Holmewood Neighbourhood Association

c/o 44 Holmewood Road, London, SW2 3RR 

 

 

Lambeth Planning

First Floor

Acre House

10 Acre Lane

London

SW2

 

14 February 2003

 

Dear Lambeth Planning,

 

Planning application DC/0203354FUL/FDW

 

I write as Chair of the Holmewood Neighbourhood Association on behalf of a number of residents who have over the years taken a keen interest in the Orchard Centre and continue to ask me if there is any news whenever they see me. I also write on my own behalf as a Lambeth ratepayer of about 14 years standing.

 

I am sad that Lambeth should see fit to try again to sell off this important site. When it first closed I began a campaign to get it used for community use to which I received little response. I worked with the Lambeth Healthy Living Centre workgroup which had informally adopted the site as the focus for its bid. Due to bureaucratic toing and froing a bid was never submitted for a Healthy Living Centre. Since then I have been several times assured by the Education Property Services that the intention was to return it to Education use.

 

I am disappointed that neither I nor the local councillors knew anything about the plan to sell it off until the planning application notice appeared. I note in Lambeth’s ‘our vision’ document that the aims include ‘to make the borough a better place to live, visit and work’. It seems that they are intent in selling off every asset that does not move to be converted into living space even at the expense of amenities and often workplaces for those who already live there. The document places great emphasis on ‘consultation’. We were not consulted despite having expressed interest in forming a ‘partnership’ to develop this site (originally in conjunction with the Tramshed, and Church Hall sites, for community benefit.

 

I write to object to the proposal to demolish part of the Orchard Centre, wall in the listed Pavilion Classrooms and create 15 dwellings. The objections are on the following grounds:

1.      SELLING THE ORCHARD CENTRE: That Lambeth should not be selling off this unique site which is a haven of tranquillity and sanity in heart of a busy borough. It should be putting it to educational and community use for which it is uniquely well suited. There are local people who have been mobilising for community and educational use ever since the Educations Support Unit for children excluded from normal schools was closed in 1998 (not for lack of need but because Lambeth withdrew the funding). Once the buildings were listed in 1999 Lambeth Education department told me that they wanted to use it for ‘educational purposes’ again. After a brief episode of squatting in 1999 For the last 4 years it has lain empty and deteriorating, earning nothing, benefiting no-one and costing the ratepayers in excess of £80,000 per year in security. This could have paid for restoration and the building could have been let to generate revenue. There are many local people who are interested in developing projects within the site that would keep it open to the community. These include ‘Sure Start’ for 0-4 year olds who were interested in the site but could not get their funding together in the short time frame Lambeth was demanding (after 3 years of wait why the rush?); the Conscious Living Foundation, created specifically to develop a demonstration site for eco-friendly living; local people wishing to develop a programme of ante-natal support and education such as breast feeding counselling, mother and baby yoga, hypnotherapy, complementary therapies. There is an ongoing partnership with the Community Zone in Palace Road to help make something happen. There is room for any amount of mother and toddler groups, support groups, therapy centres, in this wonderful site which is secure, and a therapy in itself.

2.      RUINING THE SITE AND THE LISTED BUILDINGS: Lambeth should not be breaking up this site and ‘enclosing’ the listed buildings. They were listed because as an Open Air School they were a landmark in the development of educational thinking and school architecture. (Many of these lessons have been forgotten as can be seen by looking at the more recent buildings on the site itself.) In a letter to the architects of 6^th September 2002 Lambeth Planning Officers write: ‘The Arcadian setting of the [listed] buildings is an integral part of the character of the site and of any interpretation of the buildings’ historic and architectural significance. Consequently, it is vital that the integrity of the buildings within this open and green setting is preserved.’ I would agree with this wholeheartedly. The Open Air School movement sought to treat the education of the child holistically. For us to learn from this  these buildings cannot be divorced from their setting. ie the whole site of the Open Air School. Hiving off a large part of it and walling in the chalet class-rooms removes their vital context. It also makes them no longer viable as education buildings as they will no longer have the necessary infrastructure such as offices, adequate toilets, a hard play area, a green house, a secure room for internet equipment, a kitchen and dining area..

3.      TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: The development is another ‘gated community’ with all it’s socially devisive implications. It does not form part of the local community but becomes an enclave for the affluent.

4.      LOCAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT: The development will increase density in an area that already exceeds the UDP recommended level. It will increase traffic on Cotherstone Road, already narrow and part of a rat-run. During a traffic survey 2 years ago the top speed on this road was logged as 48mph. The area is part of Lambeth’s pilot HOME ZONE which is meant to reduce the impact of traffic. This will only increase it. Cotherstone Road suffers parking problems with overspill from Rush Common Mews which this will only add to. The entrance is almost opposite Christchurch Primary School. This will only worsen an already fraught and dangerous environment. Cotherstone Road has borne the brunt of being the entrance to building site for 2 years. This is set to continue if this development is given the go ahead.

5.      PLANNING ISSUES: There are a number of planning questions I have about the development itself.

a)      I note that the developers have managed to get a change of use to B1 ‘office use’ (how?) and propose a mixed D1 (education) and B1 use. But they refer to the non residential site as the ‘commercial site’ and talk specifically of ‘ease of marketing’. I would contend that they are not really interested educational and community use and that these users will never be able to afford the commercial rents that a private landlord will inevitably charge. It will be lost to Lambeth ratepayers and the general public for ever and become an architects office or something similar.

b)      Lambeth has accepted the planning gain of restoring the listed buildings as a reason for lowering the 50% affordable housing quota. It even suggested to the applicant that this might be an argument that the planner might use to get this quota reduced. The planner asked that the affordable housing should be for co-ownership or key workers thus admitting a degree of exclusivity and social selection.

c)      the architect use the phrase ‘disused’ several times as if to suggest that the site is derelict and there is no use for it. It is disused because Lambeth took it out of use and has never made any effort to get it back into community use. The development of 6 flats is stated to be ‘by’ or ‘at the rear of’ the ‘disused playing courts’. In fact it is right on top of the perfectly serviceable playing court which would be an important asset to any educational use of the buildings.

d)      The planning application makes no specific mention of a purpose built kitchen/dining hall relegating it to the status of ‘out-building’ which will be demolished.

e)      the block of 6 flats faces West towards the new development currently being built on the rear of the Pinewood Motors site. There is a stated distance of 17.5m between the two buildings. The UDP specifically states that there should be a gap of 20m between buildings if they are 2 storey or 25m if they are 3 storey which is the case here especially if there are windows of living rooms over looking which would also be the case here.

 

Having read the planning application file exhaustively, I would like to praise the thoroughness of the planning officers in dealing with the architects, pulling them up on a large number of points from poor design, to materials, to insisting on an affordable housing component. They have won very significant concessions from the architects.

 

But this should not distract from the main point that the whole development is misguided, short sighted and against the wishes of residents/ratepayers. Please refuse permission to ruin this unique and valuable site (of which the listed buildings are only a component) and remove it from community use forever.

 

A petition is being prepared which will be presented at the planning meeting.

 

Sarah Rutherford at the Gardens and Parks division of English Heritage has asked me to let you know that they are seriously considering listing the whole garden site. They will move on this in the next couple of weeks.

 

Additionally I would note that in Dunlop Heywood and Lorenz very glossy marketing for the site they have marked the stable block as listed when it is not and missed off one of the listed classrooms.

 

I would urge the Planning Department and Planning Committee, Education Property Services, the Education department, the Regeneration department  to work together with a very willing and proactive local community to save this wonderful, theraputic, holistic, historically important site WHOLE for the benefit of Lambeth residents.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Duncan Law

(Chair of the Holmewood Neighbourhood Association)