From:
Helen Bowers [h.bowers@btconnect.com]
Sent: 29 August 2013
10:10
To: Peres Da Costa, David
Subject: Re: window
reinstatement 35 Inkerman Road - 2013/4923/P
Dear David
Just to confirm points of clarification as discussed today:
The existing office is currently being refurbished having become
inhabitable through damp and out of date services. It is possible that at
some point the office, on a residential street, will be converted into an
apartment.
The purpose of the replacement windows is to provide operable double glazed
windows to the ground floor room. Currently the large expanse of single
sheet glazing does not give adequate thermal protection in the winter nor any
opportunity for ventilation in the summer.
The proposal to fit a pair of sashes is twofold, to match those in the
adjacent building where sashes at ground floor level are in pairs divided by a
225mm brick width pier, and to best fill the existing opening. The
building is of old and poor quality brick and it is felt that it is unneccesary
to disturb the fabric to lengthen the existing lintel and widen the
opening.
The property currently has two entrances, one directly onto the street and
one from the communal entrance. While the premises is currently used as an
office the street is residential and the intention at some point is to apply for
a change of use to convert the property to residential. As a residence it
is more secure to enter through a communal intermediate entrance. While
this may be a matter of opinion, it is our client'ss that the communal entrance
is more sensible in a residential situation.
As a result of switching the primary entrance to the one through the
communal entrance hall the 2nd external doorway becomes redundant. The
intention is also to reinstate the main entrance door to match the original two
panel doors in the neighbourhood and upgrade the fanlight from the existing
Georgian wired glass to a toughened etched glass. In order to retain the
nod to symmetry that currently exists on the elevation we had proposed a shadow
recessed outline of the doorway. As you would prefer to see the door
retain its existing appearance with the fanlight and doorleaf in place, if
inoperable, we would propose the following compromise: a low relief projecting
reverse cast of the imprint as it will appear on the opposite side with the new
two panelled door. A proposal drawing will follow.
And a final point of clarification as to the room behind the window,
currently a habitable work room with desk and storage furniture. When
residential a habitable reception room with furniture and storage.
Finally, can you please send me a copy of the application form for the
permitted change of use.
Kind regards
Helen
On 28 Aug 2013, at 16:28, Peres Da Costa, David wrote:
Please ring me to
clarify the contents of your email. Tel 020 7974 5262
David Peres
da Costa
Planning
Officer
Tel.: 020
7974 5262
From: Helen Bowers
[mailto:h.bowers@btconnect.com]
Sent: 28 August 2013 16:25
To: Peres Da Costa, David
Subject: Re: window reinstatement 35 Inkerman
Road - 2013/4923/P
Dear
David
I was very happy
to get your recommendation to go with the lower window as it helps from the
inside, however I passed by the address this morning and reviewed the
elevations. Please look again at the photograph submitted which shows
that the tops of the windows align through with those in the adjacent 36
Inkerman Road, formerly the pub. I think to drop the top at 35 would be
a mistake in the overall street elevation.
Looking at it once
again in the street I actually think the generous single sash would be the
best solution all round which would also relate to the proportions of the
windows moving along the street along the terrace.
I am sorry to fuss
about such a tiny item in planning terms but the street is quite pretty and I
think we should acknowledge that. If you would like to meet to discuss
the variables please let me know.
On 27 Aug 2013, at
15:24, Peres Da Costa, David wrote:
I have just had
feedback on your proposal.
The alternative
proposal with two sash windows with a reduced height may be acceptable
provided that the door was not blocked up. The door and fanlight should be
retained (regardless of whether it is blocked off internally) so that the
proposed windows have a better relationship with the existing elevation.
The single sash window option would not be
acceptable.
Please revise the
drawing accordingly.
From: Helen Bowers
[mailto:h.bowers@btconnect.com]
Sent: 23 August 2013 15:41
To: Peres Da Costa, David
Subject: Re: window reinstatement 35 Inkerman
Road - 2013/4923/P
On 23 Aug 2013, at
15:37, Peres Da Costa, David wrote:
I will need to refer
the alternatives to a design officer and will respond when I have had
feedback.
From: Helen Bowers
[mailto:h.bowers@btconnect.com]
Sent: 23 August 2013 15:21
To: Peres Da Costa, David
Subject: Re: window reinstatement 35 Inkerman
Road - 2013/4923/P
I attach two
possible alternatives showing the double sash reduced in height and a larger
single sash. In fact I agree, the large single sash actually is a
much better solution than the double if you are happy to go with
this.
On 23 Aug 2013, at
14:36, Peres Da Costa, David wrote:
I didn’t think they
appear to vertical but they appear rather congested on the ground floor
elevation especially when there is a significant blank section of wall to the
right of the windows. (The windows on the adjoining property look appropriate
in the context of that elevation).
From: Helen Bowers
[mailto:h.bowers@btconnect.com]
Sent: 23 August 2013 13:59
To: Peres Da Costa, David
Subject: Re: window reinstatement 35 Inkerman
Road - 2013/4923/P
The windows are
designed like the pairs next door which like many in bay windows in London are
separated by a brick pier of 225mm rendered brickwork. If you think the
windows are too vertical in appearance it would be preferable to reduce the
height, possibly both from the top and the bottom, by 1no or 2no courses of
brick. The windows are very high and would perhaps look nicer being
lowered over all.
On 23 Aug 2013, at
13:41, Peres Da Costa, David
wrote:
Whilst we welcome the
improvement, the two sash windows appear squashed together. Would it be
possible to separate them a bit more? I understand that you are placing the
sash windows within the space left by the existing window but it would look
better if a small part of the original front elevation was removed so that the
windows could have a better
separation.
The advice on the
ghost doorway will depend on this
revision.
From: Helen Bowers
[mailto:h.bowers@btconnect.com]
Sent: 23 August 2013 12:17
To: Peres Da Costa, David
Subject: Fwd: window reinstatement 35
Inkerman Road - 2013/4923/P
I have tried to
telephone this week to discuss this application but not had any reply on your
phone. I wonder if you need to arrange to visit and would like to meet.
I presume you agree with the majority of the neighbours on the street
who welcome the change but would like to know if you would expect to have any
further requirements.
Please email or
ring on 07733103626 if you would like to discuss any
items.
Date: 12
August 2013 12:35:59
GMT+01:00
Subject: window reinstatement 35 Inkerman
Road - 2013/4923/P
Once you have had
a chance to look at the elevation drawing I would like to ask you to consider
a general question as I do not mind which way the elevation goes. In filling
in the redundant doorway is it better to take the render across flush or to
leave a set back panel in the render, the ghost of the doorway? I wonder
if there is an opinion in planning or any effect on potential graffitti
problems.
While the work had
not commenced prior to the application date, it is possible that the
replacement windows may need to be replaced prior to the decision. I
presume this is a straightforward request that you will be dealing with under
delegated powers. If you would like to chat of visit the site please let
me know.
On 12 Aug 2013, at
11:45, Planning wrote:
Thank you
for your application received
on 02/08/2013
I consider
your application to be valid now, please find a letter attached with full
details.
To provide
you with the best possible service, incoming emails are handled by the team as
a whole: please help us maintain standards by sending all responses to this
email to planning@camden.gov.uk
Planning
Technician | Fast Track and Validations Team | Development
Management
Tel: 020 7974 3560| Fax: 0207 974
1680
Visit camden.gov.uk for the latest council information
and news | Please consider the environment before
printing this email
This e-mail may contain
information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright
protected. This e- mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. <2013.4923.P.doc>
This e-mail may contain
information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright
protected. This e- mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer.
This e-mail may
contain information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright
protected. This e- mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer.
This e-mail may contain
information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright
protected. This e- mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer.
This e-mail may contain
information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright
protected. This e- mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer.
This e-mail may
contain information which is confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright
protected. This e- mail is intended for the addressee only. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer.