Mr David Gittens
Development Control
Greenwich Council
Strategic Planning
Peggy Middleton House
50 Woolwich New Road
Woolwich
London SE18 6HQ
Dear Sir
Re: 05/1222/F/591
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Site: Land at Creek Road/Bardsley Lane Greenwich
Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings & redevelopment to provide 106 residential units, A1/A2/A3 & A4 uses together with Class B1 and d1 uses, a nightclub (sui generis), basement parking provision and improvements to existing open space. Environmental Statement can be viewed at the Council Offices or purchased from the agent. AMENDED APPLICATION(Design Modifications) (and also Ref 05/1228/C. Drawing Nos: Schedule of Drawings revised, Revised Environmental Statement 1, 2 & Non-Tech., Planning Statement, Supporting Evidence & Docs. 1 to 4.
I am again obliged to register my very strong objection to the above (revised) planning application.
The main general objection is to the replacement of a green and pleasant “lead in” to the immensely respected and admired historic buildings of Greenwich, by a rather ugly and clumsy monolithic development which is completely out of keeping with both the character and appearance of Greenwich; (a night club in such a place is surely an absurd anomaly.) Furthermore, the recent additions to the urbanisation of Greenwich are believed by many locally to place undue demands upon the infrastructure and services needed to make them viable. In short, it seems to me wrong, when there is so much space available in other parts of the borough to concentrate so much development in central Greenwich - a world heritage site.
I am of course, now that my mobility is somewhat impaired, more than every dependent on having a business premises adjacent to where I live in which my very large stock of books and other goods can be conveniently accessed. Surely I need say no more except that the planned demolition of these buildings is unnecessary and gratuitous.
I think it’s outrageous that commercial developers could be allowed to claim council support for their intention to sweep aside a long term resident and his livelihood to maximise their own business plans. So once again I ask the council to withhold approval from any plan which includes the demolition of these premises.
Yours faithfully
David Herbert
Mr David Gittens
Development Control
Greenwich Council
Strategic Planning
Peggy Middleton House
50 Woolwich New Road
Woolwich London SE18 6HQ
Dear Sir
Re: 05/1222/F/591
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Site: Land at Creek Road/Bardsley Lane Greenwich
Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings & redevelopment to provide 106 residential units, A1/A2/A3 & A4 uses together with Class B1 and d1 uses, a nightclub (sui generis), basement parking provision and improvements to existing open space. Environmental Statement can be viewed at the Council Offices or purchased from the agent. AMENDED APPLICATION(Design Modifications) (and also Ref 05/1228/C. Drawing Nos: Schedule of Drawings revised, Revised Environmental Statement 1, 2 & Non-Tech., Planning Statement, Supporting Evidence & Docs. 1 to 4.
The above application, which is the fifth by applicants Hyde Housing and Standard Property Investments, shows a number of modifications have been made further to their October 2006 submission. These mainly comprise variations in the domestic units; amount of commercial floor space; level of residents’ parking; setting back of Block B; revising footprint of Block A; setting back of the 3rd floor of Block A; modifications to some of the proposed materials.
These modifications do nothing to change the inescapable fact that the design is fundamentally inappropriate for its setting. Policy D1 of the LBG UDP 2006 states that development proposals should be of a high quality design and will be expected to provide, (amongst other things), a positive relationship with the existing urban context.
Account has not been sufficiently taken of the scale, height, bulk and massing of nearby buildings. The proposed development is in itself overwhelming, disproportionate to its setting and will dwarf some of the buildings in the immediate vicinity. It is not at all sympathetic architecturally to its setting; its emphatically horizontal design features, (which the latest modifications have done nothing to counter), are completely at odds with the verticality of most existing buildings in the vicinity and Town Centre. Particularly unfortunate is the choice, for much of the development, of horizontal bars for the balustrades which only serve to reinforce the vigorous horizontality of the design. In another setting the design might be acceptable, but on the borders of Greenwich Town Centre and the World Heritage Site the overall concept is discordant and inappropriate.
Regrettably, precedents have already been set in Greenwich with approval given to buildings lacking high quality design and/or out of keeping with their setting. Any further downgrading of the built environment would be seriously prejudicial, not only to the Conservation Area and environs, but also Greenwich’s World Heritage Site status. This must be avoided at all costs.
Policy 3D.7 of the London Plan states that Open Spaces provide a valuable resource and focus for local communities, can have a positive effect on the image of areas and provide a respite from the built environment. Indeed they do. The proposed development would obliterate the only green open space visible on the approach to the Town Centre from the west and destroy the important open link between Creek Road and the adjoining residential area to the south. Furthermore, because of its size the amenity of those living in the residential flats to the south of the Lane would be considerably diminished.
The proposed development would result in the demolition of 258 & 260 Creek Road. These properties are owned by my partner and I, owner/occupiers for over thirty years.
I object to the proposed development because of its unsuitability for the Creek Road/Bardsley Lane site as detailed in this and my previous four letters; because it does not meet a number of essential requirements as contained within the Borough’s UDP 2006 and the London Plan and because of the personal loss to my partner and myself.
Yours faithfully
Jeanette Murch
Comments