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.
DESIGN OBJECTIONS
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.
OVERALL DESIGN OBJECTONS
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:
"infill development should have regard to PREVAILING BUILDING LINES.......ROOF PROFILES.......ARCHITECTURAAL COMPOSITIONS INCLUDING PATTERNSAND RHYTHMS AND SET PIECES OF TOWNSCAPE"
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.
TREES
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
