundary with no. 28 and placed against the boundary with the garages which are unsightly. Also given the industrial use of these buildings it was felt more appropriate to build alongside rather than adjacent the residential boundary on the other side.

The property was sunk one full storey to minimise the visual impact and the roof forms were chamfered and facetted to minimise the visual and daylight impact to theneighbours. This is outlined in the design section of the design and access statement. The roofs are also proposed to be green roofs with planting covering the majority of the surface. When viewed from above and from the neighbours first floor windows the view will be that of planted areas. This will

therefore provide a visual boundary to the industrial site.

All fenestration on this building is below the allowable fence line and views in and out are directed away from existing and other proposed openings. New high quality boundaries are proposed and will be agreed with the neighbours using the normal procedures stated within the Party Wall etc Act 1996.

Whilst the proposals look to build up to boundaries in some areas, all proposals will sit within the boundary line unless it is agreed by the neighbours that the new walls will become party walls and built from in the future. In this case they will straddle the boundary. Under the Party Wall Act, neighbours cannot reasonably withhold access or prevent the construction of a building designed to sit on the boundary. A party wall surveyor will consult all adjoining owners to negotiate access to minimise disruption to all concerned. The property is detached from no. 28 and will remain so.

Neighbours would also be consulted about any potential damage to trees and our client would be happy to plant additional trees on the boundary as a condition of planning approval.

No one wants to see all gardens removed, but there are multiple examples of large single storey summer houses and outbuildings in and around the area. Also we note that under permitted development an outbuilding, with no design merit, can be constructed on considerably more of the garden than is proposed here, as has already been discussed in this feed.

If this scheme was to get planning approval, we would endeavour to minimise the disruption to the neighbouring properties and obviously work within the fixed hours stipulated by the planners and agreed with you under party wall agreements.

Once built the impact on the street should be minimal. The proposals are for a highly sustainable, no car development, putting bicycles first.

Any further change to the properties in future would be unlikely to come under permitted development but our client would be happy to write a clause into the deeds of the new property, if necessary, preventing any future change.

We hope that this has provided a clearer insight into our thinking when designing this building.

[Al-candraw]

Hi, we live opposite no. 30 and some doors down from no.21. I have or will be objecting to both builds my reason being we initially purchased our house because of the green space (our gardens and the surrounding) we are not over looked, we are surrounded by wonderfully mature fruit trees and have lots of birds, bees, butterflies and toads (no idea where these come from) living in our garden. I firmly believe over development of our back lands will absolutely negatively impact our wild life and our wellbeing.

I have no issue with homes using a small portion of their garden to extend as is the norm in ED but I genuinely feel very uncomftable about being surrounded by back land development which is a real possibility not to mention the negative impact on house prices going from a previously private garden to am over looked on.

No.30 is in need of a tidy up and modernisation however as previously stated taking a 2 bed house and turning that in to 4 x 2 bed flats does smack of over crowding and over development with no consideration to the many young families that have chosen to live on a quiet street with large surrounding green areas.

[Al-candraw]

I'm sorry to sound rude but let's all get real, building in east dulwich really does not elevate the housing shortage given the rising house prices. It's not the people that can afford a ?500,000 plus property that are suffering it's the many young people that can't afford to get on the property ladder / families living in houses too small because that extra bedroom is just a financial stretch too far and the many people living in substandard buildings, sharing rooms because that's all they can afford that are effected by housing shortages. I think high quality Eco builds are a great step forward for the environment but not under the guise of affordable housing nor by back land grabbing.

[Earl Aelfheah]

"To respond initially to the thoughts on building on backland sites or back gardens. Whilst some of the precedents shown in our design and access statement show different types of property they do bear similarity to this site in many ways and they were not included to mislead. In all cases the proposals show examples of designs that have been approved by Southwark Council in areas where no residential building previously existed, on sites located very close to neighbouring buildings. I draw your attention to the site behind nos. 16-20 Hindmans Road which proposes four new dwellings. The new property to the front of this site is a single storey property with basement, which sits very close to the rear of the properties facing the road. There is also the redevelopment of the Police Station site which has planning permission for the development of five new townhouses behind the original building which is being converted into flats. All these buildings are very close to each other and the density of this development far exceeds planning guidance."

This sounds a bit like saying "Southwark have been pretty remiss in the past and this provides a precedent which can be exploited". Basically, a call to compound the negative effects of previous bad decision making.

[Amoeba]

"In all cases the proposals show examples of designs that have been approved by Southwark Council in areas where no residential building previously existed" -

You continue to conveniently ignore the fact that these are examples where although not residential buildings, prior development did exist on these sites in the form of garages, industrial premises etc. This is a fundamental difference and one that is at the heart of my concerns, which makes your repeated claims to this proposal being similar (or even very similar) to others, all the more inaccurate and irritating.

Furthermore as to your 'no car development', rather than this being some considered and well intentioned design feature, in reality this is just a case of - stick a load more people on a small site, we don't care where they will park their cars, that will be their and the exisiting residents problem.

[mikeb]

In case relevant, the property details - http://northwooduk.com/dulwich/sales/NWDUL_003124

I don't think "sold price" yet available from land registry. A few choice phrases in the description

"An opportunity for developers with vision to work with a characterful period property on a substantial plot of land. This could be one large family home, or possibly a number of individual residential units - subject to the usual planning requirements.

"This unusual detached property, which requires complete renovation, represents an excellent opportunity for the investor/developer. There is a driveway to the side of the house allowing access for vehicles to the rear, and a large garden which could be utilised in a number of ways. Neighbouring houses have had loft conversions and rear extensions, indicating what may be possible with this property. Viewing highly recommended, and architects welcome"

[EDmummy]

I can see why a developer may want to try and shove as many properties as possible on this site as they are highly unlikely to make much profit if they paid ?700K for it. Rebuilt as a single dwelling would probably sit around ?800k max.

I'd also like to add that this property is not unique in Hindmans Road. There is another very similar property next door to the new builds where the garage used to be situated.

mikeb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In case relevant, the property details -

> http://northwooduk.com/dulwich/sales/NWDUL_003124

>

> I don't think "sold price" yet available from land

> registry. A few choice phrases in the description

>

>

> "An opportunity for developers with vision to work

> with a characterful period property on a

> substantial plot of land. This could be one large

> family home, or possibly a number of individual

> residential units - subject to the usual planning

> requirements.

>

> "This unusual detached property, which requires

> complete renovation, represents an excellent

> opportunity for the investor/developer. There is a

> driveway to the side of the house allowing access

> for vehicles to the rear, and a large garden which

> could be utilised in a number of ways.

> Neighbouring houses have had loft conversions and

> rear extensions, indicating what may be possible

> with this property. Viewing highly recommended,

> and architects welcome"

[EDmummy]

If your toads a natterjack toads, they are a protected species! Might be worth checking that out.

Al-candraw Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi, we live opposite no. 30 and some doors down

> from no.21. I have or will be objecting to both

> builds my reason being we initially purchased our

> house because of the green space (our gardens and

> the surrounding) we are not over looked, we are

> surrounded by wonderfully mature fruit trees and

> have lots of birds, bees, butterflies and toads

> (no idea where these come from) living in our

> garden. I firmly believe over development of our

> back lands will absolutely negatively impact our

> wild life and our wellbeing.

> I have no issue with homes using a small portion

> of their garden to extend as is the norm in ED but

> I genuinely feel very uncomftable about being

> surrounded by back land development which is a

> real possibility not to mention the negative

> impact on house prices going from a previously

> private garden to am over looked on.

> No.30 is in need of a tidy up and modernisation

> however as previously stated taking a 2 bed house

> and turning that in to 4 x 2 bed flats does smack

> of over crowding and over development with no

> consideration to the many young families that have

> chosen to live on a quiet street with large

> surrounding green areas.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

And if you have dormice and roosting bats, you are sorted!

[Al-candraw]

Haha, I'm so glad we're all hoping for an infestation in my home!