Mr Jim Smith
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 retail uses, D2 club, D1 & B1 use, basement parking provision, improvements to open space. The Environmental Statement can be viewed at the Council Offices or purchased from the agent. (AMENDED APPLICATION) Retaining the Lord Hood PH & new access. (Re-consultation with Ref 05/1228/C). Drawing NOS: Schedule of Drawings revised, Revised Environment Statement 1, 2 & Non-Tech., Planning Statement, Supporting Evidence & Doc. 1 to 4.
I object to the above proposals for several reasons based on both personal and public considerations and will rely to some extent on quotations from my earlier letters as the objections expressed in them still hold.
It will be obvious that among the objections of a personal kind which I have to the proposals in the application, the threat to Number 260 Creek Road, my own habitation, is prime and it seems unnecessary to enlarge on this.
It is with concern not much less acute, (I might say overwhelming), that I apprehend the threat to the adjoining building, Number 258 Creek Road. This for the past 30 years or so has been a storage place for my stock of nearly 100,000 books and which for many years I ran as a bookshop. After all these years of keeping the premises going while they were relatively unprofitable they now offer me considerable opportunities for successful retail business. Consequently I decided that the social mix and economic prospects were such as to make possible the successful establishment of an exhibition art gallery and that is what I have decided to work towards. I look forward with some confidence to running a successful gallery again as I was doing immediately before coming to Greenwich. Having survived all the vicissitudes it would indeed be unacceptable to have these plans disrupted when in sight of realisation.
From the point of view of an occupant of these premises the most obvious concern, quite apart from the absolutely horrendous disruption to one’s life that such a situation imposes, it is almost impossible to imagine another suitable premises offering the considerable benefits both of capacious storage space and potential retail opportunity in attractive and convenient surroundings than these do, even if cost were not an issue.
It is for this reason that my partner and I have unhesitatingly rejected the many offers to purchase, received over the years, starting in 1986 with an offer of £415,000 (we still have the letter) and continuing up to the present.
From the public and communal aspect, there are, I believe, very many cogent considerations concerning the social, environmental and cultural perspectives, (which were I not so directly and personally affected), would claim absolute priority in my response. It seems clear that the impact of the proposals even as they stand at present will be overwhelming on this small enclave. In fact disruptive and unwelcome as far as the local inhabitants are concerned; and no less regrettable for their effect on the potentially attractive and welcoming vista presented to visitors approaching Greenwich from the West.
The overall appearance of the projected development (as shown in the plans) is hardly conducive to the impression that one is entering a site of architectural heritage. This suggests a monolithic and aggressively twenty first century modernistic building such as one might regret to find in an out of town shopping precinct. (I’m sure that it is appreciated that merely applying words such as for example “sensitive” to architectural features does not make them so.
To the west end of Creek Road on the north side between Norway Street and Horseferry Place there is a terrace of attractive but unobtrusive buildings of mellow red brick; though these are Council owned and quite modern in style they are, I believe, in good architectural taste. Any part of the present green approach to Greenwich if it must be built on would, it seems to me, be much more inoffensive and acceptable if built of this sort of material and style, much as the original Georgian/Victorian shops and houses were. The western approach to Greenwich is the only one that appears green and welcoming, let us make the most of it.
In much broader terms, I would like to suggest that any increment in the already exploding urbanisation and residential crowding of the borough of Greenwich makes use of the fact that the borough is very wide ranging and not all of it is either architecturally or historically of the beauty, distinction and importance to the world wide concerns of heritage, as Greenwich Town Centre is. Surely it would make sense, be more beneficial, less contentious (and therefore arouse less opposition) and all together be more appropriate to find brownfield sites further to the east.
I have looked at the revised application, recently submitted; it seems that many of the changes are minor. I must acknowledge that it is gratifying and commendable that the Lord Hood (which is much appreciated as a local feature) has now been reprieved from destruction; both the applicants and the relevant Council personnel are to be commended for this.
However with reference to 258 and 260 Creek Road, it makes it all the harder to understand how either the developers or the local authority can be so reluctant to take account of both 1) the hardship and loss occasioned to the freeholders and 2) the benefit to the architectural environment of 258 (apparently much appreciated locally as evidenced by comments made by signatories to our petition who said they thought that the building was listed).
The retention of these buildings will deprive the developers of very little space and therefore have very little impact on their profit potential. I think it is worth pointing out that it could be said that the essence of brownfield development is the principle of infilling any small available space within the surrounding built environment in such a way as to enhance the benefit to both.
Yours faithfully
David Herbert
Mr Jim Smith
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 retail uses, D2 club, D1 & B1 use, basement parking provision, improvements to open space. The Environmental Statement can be viewed at the Council Offices or purchased from the agent. (AMENDED APPLICATION) Retaining the Lord Hood PH & new access. (Re-consultation with Ref 05/1228/C). Drawing NOS: Schedule of Drawings revised, Revised Environment Statement 1, 2 & Non-Tech., Planning Statement, Supporting Evidence & Doc. 1 to 4.
The applicants have made a number of amendments to their original plan, both major and minor to meet concerns expressed by planning authorities, various interest groups and the local community. In particular it is commendable that they have amended their application to allow for the retention of the Lord Hood Public House as this is an integral and much valued part of the local community.
Despite these various amendments I find that I am still not in a position to support this application because the reasons for my objections, as set out in my previous three letters, still stand. In particular the reasons for my objections are:
1. The proposed development does not meet the requirements of the LBG UDP 2006 in certain important respects which include the following:
Policy D1 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 buildings in the immediate vicinity. 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 sympathetic architecturally to these adjacent buildings and because of it’s similarity to the DLR development on the north side of Creek Road will only compound the mediocre view which this building unfortunately presents.
Policy D20 requires that development proposals do not detract from the setting and proportions of a Listed Building. The retained Comedy Club in particular, and to a certain extent St Alfege school opposite, are both likely to suffer in visual terms from the near proximity of the proposed development.
Policy D1 also requires that a development integrates with existing path and circulation networks and patterns of activity. The proposed development is an extensive one stretching as it does from near the entrance to the Town Centre almost up to the junction with Norman Road. There appear to be only two throughways between Creek Road and Bardsley Lane within the footprint of the development thus cutting off residents of Bardsley House, and others in adjacent residential buildings, from easy access to Creek Road. (This is apart from the loss of amenity occasioned by the deleterious effect of being “blocked in” behind the proposed development.) It should be noted that the proposed development does not attend sufficiently to the requirement under D7 of the LBG UDP 2006 which states that development should be well integrated into existing patterns of pedestrian movement.
Planning Report PDU/1237/01 dated 30 August 2006 from the Greater London Authority refers to the elevations of the proposed development fronting Bardsley Lane and considers that they are currently unacceptable providing a ‘back of house’ feel. Combined with the bin stores and loading bays fronting Bardsley Lane, opposite Bardsley House in particular, the development will not have a positive effect when viewed from the south. In fact it quite seriously reduces the amenity of those living in the residential flats on the south side of the Lane.
Under mu17 of the UDP 2006 it is stated that development should be linked to improvements to openness and landscaping of St Alfege’s Park, which could include limited reconfiguration of open space. Planning Report PDU/1237/01 from the Greater London Authority observes that these matters do not appear to have been adequately addressed by the developers’ application. This is indeed the case. The development does not offer sufficient opening up from the Park through to Creek Road. If the seclusion of the Park and play area is maintained, they will continue to be a focus for anti-social behaviour.
Policy 3D.7 of the London Plan – Realising the value of open space and Policies O8 and O9 of the LBG UDP 2006 all confirm the importance of Open Spaces. Furthermore under Policy 3D.7 of the London Plan it is stated 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.
The proposed development obliterates the only green open space visible on the approach to the Town Centre from the west, destroys the important open link between Creek Road and the adjoining residential area to the south and fails to offer compensation by providing insufficiently for the improvement and opening up of St Alfege’s Park and play area. The requirements of mu17 are not met.
2. The proposed development includes the demolition of 258 & 260 Creek Road.
These properties are owned by my partner and I, owner/occupiers for over thirty years. Unsurprisingly we object to their demolition.
Part of the rationale for demolishing them is no doubt because developers do seem to like a clean sweep razing everything before them, and also probably because of the present condition of 260. In this respect account needs to be taken of the fact that the condition of this building is the result of damage occasioned by the negligence of the London Borough of Greenwich. This has been acknowledged by the Council. After nearly three years and thanks to the recently appointed Interim Insurance Manager Mr. C Martin it looks possible that a conclusion, satisfactory to both parties, can be achieved.
I am not therefore minded to support an application for development which, if accepted in its present form, will result in the loss of property which I have fought hard over three years to rescue from its current condition.
I am therefore objecting to the proposed development because of its unsuitability for the Creek Road/Bardsley Lane site as detailed in my previous 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