Golders Green Station Draft Planning Brief
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Golders Green Station Draft Planning Brief Response to the Consultation by The Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust. May 2017 I am writing on behalf of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust to comment on the Golders Green Station Draft Planning Brief. The Trust welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the process of developing the brief and hopes that its comments are helpful. The Trust The Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust’s principal object is: “To do all things possible in order to maintain and preserve the present character and amenities of the Suburb.” The Trust operates a Scheme of Management approved by the High Court in 1974 under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. This enables it to act as landlord in controlling changes to the buildings and landscapes of the Suburb for the benefit of residents and visitors. Hampstead Garden Suburb contains over 5000 properties set over approximately 800 acres. It was developed to a formal plan by Raymond Unwin between 1907 and 1938. The Suburb is a heritage asset of international importance. It was built to high standards of architecture and it is a celebrated example of enlightened town planning. In 1968 the Suburb was designated a Conservation Area. There are 742 buildings and groups of buildings in the Suburb that are statutorily listed. Many more are included in Barnet’s local list. The comments set out below are made from the point of view of the Trust’s role in protecting the character and amenity of the Suburb. THE MAIN ISSUES OF CONCERN FOR THE TRUST ARE - The impact of the suggested tall building above the Underground Station on the setting of the conservation area, on nearby listed buildings and registered landscapes, on the amenity of Suburb residents and on views from the Heath Extension and the Suburb. Inaccuracies in the maps which do not identify correctly the heritage assets in the area. The impossibility of accessing Site B from Rotherwick Road or Corringham Court. The undesirability of using the existing vehicular access off Rotherwick Road to access Site B. The potential adverse impact on the residential amenity of Hampstead Garden Suburb residents by the development of Site B. 1 The brief’s objectives as set out in Para. 1.4 are sensible. There are clearly opportunities to improve the bus and underground stations and the public realm at the centre of Golders Green. These improvements would be welcomed. However, when setting out the possible nature of any future development, the planning brief misses some important issues. The brief claims to have identified opportunities and constraints (Para. 1.1.3). There are some constraints that have not been identified and some examples where the nature of the constraint has been underplayed. There are some areas where opportunities are put forward that cannot be realised, such as suggested new vehicular entrances to Site B from Rotherwick Road or Corringham Court (Para. 6.2.6). Specific Comments on the Document Page 5. Fig. 2. This map is unclear. There is no key. If the buildings shaded in red are to be identified as statutorily listed, the map does not include all such houses in Rotherwick Road. This should be corrected. Page 13. Fig. 10. Identified Heritage Assets This map is unclear. The map should identify the area/extent of the individual heritage assets nearby, rather than just pinpointing them. In doing this, the extent of these assets would be clearer. The maps produced for HGS Conservation Area Character Appraisal are a good example of how this might be done (see appendix A). The Conservation Area boundaries should be added. Locally listed buildings in HGSCA are not shown. These need to be added. Golders Green Crematorium is a Grade 1 Registered Landscape (List entry No. 1001575). This should be acknowledged on the map and in the text. Views out from this landscape towards the brief site should be considered in any proposals. The text should also refer to Golders Green Crematorium as a Registered Landscape. It should be stated clearly in the text that Hampstead Garden Suburb is a heritage asset of international significance and that the protection of its character and setting must be a major consideration in any development proposals for the brief site. Page 14. Para. 2.4.4 Streets identified as “surrounding Site B” should be extended to include Hampstead Way, Heath Close, Waterlow Court and Reynolds Close. All would be impacted upon should this site be developed. 2 Page 15. Views and Vistas. This section needs to acknowledge the importance of views from the Suburb and from the Heath Extension. Any tall building on Sites A or B would impact on these views. (See comments under section 6.3 below). View north across the Heath Extension towards Central Square. Page 20. Fig.19 Heritage and Conservation This map is too tightly drawn to be of much value. A more widely drawn map is needed with further heritage constraints identified (See comments on Map, Fig. 10 above). Locally listed buildings should be added to the map. Views from the Heath Extension, the HGSCA and Golders Green Crematorium should be identified as constraints. A proper analysis of these views, and of the potential impact of a tall building on these views, should be insisted on as part of any planning application for the site. Some sort of analysis of these views should be included in the brief in order to understand the potential impact of a tall building. The text in Para. 3.1.3 should state that “any development should not impact on views from the Heath Extension, the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area or Golders Green Crematorium.” Page 34. Section 6.0 Preferred Approach to Development – Site A Para. 6.1.6 The reference to the northern portion of the site being “able to accommodate greater mass and building height compared to that of the southern boundary…” is of concern. This could impact on the amenity of residents living in Rotherwick Road and on the setting of the listed and locally listed buildings along this boundary. It should be made clear in the brief that such an impact would have to be very carefully considered in any development proposals. 3 Page 38. Section 6.2 Site B The Trust has concerns about the principle of developing this site and the impact such development may have on the amenity of residents of the Suburb. Para. 6.2.3 The brief states that “there may be an opportunity for higher buildings adjacent to the Underground Station.” Reference needs to be made here to the potential impacts on views from the Suburb and the Heath Extension should a taller building be considered. Para. 6.2.6 This states that a vehicular access could be provided on Rotherwick Road or via Corringham Court. This would require significant changes to land controlled by the Trust, including the possible demolition of Suburb properties, which the Trust would find unacceptable and would not be able to approve. This reference must be omitted from the brief. Vehicular access to serve such a large site using the existing access road on the Finchley Road/Rotherwick Road junction would have a seriously detrimental impact on residents in some houses on Rotherwick Road. It is not easy to see how a second busy road junction could be planned adjacent to the turn into Rotherwick Road. This reference to vehicular access should be omitted from the brief. Page 40. Section 6.3 Site A and B Para. 6.3.1 Because of the height of the railway lines above street level, any development above the Underground Station would have to start four floors above street level before any value could be created from new floorspace. This would suggest that, in order to be viable, any development over the station would have to be a significantly tall building. Because of the detrimental impact that such a tall building would have, the Trust would like the brief to make clear that any opportunities for construction above the Underground station would be limited. It should be possible to deliver considerable infrastructure enhancements without adding a tall building over the station. Para 6.3.5 This states that “there may be scope for a tall building as part of any comprehensive redevelopment that delivers significant town centre benefits and infrastructure enhancements…” The argument that the benefits of the creation of a Town Square could possibly justify a tall building over the station does not add up. As the brief makes clear, the bus station is to remain, and the operational capacity of bus station is likely to be increased. There is little possibility of creating a usable, meaningful public space at ground level as the space will still have to function as a bus station. Any open space would be largely occupied by moving and parked busses - not the sort of pedestrian-friendly square that would benefit the residents of and visitors to Golders Green. The reference to the possibility of a tall building seems to be incompatible with the policies set out in the Brief. For instance - 4 Page 7. Para 1.4 Objectives “A sustainable mixed use development which respects and enhances the distinctive historic environment of Golders Green.” One of the distinctive characteristics in this area of Golders Green is the remarkable consistency in the height of buildings. Page 24. Para. 4.1.13 The London Plan Policy 7.4 – Local Character. “..development should have regard to the form, function, and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings.” Page 25. Para. 4.1.14 Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology.