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 An application was withdrawn for a new property on the land of no.21 Hindmans Road as the planning department informed us that the proposals would be recommended for refusal.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.

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.