Michael Abrahams of the Forest Hill Society blogs regrettably about a decision to grant planning permission to replace a garage with a 5 bed house at 4 Redberry Grove, London, SE26 4DA.
The FHS were supported by the Sydenham Society in objecting to this.
The gist of the main objection appears to be the inappropriateness of a modern design in a conservation area. The outline of the design can be seen here:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/36990_1.pdf
and the plan here:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/36988_2.pdf
This led me to wondering:
The recent expansion of conservation area north of Sydenham Road/Kirkdale is mostly uniform 'between the wars' 3 bed semi-detached houses. Is any infill expected to be of the same format or period? Or what criteria are to be applied to any 'out of period' design? Is uniformity to be preferred over contrasting style? Do the same criteria apply here?
As a member of the Sydenham Society the objection was made in my name. I don't know if, knowing all the facts, I would agree with this objection or not. Hence it It would be great to have the thoughts of those actually concerned in formulating the objections.
And what do others think?
Mike's blog: http://foresthillsociety.blogspot.com/2 ... roved.html
Full planning application: http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=54202
Stuart
Conservation Area/4 Redberry Grove
There is a place for modern buildings in conservation areas, but this does depend on their character and the nature of the proposed development.
Horniman Museum extension is a good example of a change in a conservation area, to a grade 2 listed building, which is sympathetic to the existing structure and enhances the local area.
UDP policy 16 from Lewisham council say that new properties in a conservation area should 'enhance or preserve' the character of the conservation area. Without this being implemented by planning committees there is no power to conservation areas and little point in having them. The sad fact is that yesterday there was no comment or discussion by the committee on this issue.
Horniman Museum extension is a good example of a change in a conservation area, to a grade 2 listed building, which is sympathetic to the existing structure and enhances the local area.
UDP policy 16 from Lewisham council say that new properties in a conservation area should 'enhance or preserve' the character of the conservation area. Without this being implemented by planning committees there is no power to conservation areas and little point in having them. The sad fact is that yesterday there was no comment or discussion by the committee on this issue.
Well I'm glad it got approved style-wise, though I'm not in favour of gardens being built over.
I thought that any objection to this building should be on the grounds of whether a building ought to be built on this particular site or not.
Second to that I think that quality is probably the next most important consideration.
I am in favour of the modern style as long as it is of good quality construction, which it sounds like it is.
I think that each case should be considered individually and modern is not always best, but would love to see what building the objectors would have approved of.
I thought that any objection to this building should be on the grounds of whether a building ought to be built on this particular site or not.
Second to that I think that quality is probably the next most important consideration.
I am in favour of the modern style as long as it is of good quality construction, which it sounds like it is.
I think that each case should be considered individually and modern is not always best, but would love to see what building the objectors would have approved of.
Last edited by Juwlz on 23 Jan 2009 15:04, edited 3 times in total.
A brief history of architecture:
For centuries, people have built in a style reflecting their time and culture - Elizebethans built as they pleased irrespective of their medieval context, Georgians and Victorians likewise. In the 20th century, with the invention of the mechanical elevator, steel and concrete construction and massive demand for building, a lot of aesthetically challenged buildings got built (together with plenty of very good ones), HRH Charles gave a speech, to raptourous applause from Mail and Telegraph, and spawned a generation of superstores with plastic doric columns and noddy houses. Yet somehow contemporary design crawled back from oblivion and, shock horror, a fair few people do actually like it, commission it, travel to see it, convert their houses etc just like their forebears did in their time.
Nevertheless you can still find in every suburb with a fairly consistent run of houses that are a bit old with middling to indifferent historical rarity-value people who want their neighbourhood preserved in aspic. Yet travel to any major European cities with neighbourhoods far more precious historically (dare I say it) than Forest Hill, and you will find contemporary buidings that are celebrated and enjoyed.
Regarding Conservation Area 'preserve and enhance' policy this has been interpreted different ways but it is thankfully more common now for planners to take the question of whether the style is 'period' or 'contemporary' out of the equation. In fact in most prime historical sites in London most planners actively discourage imitation architecture because it actually muddies the authenticity of the historical buildings.
The criteria tend to be a) what is being demolished - and demolition of any building that enhances the CA is discouraged b) character of new building in terms of scale, materials etc.
I looked at the cladding material and seems to be mainly opaque glass which is both expensive and high quality. Sadly the perspective views don't come out on the planning docs but a brief look at the architect's website shows a lot of creative ambition. Who knows, the inclusion of a decent architect-designed house in this neighbourhood might even give it the reputation for being 'trendy'.
For centuries, people have built in a style reflecting their time and culture - Elizebethans built as they pleased irrespective of their medieval context, Georgians and Victorians likewise. In the 20th century, with the invention of the mechanical elevator, steel and concrete construction and massive demand for building, a lot of aesthetically challenged buildings got built (together with plenty of very good ones), HRH Charles gave a speech, to raptourous applause from Mail and Telegraph, and spawned a generation of superstores with plastic doric columns and noddy houses. Yet somehow contemporary design crawled back from oblivion and, shock horror, a fair few people do actually like it, commission it, travel to see it, convert their houses etc just like their forebears did in their time.
Nevertheless you can still find in every suburb with a fairly consistent run of houses that are a bit old with middling to indifferent historical rarity-value people who want their neighbourhood preserved in aspic. Yet travel to any major European cities with neighbourhoods far more precious historically (dare I say it) than Forest Hill, and you will find contemporary buidings that are celebrated and enjoyed.
Regarding Conservation Area 'preserve and enhance' policy this has been interpreted different ways but it is thankfully more common now for planners to take the question of whether the style is 'period' or 'contemporary' out of the equation. In fact in most prime historical sites in London most planners actively discourage imitation architecture because it actually muddies the authenticity of the historical buildings.
The criteria tend to be a) what is being demolished - and demolition of any building that enhances the CA is discouraged b) character of new building in terms of scale, materials etc.
I looked at the cladding material and seems to be mainly opaque glass which is both expensive and high quality. Sadly the perspective views don't come out on the planning docs but a brief look at the architect's website shows a lot of creative ambition. Who knows, the inclusion of a decent architect-designed house in this neighbourhood might even give it the reputation for being 'trendy'.
As I hadn't got a clue as to the wherabouts and character of this area I took a walk up there this afternoon. Lambchops - here is the garage to be demolished and replaced. Not a very big loss I think:
Now the proposed development lies between two roads, Redberry Grove and Albion Villas Road.
First looking down Redberry Grove we have 1960's council housing on the right and a somewhat overgrown jumble on the left including two buildings of quite different design. The proposed development is just passed the on on the left:
Moving to Albion Villas road we have even more of a jumble of buildings. Another 1960's council block and a variety of extensions, conservatories et al to the right adjoining the plot.
Finally just behind the council block are two buildings of obvious merit which directly face the development:
So thank you for responding Michael. However I am still confused. Almost anything will surely enhance that particular area? As for preserving, what are we preserving? There are so many styles there, would the character suggests that the best fit is something different to complement the existing ecletic mix?
The plot is a horrible mess. Thankfully out of site of most of us. Why are we trying to prevent development? I really am at a loss on this one. Please respond.
Stuart
Now the proposed development lies between two roads, Redberry Grove and Albion Villas Road.
First looking down Redberry Grove we have 1960's council housing on the right and a somewhat overgrown jumble on the left including two buildings of quite different design. The proposed development is just passed the on on the left:
Moving to Albion Villas road we have even more of a jumble of buildings. Another 1960's council block and a variety of extensions, conservatories et al to the right adjoining the plot.
Finally just behind the council block are two buildings of obvious merit which directly face the development:
So thank you for responding Michael. However I am still confused. Almost anything will surely enhance that particular area? As for preserving, what are we preserving? There are so many styles there, would the character suggests that the best fit is something different to complement the existing ecletic mix?
The plot is a horrible mess. Thankfully out of site of most of us. Why are we trying to prevent development? I really am at a loss on this one. Please respond.
Stuart
I agree with the comments of adrian and stuart. Part of the charm of Sydenham is the dfferent architectural styles existing side by side.
And another thing – I think that 'conservation area' status should mean protecting existing old buildings of architectural mertit from demolition and stopping people spoiling those existing buildings (ie stopping people putting uPVC on old houses etc.) or anything which ruins the integrity of the original building.
It should not mean forcing people to make horrible pastiche buildings. I don't want to live in an place like that. Its not a museum!
And another thing – I think that 'conservation area' status should mean protecting existing old buildings of architectural mertit from demolition and stopping people spoiling those existing buildings (ie stopping people putting uPVC on old houses etc.) or anything which ruins the integrity of the original building.
It should not mean forcing people to make horrible pastiche buildings. I don't want to live in an place like that. Its not a museum!
A new building on a brown field site (that doesn't replace a building of historical interest) is preserving the character of the area more by being true to it's age and contrasting with the surrounding buildings rather than lying about its age.
English heritage often prefer this approach to architecture. New parts of buildings have to look modern and old parts preserved where possible.
Personally, i'd rather a new building look new and contrast with the surroundings with some really stunning modern architecture rather than some half arsed attempt to blend in.
I can't tell from the elevations if this is a stunning piece of architecture or not and I totally agree with Michael about the fantastic extension to the Horniman.
English heritage often prefer this approach to architecture. New parts of buildings have to look modern and old parts preserved where possible.
Personally, i'd rather a new building look new and contrast with the surroundings with some really stunning modern architecture rather than some half arsed attempt to blend in.
I can't tell from the elevations if this is a stunning piece of architecture or not and I totally agree with Michael about the fantastic extension to the Horniman.
And I totally agree with your comments leenewham.
The sad thing is I think the 'objectors' have somewhat shot themselves in the foot here by focussing their objection too much on the style of the building, rather than the other implications of having a 5 bedroom building on a site that was presumably originally a garden with a garage.
The sad thing is I think the 'objectors' have somewhat shot themselves in the foot here by focussing their objection too much on the style of the building, rather than the other implications of having a 5 bedroom building on a site that was presumably originally a garden with a garage.
Robin 419
I completely agree. I myself live in a very green area of Sydenham In fact its the very reason I moved to Sydemnham in the first place. I am lucky enought to have lots of green space surrounding me, unfortunately just ripe for developers to build on. I am on your side – I don't want green space built on. What I'm saying is how you go about preventing that is vital. These arguments about 'style of building' just detract from the much more important question– why build on these precious spaces in the first place.
I completely agree. I myself live in a very green area of Sydenham In fact its the very reason I moved to Sydemnham in the first place. I am lucky enought to have lots of green space surrounding me, unfortunately just ripe for developers to build on. I am on your side – I don't want green space built on. What I'm saying is how you go about preventing that is vital. These arguments about 'style of building' just detract from the much more important question– why build on these precious spaces in the first place.
Please note another thread on this property has been started. To avoid duplication I have closed the other thread and asked for comments to be made here. But you may wish to read the views expressed there before doing so: http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3042
Admin
Admin
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
Admin, can you explain why you closed the other thread, and kept this one open? So far this thread seems ill informed and speculative, whereas the other began with full and coherent explanation for the objections to the application from those who were involved. That seems the best starting point for a discussion of this issue.
It is interesting to hear the variety of views from local residents both in and around the conservation area.
Below I will reproduce my speech from the planning committee, most of which I got to make before I ran out of time.
What I did not do was criticise the design which may well be of good quality, that is not the point in my opinion. The point is whether it really 'preserves and enhances' the conservation area and this site in particular.
Below I will reproduce my speech from the planning committee, most of which I got to make before I ran out of time.
What I did not do was criticise the design which may well be of good quality, that is not the point in my opinion. The point is whether it really 'preserves and enhances' the conservation area and this site in particular.
Thank you for letting me address you on behalf of the 68 people who objected to this planning application. I am the vice-chair of the Forest Hill Society which has around 400 members in and around Forest Hill and this application is also opposed by our neighbours in the Sydenham Society with over 1000 members.
Conservation Area:
This site sits in an important position in the Sydenham Park Conservation Area as it is seen from both Redberry Grove and Albion Villas – particularly from Albion Villas. Every house in both of these streets is a Victorian structure, and although there is a wide variety of Victorian styles – from early Victorian/Georgian style to Victorian Gothic and Arts & Craft, between them these buildings represent a very important period in the development of Forest Hill and Sydenham.
On the other side of 4 Redberry Grove from this proposed development is 3 Redberry Grove, which is a locally listed building, but this is not the only valuable local building whose context should be preserved. In particular 5-6 Albion Villas which was used as the first site of Sydenham Childrens’ Hospital, as well as other valuable local buildings.
Sydenham Park Conservation Area is described in the UDP as: Development took place in stages during the latter half of the 19th century, with a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced housing. Construction is mainly of London stock yellow brick, stuccoed dressings, plaster decorations and slate roofs. The area has a peaceful Gothic revival character and retains a degree of original integrity. It would be a disgrace if we had to add to this character ‘and black glass blocks from 100 years after these original houses’.
Whilst we recognise that the council should encourage ‘innovative’ or ‘contemporary design, even in conservation areas, the council policy URB 16 states that these should specifically ‘enhance or preserve the character of the Area’ and ‘preserves or enhances the Area’s particular architectural or historic character’. This building does not fit into the character of the area in any way, it does not enhance the architectural and historic character, and in no way does it enhance the wider area for anybody beyond the developer.
Paragraph 6.17 of the officer’s report states that the site sits ‘in a limb’ of the conservation area, but this is the nature of the shape of the conservation area which is long and thin. In reality this side of the conservation area is one of the most important parts, with a locally listed building, an historic building, and an area of nature conservation all within sight of this location.
The building itself it designed to a two storey height directly adjacent to the Albion Villa boundary. This will have considerable visual impact on the streetscape and on residents of properties facing directly onto this site, especially considering the slope of the street. This makes a modern building stand out in this part of the conservation area that has been well conserved up to this point in time.
Paragraph 6.23 states that ‘it is unlikely that the proposed house would be seen from Longfield Crescent properties to any significant extent’, from photos I have brought with you will see that the site is clearly visible from the flats and tenants have said how much they value their view over the conservation area. This conservation area is not just for the lucky few who live in large houses, but is valued by many residents of the flats which directly overlook the site, the comments from the local meeting testify to this sense of ownership.
Nature Conservation:
Directly adjacent to the proposed site of development is the Albion Millennium Green, one of the newest areas of nature conservation in the borough, though sadly it is a little overgrown with brambles at present. The proposed development significantly overlooks this secluded public space which is both an area of natural conservation and part of the conservation area. The effect on the views from this space are significant as is overlooking. This is recognised in paragraphs 6.20 – 6.22 of the officer’s report but whilst the report recognises that “it is positioned close to the Millennium Green and will be seen from it as well as overlooking it” we are also told that “not considered that this would create an obtrusive relationship or an overlooking problem in this direction”.
I hope that you will take account that the majority of first floor windows overlook this public space at a distance of 5 metres, and the visual impact this property will have on the views from the Millennium Green, which are already limited by buildings in other areas. Further building directly adjacent to this site will have a detrimental effect on the area as a quiet green space.
Related to the issue of Millennium Green is the issue of wildlife and the effect that a building, boundary walls, and construction work will have on wildlife. The London Wildlife Trust have confirmed that photos taken of tracks some years ago on Albion Villas are from Muntjac Deer – I have the photos with me. These photos are from the 1990s but from noises heard at night it is very possible that these shy animals, the size of dogs, are still present in Millennium Green. There are recorded sightings of Muntjac deer in Sydenham Woods and they are known to spread along railway lines, which are directly adjacent to this site. With the possibility of such rare and shy animals present on the site further assessment is required as to the effect on such animals from garden clearance and construction work.
The pond that was previously in this garden has already gone, so biodiversity has already been reduced on this property.
Flooding:
Concern has been expressed over flooding, particularly from the stream that appears to come above ground between 4 and 5 Albion Villas. Above ground this slowly runs away down the lane towards Millennium Green, but the amount of water in the green suggests that most of this water is unseen. It is this underground water which I understand has led to the collapse of the walls on the boundary of 4 Redberry Grove and the Millennium Green. By reinstating a wall where there is currently a fence, and by removing a certain amount of garden area which acts to absorb the water, there is likely to be adverse effects on neighbouring properties and on the area of nature conservation. To protect the Millennium Green from additional flooding no building should be allowed on uphill boundary of this site.
Summary:
For me there are three major issues with this development:
1) The impact on the character of the conservation area
2) The overlooking of the Millennium Green
3) Lack of a survey of mammals in and around the site
Council policies STR.OS 3, OS 17 , HSG 4d, URB 16 , URB 20
Conservation Area:
This site sits in an important position in the Sydenham Park Conservation Area as it is seen from both Redberry Grove and Albion Villas – particularly from Albion Villas. Every house in both of these streets is a Victorian structure, and although there is a wide variety of Victorian styles – from early Victorian/Georgian style to Victorian Gothic and Arts & Craft, between them these buildings represent a very important period in the development of Forest Hill and Sydenham.
On the other side of 4 Redberry Grove from this proposed development is 3 Redberry Grove, which is a locally listed building, but this is not the only valuable local building whose context should be preserved. In particular 5-6 Albion Villas which was used as the first site of Sydenham Childrens’ Hospital, as well as other valuable local buildings.
Sydenham Park Conservation Area is described in the UDP as: Development took place in stages during the latter half of the 19th century, with a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced housing. Construction is mainly of London stock yellow brick, stuccoed dressings, plaster decorations and slate roofs. The area has a peaceful Gothic revival character and retains a degree of original integrity. It would be a disgrace if we had to add to this character ‘and black glass blocks from 100 years after these original houses’.
Whilst we recognise that the council should encourage ‘innovative’ or ‘contemporary design, even in conservation areas, the council policy URB 16 states that these should specifically ‘enhance or preserve the character of the Area’ and ‘preserves or enhances the Area’s particular architectural or historic character’. This building does not fit into the character of the area in any way, it does not enhance the architectural and historic character, and in no way does it enhance the wider area for anybody beyond the developer.
Paragraph 6.17 of the officer’s report states that the site sits ‘in a limb’ of the conservation area, but this is the nature of the shape of the conservation area which is long and thin. In reality this side of the conservation area is one of the most important parts, with a locally listed building, an historic building, and an area of nature conservation all within sight of this location.
The building itself it designed to a two storey height directly adjacent to the Albion Villa boundary. This will have considerable visual impact on the streetscape and on residents of properties facing directly onto this site, especially considering the slope of the street. This makes a modern building stand out in this part of the conservation area that has been well conserved up to this point in time.
Paragraph 6.23 states that ‘it is unlikely that the proposed house would be seen from Longfield Crescent properties to any significant extent’, from photos I have brought with you will see that the site is clearly visible from the flats and tenants have said how much they value their view over the conservation area. This conservation area is not just for the lucky few who live in large houses, but is valued by many residents of the flats which directly overlook the site, the comments from the local meeting testify to this sense of ownership.
Nature Conservation:
Directly adjacent to the proposed site of development is the Albion Millennium Green, one of the newest areas of nature conservation in the borough, though sadly it is a little overgrown with brambles at present. The proposed development significantly overlooks this secluded public space which is both an area of natural conservation and part of the conservation area. The effect on the views from this space are significant as is overlooking. This is recognised in paragraphs 6.20 – 6.22 of the officer’s report but whilst the report recognises that “it is positioned close to the Millennium Green and will be seen from it as well as overlooking it” we are also told that “not considered that this would create an obtrusive relationship or an overlooking problem in this direction”.
I hope that you will take account that the majority of first floor windows overlook this public space at a distance of 5 metres, and the visual impact this property will have on the views from the Millennium Green, which are already limited by buildings in other areas. Further building directly adjacent to this site will have a detrimental effect on the area as a quiet green space.
Related to the issue of Millennium Green is the issue of wildlife and the effect that a building, boundary walls, and construction work will have on wildlife. The London Wildlife Trust have confirmed that photos taken of tracks some years ago on Albion Villas are from Muntjac Deer – I have the photos with me. These photos are from the 1990s but from noises heard at night it is very possible that these shy animals, the size of dogs, are still present in Millennium Green. There are recorded sightings of Muntjac deer in Sydenham Woods and they are known to spread along railway lines, which are directly adjacent to this site. With the possibility of such rare and shy animals present on the site further assessment is required as to the effect on such animals from garden clearance and construction work.
The pond that was previously in this garden has already gone, so biodiversity has already been reduced on this property.
Flooding:
Concern has been expressed over flooding, particularly from the stream that appears to come above ground between 4 and 5 Albion Villas. Above ground this slowly runs away down the lane towards Millennium Green, but the amount of water in the green suggests that most of this water is unseen. It is this underground water which I understand has led to the collapse of the walls on the boundary of 4 Redberry Grove and the Millennium Green. By reinstating a wall where there is currently a fence, and by removing a certain amount of garden area which acts to absorb the water, there is likely to be adverse effects on neighbouring properties and on the area of nature conservation. To protect the Millennium Green from additional flooding no building should be allowed on uphill boundary of this site.
Summary:
For me there are three major issues with this development:
1) The impact on the character of the conservation area
2) The overlooking of the Millennium Green
3) Lack of a survey of mammals in and around the site
Council policies STR.OS 3, OS 17 , HSG 4d, URB 16 , URB 20
I talked about it in the context of the area, not as an individual design for a building. I think it generally accepted that it is black glass, and block seems to describe the shape quickly, if very slightly derogatory. I am sure many people would describe my 1960s house in far less favourable ways, but I don't live in a conservation area.
It is context that is all important, and it was context that was completely ignored in the discussions at the planning committee. At least people on this forum are willing to discuss the context, unlike the planning committee.
It is context that is all important, and it was context that was completely ignored in the discussions at the planning committee. At least people on this forum are willing to discuss the context, unlike the planning committee.