• Home
  • Forums
  • Planning
  • Mar 2011 : 56-58 Akerman Road (Conversion of hostel to flats plus build of three new 3 storey houses) LAMBETH 11/00251/RG3

Mar 2011 : 56-58 Akerman Road (Conversion of hostel to flats plus build of three new 3 storey houses) LAMBETH 11/00251/RG3

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • 14 Mar 2011 9:34 PM
    Message # 545770
    Deleted user
    Conversion of existing hostel to provide 4 self contained units (Use Class C3), involving the erection of two storey rear/side extension at lower ground and ground floor levels at 56 Akerman Road, replacement of existing window with door on the rear elevation at lower ground floor level and the formation of a balcony at first floor level on the rear elevation. Demolition of existing side extension and part of garden wall. Internal alterations to existing 2 self contained units at 58 Akerman Road. Erection of 3 x 3-storey houses on vacant land adjoining 56 Akerman Road. Provision of refuse storage and cycle storage.
  • 14 Mar 2011 9:53 PM
    Reply # 545787 on 545770
    Deleted user
    Neighbour and other consultations close 25th March 2011
  • 15 Mar 2011 12:42 PM
    Reply # 546175 on 545770
    Deleted user
    Although no documents were available online when this was initially posted at the Lambeth site on 5thMrch, they are now available at:


    and then searching under application


    Last modified: 15 Mar 2011 12:42 PM | Deleted user
  • 23 Mar 2011 9:08 AM
    Reply # 551654 on 545770
    Deleted user
    The MCA has objected to the application as follows:

    The proposed development is within the Conservation Area and the Minet Conservation Association (MCA) strongly objects on behalf of our members, many of whom have contacted us raising concerns which we share.

    The MCA does NOT object to the principle of conversion of the existing hostel nor to the development of the land to replace housing stock that previously stood there.

    The MCA DOES object to the proposal as the design significantly impacts and detracts from the conservation area, and specifically is completely inappropriate in the context of he existing properties on either side. Indeed, it's fair to say that when the conservation area was established it was in part to protect the area from infill design of a type that does not reflect its surroundings, and hence this proposal strikes at the heart of the principles underpinning the conservation area.

    The MCA further objects based on the developer's proposal to ignore the key replanting recommendations contained within their own Arboricultural Report.


    All of our objections concern the design of the infill properties 54-58 Akerman Road. The design seeks to fit 3-storey properties into a total height equal to that of the existing 3-story properties to the right but seeks to do so without incurring the cost or inconvenience of digging down. This has multiple negative impacts:
    - none of the floor lines match the neighbouring properties (on either side)
    - none of the window lines match the neighbouring properties
    - the entrances to the proposed properties do not follow the established line of the neighbouring properties (entry on a raised ground floor level)
    - the roof pitch does not match the neighbouring property

    The combination of these impacts of the decision to build up from existing ground level is that he proposed houses bear no relation to the design principles of their neighbours whatsoever.

    Having covered our objection to the design principles, let me turn to our objection to the design details.

    The selection of window sizes and shapes is at odds with the surrounding properties and does nothing to reflect their presence.

    and the use of both:
    - sliding wooden shutters and
    - flat, metal roofed, wooden faced front porch/storage/entrances
    as key features of the front elevation design are inappropriate to the street-scape.


    The developer's own design statement includes, but then does nothing to reflect, these issues. In section 3 it includes policy on conservation are development and states that:


    In Section 9 the developer optimistically suggests that the development does exactly this, but it is he MCA's position that this development blatantly contravenes all of those requirements.

    Indeed, in section 10 of the Design Statement, the developer claims to have created "strong horizontal lines which emphasise existing bay windows, the existing front steps and the prominence of the upper ground floor in the adjoining terrace".

    The MCA does not agree. For example, setting the height of a front facing, metal flat roofed entrance feature to be the same as the top of the bay window on the adjoining property does not do enough to reflect this requirement.


    Finally turning to the issue of trees. Whilst the MCA would prefer not to see any trees removed, we recognise that this my be necessary for the development to take place. We do object however to the removal of the trees in front of the properties given that the Arboricultural recomendations recommend their replacement with birch trees, but the developer is instead ignoring that and proposing to plant crab apple trees to the front elevation. This is inappropriate and contrary to the Arboricultural report. The MCA accepts however the full recommendations of the Arboricultural Report.

    In conclusion, the MCA objects to the application and believes that significant design changes are required to this proposal before it can met the requirements of the conservation area.

    23rd March 2011
  • 27 Mar 2011 5:58 PM
    Reply # 555324 on 545770
    Deleted user
    I am aware that several neighbours of the development have also objected. I'll keep an eye on this application as it passes through the process. It's likely it will be elevated to a committee decision as a result of multiple objections of a serious note.
  • 08 May 2011 12:53 PM
    Reply # 586620 on 545770
    Deleted user
    Have written to the case officer today to enquire what the decision making process will be given he number of objections.

    Dear Ms Smithson

    Could you please advise what he decision process for this application will be. I understand than the MCA objection is only one of a number of objections to the application, and hence would liek tobe able to inform our members of the cecision process, and in particular if and when it may be considered by committee.

    Thanks and regards

    Jonathan Moore
    Minet Conservation Association
  • 09 May 2011 7:31 PM
    Reply # 587435 on 545770
    Deleted user
    Confirmation that it will go to committee (if the recommendation is to approve)....

    Dear Mr Moore,

    Many thanks for your e-mail.  The case is to be determined at committee
    if recommended for approval. 

    A letter will be sent to all respondents to the consultation to advise
    them in advance of the date of committee.

    Kind regards,

    Ruth Smithson
  • 15 May 2011 12:37 PM
    Reply # 591541 on 545770
    Deleted user
    It seems this is to be considered at committee on 24th May 2011.
    All interested parties please let me know so that we can coordinate our submission (we will get a 5 minute opportunity to object in the meeting).

  • 15 May 2011 12:57 PM
    Reply # 591553 on 545770
    Deleted user
    For the Committee Meeting on 24th May:

    Final Reports Deadline
    11 May
    Agenda Publication Deadline
    13 May
    Submission of Additional Representations
    19 May
    Register to Speak Deadline (12 noon)
    23 May
    Circulate Draft Minutes
    31 May
    Publish Minutes Deadline
    2 June
    Date of meeting
    24 May

  • 16 May 2011 7:04 PM
    Reply # 592472 on 545770
    Deleted user
    Worryingly the recommendation is to APPROVE this application. We will need to fight this at the Committee Meeting on May 24th.
<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 

© Copyright

Minet Hub 
Minet Conservation Association

Powered by Wild Apricot. Try our all-in-one platform for easy membership management