Geoff
Stevens
NW1
9JS
Object to the proposed increase in
roof height above that of the frontage of existing development at
Dr Anna Herrey,
NW1
9NB
We are concerned with the erection
of the additional storey with the associated windows and rooflights for the
following reasons:
- This development would provide a
new line of sight into our bathroom and children's
bedroom
- Due to the size of the planned
windows there is likely to be considerable light pollution into our
property
Gillian
Porter
NW1
9JS
I live at
Summary of our concerns
Since March 2004 the Studio Spares
site [
This new application is for
'industrial' extension 'works' on the first and residential on the second floor
accompanied by changes to the front and rear facade. The same architects [as for
the previous application] have been employed.
From the previous application we
were very aware that the architects had little understanding of previous
refusals and little understanding of the site. But following the meetings with
residents and officers:
"
the site was surveyed for ground levels and window levels and drawings provided;
"
the architect was made aware of appeal decisions at 57-59, 36-38 and 61-63;
"
issues of overlooking were acknowledged;
"
issues of setback were pointed out.
and the application which surfaced
[and was refused] included some but not all of previous officers requests.
After eleven applications in 36
years, ten in the last nine years it should be very apparent that applications
on this site are site specific. Reports by officers and inspectors are available
on line. Officers may have advised, although there is no record, that previous
reports from this site and this street should be taken into consideration - if
not followed. In creating new plans for a new owner the architect has expanded
the height of the building, failed to design a building compatible with the
conservation area and created an extension which takes sunlight from the
Victorian terrace.
We wish officers to note that this
application presents few drawings [some with incorrect information in relation
to the Victorian terrace of Reed's Place and St Pancras Way], few details of
materials and some missing items eg new plant located outside of the building
envelope [which we understand will require a new application]. Some
clarification/new drawings are required.
"
the proposed build does not respect the requests to pull back the building mass
from the historic buildings and views from the street as requested by previous
officers
"
potentially a loss of sunlight to dwellings in Reed's Place [on the incorrect
presumption that their 25° angle is correct]
"
windows overlook Reed's Place at 9.5m and 16 meters
"
private terrace overlooks Reed's Place 18m
"
overshadowing and loss of outlook of the balcony of flat 57 and back and front
of the house at
"
issues of amenity for residents of this building [61-63] in relation - to
access, cycle storage, refuse storage, car-free is not offered.
Each and all of the amenity issues
could, and should, be designed out.
Following the refusal of the last
application [which we believed could not be built] the plot was sold 'with tacit
planning permission'. It was bought for £720,000 and sold for £1.5 million.
This is not the same scheme. It is
basically an industrial extension and at the moment one flat [with nothing to
stop the industrial being changed to residential after April 2013].
It has something of the same
footprint but it is very different/greater in height/bulk/mass. There are fewer
planes, fewer roof patterns; materials have changed. It should not be assessed
on the basis that 'it was OK before with a few minor differences. It is a new
application - and a 'glance' at a front elevation by a conservation officer who
sees no differences should not count as a reasoned assessment.
We supply drawings which show the
survey drawing [supplied by the architect] as a background to the
bulk/massing/height diagrams. Comparisons are illustrated between the previous
heights and the new heights in order to establish the new bulk. All outlines are
taken from the architects drawings.
We would like officers to note that
some of the architects drawings are inaccurate:
the architects drawing [246-205]
shows a section through the proposed building, with a section through no 118 and
we supply overlay to drawing
[235-204] front and rear, and sections AA, DD to indicate the 25° at Reed's
Place
we also supply overlay to drawing
[246-205] NW, SE elevations to illustrate the overlooking at 57-59.
Full sized printouts to match the
architects drawings have been supplied separately.
Neighbours are expecting 'something'
to be built on top of the existing structure [as the lucrative principle of
mixed use has been accepted]. We urge officers to refuse this application in
order to obtain a more realistic application [that has less mass, bulk and
height] and sustainable residential.
We would like to be informed should
this decision go to Committee.
Yours sincerely
Gillian
Porter
Plaxy
Locatelli
9
NW1
9JN
Summary of our concerns- (ditto to
above)
Lynne
Gentle
NW1
9NB
Dear Mr
Thuaire
The LDF recognises the importance of
protecting the amenity of
The current proposal, due to its
bulk, massing, height and proximity will result in unacceptable damage to the
character, amenity values and appearance of two conservation areas that include
a noted and a listed terrace.
The supplied proposals do not
'preserve and enhance' the Conservation area, they will also damage and
compromise the amenity and setting of the listed terrace. Paragraph JS17 of the
Conservation Area statement states that 'New development should be seen as an
opportunity to enhance the Conservation areas and should respect existing
features such as building lines, roof lines, elevational design and where
appropriate, architectural characteristics, detailing, profile and the materials
of adjoining buildings.' This application by no means accomplishes that
aim.
The current LDF states that it is
'important to ensure that all development takes place in a way that minimises
the impact on the environment and protects and enhances the existing
environment.' It states that it seeks to improve our surroundings through good
design in new development. S7 states that the Council will seek to protect and
enhance the Borough's historic environment and ensure that all development is
designed to the highest standards and protects and enhances its surroundings.
What is now proposed is a solid mass
using inappropriate utilitarian modern industrial metal work, of no visual merit
which fails to take into account or reference its setting within an early
nineteenth century industrial and residential enclave. The final build height
will be over two meters higher than any previous failed application for the
site. The diagram included below clearly illustrates the bulk massing and height
proposed in relation to the listed terrace of
The orange block represents the
proposed new first floor (with the orange line representing the previous
rejected first floor proposal) The Pink block represents the proposed new second
floor (with the pink line representing the previous rejected second floor
proposal) It is clear from this image the extent to which the proposed building
will dwarf Reeds Place in particular and exceed the roof gully level of the
listed terrace of St Pancras Way.
We believe that the new proposal
fails to achieve the bare minimum of the standards set out in the LDF and will
severely compromise the character and amenity values of the surrounding
properties.
The Rochester Conservation area
Statement states that, "not all development has been successful in contributing
to the character of the Conservation area…. Where development has detracted from
the character and appearance of the Conservation area it is often through lack
of respect for historic context - the following themes recur, use of
inappropriate materials and inappropriate bulk, massing or height." The
applicant is attempting to raise the parapet vertically and extend it laterally,
and also to add a very high third floor behind it. Historically
Previous applicants have been
invited and encouraged to consult with neighbours, CAC's and relevant
local groups - why is that not the case here, when it is clear from the numbers
of unsuccessful previous applications and the sheer volume of local opinion that
this is a very sensitive site?
The owner only agreed to meet
neighbours after he had submitted his second and hugely extended application.
Indeed the owner has already proceeded with enabling works under the assumption
that he will be granted permission for this second application.
Alterations not covered in the first
planning permission - replacement of fencing adjoining neighbouring properties,
installation of the large unit to the rear of the property, works to the roof to
enable the installation of the two proposed new floors have already been
undertaken and without the appropriate permissions in place. The owner has
indicated that the cladded metal wall panels for the new first floor are already
being fabricated, without planning permission for that floor having even been
granted.
This development in an area enclosed
on three sides will be clearly visible and dominate the outlook from 23
surrounding properties, an outlook that has been preserved and protected by the
rejection of 8 inappropriate applications for this site over the last 6 years.
Whilst I am delighted that the original light industrial space has been
preserved within this scheme I am concerned that the addition of the additional
workspace and more importantly the flat above it, represent a dramatic and
severely damaging overdevelopment of the site. I am also concerned that if the
footprint of the extra first floor workspace is established, pressure may be
subsequently applied to convert this too into accommodation - the materials used
and access points to the office space and flat above suggest that this may be
their ultimate intention. This would represent the cynical erosion in increments
of the character and identity of this highly sensitive
site.
In addition, the materials proposed
for the new workspace are inadequately specified in the application. If such a
large and dominant mass of building is proposed why is the colour of the metal
cladding not even indicated in the application? It has a material effect on the
impact of the building. The design statement suggests that this material has
been selected to relate to the industrial processes INSIDE the workspace but
according to the LDF it should be relating to the building's EXTERIOR context.
Similarly there is no specification for its noise or heat insulative properties,
or any indication as to the operative hours of the work
spaces.
SD6 - Amenity for occupiers and
neighbours states that the Council will not grant planning permission for
development that it considers causes harm to the amenity of occupiers and
neighbours. Some of the factors the Council will consider
include:
a) visual privacy and
overlooking;
b) sunlight and daylight
levels;
c) artificial light
levels;
d) noise and vibration
levels;
e) odour, fumes and
dust;
All of the above factors seem to
have been inadequately considered by the
application.
Visual privacy and
overlooking
The application includes strips of
'black glass' within the cladded panels but no indication of whether it is
opaque. Five of these panels look directly into the back of 120 and
1.42 states that 'Privacy and
overlooking are very much a function of distance, vertical levels of onlooker
and subject, as well as the horizontal angle of the view. Roof terraces and
balconies should not result in unacceptable disturbance to the privacy of
neighbouring habitable rooms and any garden space that is in
separate
occupation. Overlooking from the
public highway and from neighbouring private gardens and parking areas will also
be considered.'
Sunlight and daylight
levels
We assert that the sections to
indicate Sunlight levels particularly from the
One of the criteria is that a
section should be drawn in a plain perpendicular to the affected widow wall of
the neighbouring property. The acceptable angle is set at 25 degrees from the
centre of the lowest window but this applicant has taken his line from 2ms from
the 'ground' and as a consequence is in the wrong place. If it were in the right
place the proposed building goes above the 25 degree line and therefore requires
a virtual sky component to be taken. 1.41 states that the design of new
development should 'allow sufficient daylight and sunlight into buildings and
land'
Artificial light
levels
The addition of the 2nd floor
'caretakers' apartment seems likely to produce light pollution, both from the
living room area overlooking Rochester Place and the Master Bedroom and glazed
hallways overlooking St. Pancras Way and Reeds Place. SD7 states that The
Council will not grant planning permission for lighting if it creates light
pollution. 1.44 states that 'In circumstances where there is a potential
for light pollution, the Council will
require a light impact survey
outlining possible attenuation. To control the
potential
harm caused by light pollution, the
Council will use planning conditions to control the level of illumination, any
spillage of light and hours of operation.'
Noise and vibration levels, odour,
fumes and dust
In a visit to the site we requested
information of noise output data for all extraction and heating units, and their
proposed hours of working operation (which should be limited and specified in a
condition) and specifications regarding filters and possible toxicity of
by-products of working processes - these have been unforthcoming. The large unit
to be placed in the rear courtyard has not been indicated on any plans for
either application although work has already begun on its installation. How will
it be baffled? What are its hours of operation? What is its noise output? We
were told by the applicant that if there was a noise/vibration issue it would be
dealt with but this is a promise and not a planning condition and he appeared
ignorant to the fact that there might be some obligation to consider this as a
potential issue. In addition there is no specification as to the acoustic
baffling qualities of the metal clad material on the proposed new first
floor.
Without this important information
how are we as neighbours and residents expected to form a coherent assessment of
the likely impact of the proposal? There are no such specifications included in
the application and
SD7B states that 'unless appropriate
attenuation measures are available and are included,
the
Council will not grant planning
permission for
development likely to generate
noise/vibration pollution' It seems inevitable that current ambient noise levels
will be increased and an acoustic survey should therefore be
required.
SD8 states that 'The Council will
only grant planning permission for plant or machinery, including ventilation or
air handling equipment, if it can be operated
without
causing a loss to local amenity and
does not exceed the thresholds set out in Appendix 1 - Noise and Vibration
(Table E).
There is no provision made to
minimise the impact on local amenity from the disturbance from demolition and
construction of the proposal. Already the noise from the site has rendered
working from the rear rooms of my property impossible. In addition waste
materials from the roof have been allowed to enter neighbouring gardens, there
has been unauthorized access to those gardens, and plants from the elevations of
party walls have been removed without consultation. SD8 states that 'The Council
will seek to minimise the impact on local amenity from the demolition and
construction phases of development. Where these phases are likely to cause harm,
due to their duration, scale, location or
complexity,
planning conditions may be used to
minimise the impact.
In summation I believe that the
proposed application, due to its bulk massing and height will result in the
gross overdevelopment of a sensitive site and fails to 'preserve and enhance'
the Conservation area it adjoins. Its design and scale disregards the context of
the Conservation Areas and adjoining Listed Terrace and employs poor design with
inappropriate and ill specified materials. The development will result in an
unacceptable loss of amenity due to infringements of visual privacy and
overlooking, the reduction of sunlight and daylight levels in neighbouring
properties and gardens, pollution from artificial light sources and increased
noise pollution and vibration levels from proposed
extraction.
In conclusion I would suggest that
the council has a duty of care to reject this application. If this matter goes
to committee I would like to be informed of the date of that
committee.