Cressingham Gardens Summary Report March 2015 A3 Format Document Status: DRAFT

Cressingham Gardens Summary report March 2015 A3 format document Status: DRAFT

Karthaus Design | RIBA Client Advisers with Ian Sayer & Co. Cressingham Gardens Summary report Contents Executive Summary page 3

1. Summary of the options pages 4-11

2. Existing site pages 12-16

3. Introductory workshop pages 17-18

4. Development envelopes pages 19-27

5. Development cost estimates pages 28-31

6. Additional information pages 32-41

Contacts page 42

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 2 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report Executive Summary This report draws together the work carried out by Karthaus Design at Cressingham Gardens since our original commission in September 2013. Our brief was to support the Council’s consultants Social Life in a series of deliberative workshops to explore possible options for the future of the estate.

Meetings were held with planning officers to establish a realistically achievable development volume and some key principles that development should follow. In accordance with our detailed brief, a series of ‘massing envelopes’ or ‘volumes’ of development was produced to show different scales of redevelopment possible on the estate, from refurbishment and minimal ‘infill’ through to a full demolition and redevelopment. These massing envelopes were intended to enable a high-level discussion and testing of the future options for the estate, together with the residents prior to the commencement of a design process. On conclusion of this work and a preferred option being identified, the outcome would be the basis for a design brief for the estate to be progressed by a design team yet to be appointed by the Council.

Accompanying our massing studies, indicative floor areas and schedules of accommodation were produced using a generic mix of housing types and sizes in order to compare like with like. Some lllustrations were produced to show how the massing envelopes could be designed.

At the outset it became clear that a good understanding of the level and cost of refurbishment required to bring the existing homes up to the Lambeth Housing Standard as well as the Council’s priority for delivery of additional new housing was necessary in order for the workshops to be able to deliberate on the balance of new development versus refurbishment. Surveys were commissioned by the Council and cost estimates produced, however an agreed scope of refurbishment work was not reached in sufficient time to inform the workshops. The workshops therefore proceeded in a more conventional format, sharing the information with residents as it was being developed. Resident representatives joined the professional project team and attended team meetings and this became the forum for deliberation of the options.

This report contains all the information produced during this process and presented to the residents. The information is presented in order to enable interpretation, rather than the order in which it was produced and publicly presented.

The first section (1. Summary of the options) shows the site boundary plan, followed by ‘zoning’ diagrams showing how each part of the estate would be affected in each of the options. Park View, a privately owned ‘finger’ of land has been identified as a possible redevelopment site as it greatly improves the opportunities for redevelopment within option 4. This potential has not been explored in any detail in this commission and the Council have advised that they are consulting with the residents and owners of Park View.

More detailed information looking at the existing site, the initial mapping work and each of the options is contained in the following sections

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 3 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report 1. Summary of the options The following pages show ‘zoning’ plans as summaries of each of the options developed during this commission. These plans show how each area of the estate would be affected in each of the options. More detail on each of the options is contained in the following sections of this report.

CROSBY WALK

CROSBY WAY

SCARLETTE MANOR

LONGFORD WALK CHANDLER’S WAY

PARK VIEW

ALL HOMES REFURBISHED PAPWORTH WAY

BODLEY MANOR HARDEL WALK

UPGROVE MANOR

ROPER’S WALK

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 6 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Option 2: infill and partial redevelopment

REDEVELOPMENT (DEMOLITION AND NEW BUILD)

CROSBY WALK

CROSBY WAY

SCARLETTE MANOR

LONGFORD WALK CHANDLER’S WAY

PARK VIEW

INFILL DEVELOPMENT ALL REMAINING HOMES REFURBISHED PAPWORTH WAY

BODLEY MANOR HARDEL WALK

UPGROVE MANOR

ROPER’S WALK

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 7 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Option 3: infill and partial redevelopment

REDEVELOPMENT (DEMOLITION AND NEW BUILD)

CROSBY WALK

CROSBY WAY

SCARLETTE MANOR

LONGFORD WALK CHANDLER’S WAY

PARK VIEW REDEVELOPMENT (DEMOLITION AND NEW BUILD) ALL REMAINING HOMES REFURBISHED PAPWORTH WAY INFILL DEVELOPMENT

BODLEY MANOR HARDEL WALK

UPGROVE MANOR

ROPER’S WALK

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 8 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Option 4: infill and partial redevelopment

REDEVELOPMENT (DEMOLITION AND NEW BUILD)

CROSBY WALK

CROSBY WAY

SCARLETTE MANOR

LONGFORD WALK CHANDLER’S WAY

PARK VIEW Possible additional redevelopment area ALL REMAINING HOMES REFURBISHED PAPWORTH WAY INFILL DEVELOPMENT

BODLEY MANOR HARDEL WALK

UPGROVE MANOR

ROPER’S WALK

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 9 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Option 5: full redevelopment

CROSBY WALK

CROSBY WAY

SCARLETTE MANOR

LONGFORD WALK CHANDLER’S WAY

PARK VIEW Possible additional REDEVELOPMENT redevelopment area (DEMOLITION AND NEW BUILD)

PAPWORTH WAY

BODLEY MANOR HARDEL WALK

UPGROVE MANOR

ROPER’S WALK

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 10 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report 2. Existing site This section describes the existing site in outline and highlights some of the key issues and constraints relevant to redevelopment. This work was undertaken to an appropriate level to support a massing study, intended for resident workshops and a full urban analysis will be required as the first stage of any future design process.

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 11 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Existing site Key constraints and issues

An outline understanding of the character of the estate was developed Brockwell Park conservation area includes the whole of the park, but also through a series of site visits, some historial research, meetings with local extends into the boundary of the estate, to include the mounds landscaped residents including a mapping exercise and through the construction of a area. A large water main, crossing the park, also crosses through the 1:250 scale model. A full urban analysis will be required as the first stage of estate. There are numerous routes through the estate from Tulse Hill to the design work once a preferred option has been identified. park, which may be recognised as rights of way and there is evidence of easements in relation to adjoining sites. Land Registry information has not The site is located at the southwesterly corner of Brockwell Park, near the been reviewed as part of this work. junction of Tulse Hill and Trinity Rise. This is the highest point surrounding the park and the site benefits from clear views both to and from the park. The character of the surrounding townscape is mixed. Tulse Hill estate, The site contains numerous trees, though the highest quality trees are along dating from the 1930’s comprises medium-rise housing blocks to the the site boundary rather than within it. The site slopes up from north to west of Tulse Hill and northwest of the site. Two-storey semi-detached south quite steeply and is surrounded by relatively low-rise housing, mainly houses from the 1930’s onwards line the western side of Tulse Hill road. 20th century to the north and west and 19th Century to the east. More Immediately north of the site, 3 and 4 storey modern developments (1990’s detailed site information is included on the following pages. onwards) face onto Brockwell park and to the east the park is faced onto by 3-storey Victorian terraced housing. The Holy Trinity Church spire marks the top of the hill and the junction between Tulse Hill and Trinity Rise. The resulting character is therefore neither urban, outer urban, nor suburban, Estate design and condition but a mixture of all three. Taller, denser buildings (Tulse Hill Estate) at the foot of and partway up Tulse Hill give way to lower height and lower density Cressingham Gardens was designed by Lambeth Council’s architects semi-detached villas, then 3-storey housing blocks with tall pitched roofs department, led by Ted Hollamby and built between 1967 and 1979. The immediately opposite the site. layout of the estate responds quite specifically to the site, with a series of ‘walks’ and ‘ways’ creating perpendicular routes from Tulse Hill through to The PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) rating is also mixed, being the park. Low-rise housing (1-4 storeys) is arranged tightly along the walks relatively high at the crossroads (level 5) but rapidly dropping to level 2 down and ways which are pedestrian only and the estate roads run around the Tulse Hill. perimeter. The buildings are ‘stepped’ into the hillside with semi-basement carparks beneath the larger blocks. The Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in the London Plan relates PTAL and context to density by means of a matrix. This does not The original estate plans do not include the northern end of the site (Crosby give a clear guidance for Cressingham, as the situation is so mixed, however Walk and Crosby Way) and it is understood that this was acquired at a it is reasonable to interpret the matrix as supporting a medium density later date. The buildings are a mixture of sizes and are often stepped in of housing on the site, whilst the current density (approx. 260 habitable section, with some homes having a clerestorey glazing detail and a sloped rooms per hectare) would be considered medium-low. A more detailed ceiling. Balconies are arranged overlooking some of the walkways, creating study on the density potential for Cressingham is included in the additional an intimate setting. The structure is a mixture of concrete frame and information section of this report, giving a guidance target density of around brickwork, with flat or low-pitched roofs. Many gutters are concealed and 375 habitable rooms per hectare for any new build scheme. It should be rainwater goods appear to be smaller than modern standards. Most of noted that this is not a precise guide and that the actual density achievable the glazing has been replaced with uPVC double glazing and some roofs will be highly dependent on the design of the buildings in response to the have been replaced: some in standing seam metal and others in roofing surrounding context. Very roughly speaking, the density guidance suggests felt. There is also a community centre on the site: the Rotunda, which is a that an increase in density of 50% additional to the existing should be single storey, round brick building with a timber roof; and a site management supported in policy terms on the site, subject to design. office. A landscaped amenity area is located in the middle of the site and adjacent to the park, known as ‘the Mounds’. The estate has been Meetings were held with planning officers, including the conservation officer subject to many repairs over the years and is clearly suffering from various and the principle described above was supported, providing that the existing physical problems. A full external conditions survey was undertaken by Tall ‘character’ of the estate itself could be retained in any new scheme. In engineers which identified many issues and proposals for remedial works. particular, new buildings following the orientation of the existing would be welcomed in planning terms in order to retain the views to and from the park and the landscaped ‘mounds’ area should be protected, with buildings stepping down to its edge. Heights of buildings could be increased by a few storeys away from the edges of the estate and infill development could be achieved if sensitive to the existing buildings. Articulation of the buildings, through stepping of rooflines and careful design of the elevations and plans would all help to ensure that new development was sensitive to the existing, thus allowing additional density on the site.

The London Housing SPG also states that north-facing single-aspect housing should be avoided wherever possible. Additionally at the time of this work, the Council were in the process of adopting provisions within the Local Development Framework to avoid any single-aspect housing wherever possible. This is considered as emerging policy in the context of this commission for Cressingham.

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 12 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Original estate plans document

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 13 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Site context photos

View of Cressingham Gardens from Brockwell Park (winter)

New development overlooking Crosby Walk Petrol filling station to the north of the site

VIiew south up Tulse Hill, approximately halfway along the site boundary, with 2-storey ‘villas’ opposite

VIiew south up Tulse Hill, further south, with 3-storey apartment blocks opposite

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 14 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Site photos

From left to right: vacant properties on Crosby Way, view along Crosby Walk, View of the Church spire from the south end of the estate.

From left to right: easement from adjacent site, view along Upgrove Manor, low-rise housing surrounding the Mounds

From left to right: view of Crosby Way from Brockwell Park, view along Scarlette Manor

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 15 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Issues and constraints plan Key

1 storey

2 storeys

2 storeys + roof / 3 storeys

3 storeys + roof / 4 storeys

4 storeys + roof / 5 storeys

5 storeys + roof / 6 storeys

Landmark

Thames Water Main approximate route

PTAL rating: 2

Brockwell Park Conservation Area

Tulse Hill

PTAL rating: 3

CONTEXT & KEY CONSTRAINTS PLAN PTAL rating: 5 Cressingham Gardens for London Borough of Lambeth Trinity Rise Date: 28.01.14 Drawing no. CG/EX01 Revision: - Scale: 1:1250@A3 Status: issued

Karthaus Design RIBA Client Design Advisors [email protected] | ww.Karthaus.co.uk

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 16 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report 3. Introductory workshop The first workshop, held in October 2013 was an exhibition of the door-to-door research carried out by Social Life and to begin a discussion about the physical environment of Cressngham Gardens. A mapping process was carried out through discussion with residents to identify aspects of the estate that people valued and things that needed improving.

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 17 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Above and right: Images from the introductory workshop

Mapping exercise

Together with the preceding work by Social Life, the mapping process helped to gain an understanding of aspects of the estate that work well and those that don’t. The estate is characterised by good neighbourliness and close community networks, that are centred around each of the walks and ways. Many residents strongly value this, though some, particularly children said they found it intimidating. The estate is generally very safe and parents are happy to let their children play freely, though the area to the south of Hardel Walk has been a location for some crime and intimidation in the past. General maintenance and upkeep of both the common areas and the homes are repeatedly raised as the most problematic issues affecting people’s lives. Accessibility for the disabled is not well catered for, depending on where people live in the estate. Papworth Way is considered by many to be a poorly- designed part of the estate due to the blank wall on the adjacent private property and the configuration of the road and homes. Crosby Way includes some long term voids and is generally in poor condition. Some residents have lived on the estate since it was first built and many have lived here for decades and have fond memories associated with the place. Everybody values the proximity to the park and the views. A full list of the comments recorded on the map is contained in the additional information chapter.

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 18 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report 4. Development envelopes Our brief was to carry out a series of massing studies to enable residents and the Council to hold a discussion about what the right level of development for the estate would be in order to increase the amount of housing and to reduce the cost of refurbishing existing properties. This brief was further clarified to provide for five separate, incremental options, from a full refurbishment only, through stages of infill and partial redevelopment to a full redevelopment scheme. Bearing in mind the planning constraints and advice, a maximum realistic envelope was modelled as a 3D diagram and a series of ‘snapshots’ between this maximum envelope and the refurbishment only option were produced. The envelopes were measured as gross external developable volumes with proportional allowances for floor heights, external walls, common parts, limited car parking and ‘sculpting’ of the blocks to allow them to be designed within their context. The resultant areas are equivalent in principle to the Gross Internal Floor Areas of a designed scheme proposal and so provide the basis for indicative schedules of accommodation. These schedules were produced for each scheme on the basis of the same indicative mix of housing types and sizes so that the schemes could be compared like-for-like. It is important to note that these envelopes are not the same as a scheme design and so the area schedules remain indicative only at this stage. The Council have also clarified that the eventual housing mix will be determined by a number of factors, including re-housing needs and so the mix of different house types remains indicative at this stage.

This information was presented at several events, together with related information from the Council: one in July 2014, two in November 2014, one in December 2014 and one in January 2015. Supporting drawings were provided during these events to illustrate how the options could appear if viewed from the park and a physical model at 1:250 was built as the basis for discussions. Whilst feedback was received at these events (see Social Life report), the feedback focused on the parameters for decision-making and specifically the cost of refurbishment of the existing estate which was not confirmed during the process. This meant that the intended co-design workshops did not proceed as origingally intended, however the options have been absorbed and understood by a large number of the residents (see Social Life report). The following pages show the information presented at these sessions.

During this process it also became clear that option 4 would benefit greatly from the inclusion of Park View: a ‘finger’ of land in private ownership adjacent to Papworth Way. For this reason, Park View is indicated on the summary ‘zoning’ plans as a possible redevelopment site and the Council have indicated that they are consulting with the Park View residents and owners. This has not yet been explored in these following options.

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 19 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Crosby Walk

Crosby Way

TESCO Scarlette Manor Walk GARAGE BROCKWELL Chandler’s Way PARK

Longford Walk

PapworthWay

Hambridge Way Bodley Manor Way

TULSE HILL

Hardel Walk

Upgrove Manor Way

Roper’s Walk

TRINITY RISE

AERIAL VIEWS OF THE OPTIONS

The drawing above shows the existing estate from the air. This is just a diagramatic view as a base to show the different massing studies. Buildings outside the estate are shown in red and existing buildings in the estate are shown in purple to make it easier to read.

Existing buildings in poor condition, including water ingress through the roof

Temporary roof structure; existing roof covering and internal wet plaster removed; ceilings and roof boarding may be retained / repaired and protected with polythene during drying-out period.

Estimated drying out time: 3 months

OPTION 1: REFURBISHMENT ONLY

Refurbishing the estate and bringing it up to modern standards is possible, but at significant cost: somewhere between £12 million and £15 million. New roof structure may be overlayed on existing structure Many of the homes are suffering from long-term water damage and would if sound. New eaves and gutter details. Windows may be need to dry out before they can be re-roofed. The process is indicated to replaced. Total estimated refurbishment period for each property: the right. This can’t be done during the winter and over the whole estate 6-9 months might take place in phases over a 3-year period.

Cressingham Gardens information and options July 2014 BOARD 3 Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 20 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Infill: Option 2 identifies some areas of the estate where there is the opportunity to add some small volumes of additional housing without demolition (infill). These could be done in a way that reflects the existing block design, but could also be designed differently.

‘Finger’ blocks: Retaining the existing character of the estate would be easiest to achieve by making long, thin blocks at right- angles to the park. These could be broken up as shown above and also stepped up and down at roof level.

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPES

The purpose of these massing studies is to establish clear parameters for the resident workshops to explore options. Research, modelling the existing site and communication with planners and other officers have indicated a maximum realistic volume in the case of a full redevelopment. A series of ‘snapshots’ between refurbishment only and full redevelopment, for the purposes of carrying out value assessments have been produced. These following options are therefore starting points to show potential volumes and possible outline configurations, but they are not scheme proposals, which can still be developed through the workshops.

These images illustrate how this outline envelope could be configured as buildings, with a mix of different homes, stairs and lifts. The single envelope also has an allowance (between 5% and 13% depending on the option) for ‘sculpting’ the blocks: breaking them up into smaller buildings, stepping the roof heights down towards the park and other design ideas to help the new buildings fit into their surroundings.

The hand sketches on boards 9 & 10 give some idea about how this could look from the park, but this is something to be developed in the workshop and in consultation with the planners. The buildings cannot be designed on their own, but need to be planned together with new streets, landscaping and car parking. This is a significant exercise and requires specialist input from engineers and other designers. Once an option has been chosen to take forward to a planning application, this work can be undertaken and would be supported by a more conventional consultation process where the detailed designs are presented for residents comments.

It is recognised that Cressingham Gardens is a special environment and the Council has stated a commitment to coproduce options through an Medium density blocks: open and collaborative process to deliver the best outcomes. It is also Option 5 includes the higher density part of the estate and recognised that this process may seem difficult to understand at first would require medium density development if redeveloped. and the architect and Council officers are on hand to help explain all this This could be in fatter blocks as shown, left, or courtyard information and answer your questions. We hope that you can in turn blocks, above. Other designs are also possible. support this process.

In the following options, the ‘envelopes’ are shown in orange, with a blue top floor set back from the edges of the building. This is just to make it easy to see which buildings are new and existing and of course does not mean the buildings will be these colours. These examples here illustrate how some of these volumes could be designed as buildings, but other types of buildings are equally possible.

Cressingham Gardens information and options July 2014 BOARD 4 Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 21 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 TESCO GARAGE BROCKWELL

PARK

TULSE HILL

TRINITY RISE

Key

AERIAL VIEW OPTION 2 1 storey 2 storeys

2 storeys + roof / 3 storeys

3 storeys + roof / 4 storeys

Red = existing outside the estate 4 storeys + roof / 5 storeys Purple = existing inside the estate 5 storeys + roof / 6 storeys Landmark Orange / blue = new envelopes In each option new buildings are outlined in orange

Notes The development envelope is an indicative maximum potential envelope only. It does not allow for planning, car parking, rights to light or other easements, sunlight, daylight requirements or technical design and appropriate allowances for these should be made when calculating Gross Internal Floor Areas. The estate boundary line is indicative and does not represent actual land ownership, including internal freeholds, leaseholds, covenants or easements. The site topography is complex and no topographic survey is currently available, therefore all heights are indicative only.

TULSE HILL

OPTION 2: PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT & INFILL

The northern end of the estate (north part of Crosby Walk) was not part of Ted Hollamby’s original plans and is not well connected to the rest of the estate. Several of the homes are empty and bricked up. This portion could be redeveloped in isolation, though access would be an issue. There are also several areas where small infill developments could be built.

• 19 homes demolished TRINITY RISE N • 38 new homes built (19 additional)

Cressingham Gardens information and options July 2014 BOARD 5 Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 22 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 TESCO GARAGE BROCKWELL

PARK

TULSE HILL

TRINITY RISE

AERIAL VIEW OPTION 3 Key 1 storey

2 storeys

2 storeys + roof / 3 storeys Red = existing outside the estate 3 storeys + roof / 4 storeys 4 storeys + roof / 5 storeys

Purple = existing inside the estate 5 storeys + roof / 6 storeys Orange / blue = new envelopes Landmark In each option new buildings are outlined in orange

TULSE HILL

OPTION 3: PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT & INFILL

The homes along Papworth way were originally designed for accessibility but they do not meet modern standards. The urban design of the estate here is not ideal as the road has a blank wall on one side and garages on the other, due to the ‘finger’ of land not included in the estate. Demolishing these properties and building new homes here gives the opportunity to create a better entrance to the estate and provides additional homes.

• 31 homes demolished N • 51 new homes built (20 additional) TRINITY RISE

Cressingham Gardens information and options July 2014 BOARD 6 Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 23 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 TESCO GARAGE BROCKWELL

PARK

TULSE HILL

TRINITY RISE

Key

AERIAL VIEW OPTION 4 1 storey 2 storeys

2 storeys + roof / 3 storeys Red = existing outside the estate 3 storeys + roof / 4 storeys 4 storeys + roof / 5 storeys Purple = existing inside the estate 5 storeys + roof / 6 storeys Landmark Orange / blue = new envelopes In each option new buildings are outlined in orange

TULSE HILL

OPTION 4: PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT

The northern part of the site is lower density than in the south and can be redeveloped to provide additional housing, whilst still being sensitive to the views from the park. A new community facility (shown yellow) is included in this option, though the rotunda is retained.

• 120 homes demolished • 151 new homes built (31 additional)

TRINITY RISE

Cressingham Gardens information and options July 2014 BOARD 7 Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 24 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 TESCO GARAGE BROCKWELL

PARK

TULSE HILL

TRINITY RISE

Key

AERIAL VIEW OPTION 4a 1 storey 2 storeys

2 storeys + roof / 3 storeys Red = existing outside the estate 3 storeys + roof / 4 storeys 4 storeys + roof / 5 storeys Orange / blue = new envelopes 5 storeys + roof / 6 storeys Landmark

In each option new buildings are outlined in orange

OPTION 4a: PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT VERSION 2

Outline financial appraisals were carried out on options 1-5, which

indicated that option 4 presented the most financially viable option on TULSE HILL the basis of the given assumptions, whilst delivering new housing in line with the Council’s objectives. Nonetheless, over the given period of the development appraisal, this option still did not break even and delivered a fairly modest amount of additional housing. Further advice was sought from the Council’s planning department who agreed in principle that a slightly increased mass could be achievable in this option if the existing character and layout of the estate were retained and respected and the ‘finger’ buildings carefully designed. Over the given period of the development appraisal this option (4a) breaks even and delivers significant additional housing.

• 120 homes demolished • 193 new homes built (73 additional)

TRINITY RISE

Cressingham Gardens additional option 4a October 2014 BOARD 11 Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 25 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 TESCO GARAGE BROCKWELL

PARK

TULSE HILL

TRINITY RISE

Key

AERIAL VIEW OPTION 5 1 storey 2 storeys

2 storeys + roof / 3 storeys Red = existing outside the estate 3 storeys + roof / 4 storeys 4 storeys + roof / 5 storeys Orange / blue = new envelopes 5 storeys + roof / 6 storeys Landmark

In each option new buildings are outlined in orange

TULSE HILL

OPTION 5: FULL REDEVELOPMENT

A full redevelopment of the site is shown in this option. The configuration of the medium density blocks to the southwest of the site could be designed differently, as shown in the illustrations earlier. The pattern and character of the estate would be retained as much as possible, but with new buildings, streets and landscaping.

• 306 homes demolished • 440-464 new homes built (134-158 additional) N

TRINITY RISE

Cressingham Gardens information and options July 2014 BOARD 8 Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 26 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens, sketch of existing view from Brockwell Park

Cressingham Gardens, sketch of options 2&3 view from Brockwell Park

Cressingham Gardens, sketch of option 4 view from Brockwell Park

Cressingham Gardens, sketch of option 5 view from Brockwell Park

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 27 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report 5. Development cost estimates The output areas from the development envelopes were entered into a pro- forma as a basis for carrying out appraisals of each option. In the initial work, full information was not available in order to complete these appraisals and so the pro-formas contained only costings. Further work was undertaken directly by the Council, in discussion with the resident representatives to appraise these costs against income under different sets of assumptions. This work was commissioned separately and is not included in this report. The proformas included here show only cost estimates for each option, priced at that point in time (February 2014) and based on the given assumptions at that time. The cost estimates for refurbishments have now been superceded by the Council’s own cost estimates, in discussion with the resident representatives.

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 28 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 C:\Users\Roland\Downloads\CRESSINGHAM COST PLAN VERSION 1.1 (A)

CRESSINGHAM GARDENS REGENERATION OPTION 1 REFURBISHMENT ONLY

COST ESTIMATE VERSION 1

DWELLING TYPE NO AREA TOTAL COST PER UNIT TOTAL COST NETT AREA M2 COST ADDITIONA M2 L

DEMOLITION COSTS 0 0 DEMOLISHED 0

FLATS/HOUSES FOR SALE 1B2P FLATS 0 50 0 1,200 0 2B4P FLATS 0 73 0 1,200 0 3B5P FLATS 0 89 0 1,200 0 COMMON PARTS 0 1,000 0 00 0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1B2P FLATS 0 50 0 1,200 0 2B4P FLATS 0 73 0 1,200 0 3B5P FLATS 0 89 0 1,200 0 1B2P WHEELCHAIR FLAT 0 60 0 1,200 0 2B3P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 0 70 0 1,200 0 3B5P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 0 95 0 1,200 0 COMMON PARTS 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

UNDERCROFT/SEMI-BASEMENT CAR PARKING 0 1,200 0

EXTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 250,000

REPAIRS/UPGRADES TO RETAINED DWELLINGS 306 19,890 632 12,570,480

COMMUNITY HALL 0 1,850 0 12,820,480

306 19,890 12,820,480

ALLOWANCE FOR ABNORMALS WHEELCHAIR PROVISON 0 10,000 0 ENHANCED FINISHES TO PRIVATE SALE SPECIFICATION 0 30,000 0 ENHANCED TO COMMON PARTS TO OURIGHT SALE CORES 0 250,000 0 CSH 4 0 8,500 0 LIFTS 0 65,000 0 0

EXTERNALS STATUTORY SERVICES 1,071,000 EXTERNAL WORKS 0 DRAINAGE 0 1,071,000 SUB TOTAL £ 13,891,480

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS 0

UNMEASURED 486,202

306 19,890 £ 723 PER M2 TOTAL £ 14,377,682

SAY £14,400,000 NOTES SITE BOUNDARY AS DRAWING PROFESSIONAL FEES INCLUDING LEGALS EXCLUDED PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL FESS EXCLUDED SECTION 106/CIL COSTS EXCLUDED PARTY WALL COSTS EXCLUDED MARKETING COSTS EXCLUDED LBW FEES CHARGES ETC. EXCLUDED SITE AND LEGAL COSTS EXCLUDED ESTIMATE INCLUDES FOR PILED FOUNDATIONS TO FLATS AND MINIMAL CONTAMINATION ESTIMATE ASSUME COMMENCEMENT DATE 1Q 2014 TELEPHANY, FF&E, LOOSE FURNITURE , CURTAINS BLINDS ETC. EXCLUDED VAT NOT INCLUDED DECANT/LOSS OF RENT/COMPENSATION COSTS EXCLUDED

C:\Users\Roland\Downloads\CRESSINGHAM COST PLAN VERSION 1.1 (A)

CRESSINGHAM GARDENS REGENERATION OPTION 2 INFILL AND PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT

COST ESTIMATE VERSION 1

DWELLING TYPE NO AREA TOTAL COST PER UNIT TOTAL COST NETT AREA M2 COST ADDITIONA M2 L

DEMOLITION COSTS 142,500 19 DEMOLISHED 19

FLATS/HOUSES FOR SALE 1B2P FLATS 5 50 250 1,200 300,000 2B4P FLATS 10 73 730 1,200 876,000 3B5P FLATS 2 89 178 1,200 213,600 COMMON PARTS 226 1,000 225,810 17 1,384 1,615,410 1,158 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1B2P FLATS 4 50 200 1,200 240,000 2B4P FLATS 10 73 730 1,200 876,000 3B5P FLATS 4 89 356 1,200 427,200 1B2P WHEELCHAIR FLAT 1 60 60 1,200 72,000 2B3P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 1 70 70 1,200 84,000 3B5P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 1 95 95 1,200 114,000 COMMON PARTS 251 1,000 250,770 21 1,762 2,063,970 1,511 2,669 38 3,146 3,821,880

UNDERCROFT/SEMI-BASEMENT CAR PARKING 0 1,200 0

EXTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 250,000

REPAIRS/UPGRADES TO RETAINED DWELLINGS 287 18,655 790 11,789,960

COMMUNITY HALL 0 1,850 0 12,039,960

325 21,801 15,861,840

ALLOWANCE FOR ABNORMALS WHEELCHAIR PROVISON 3 10,000 30,000 ENHANCED FINISHES TO PRIVATE SALE SPECIFICATION 17 30,000 510,000 ENHANCED TO COMMON PARTS TO OURIGHT SALE CORES 1 250,000 250,000 CSH 4 38 8,500 323,000 LIFTS 0 65,000 0 1,113,000

EXTERNALS STATUTORY SERVICES 133,000 EXTERNAL WORKS 163,400 DRAINAGE 95,000 391,400 SUB TOTAL £ 17,366,240

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS 100,000

UNMEASURED 611,318

325 21,801 £ 829 PER M2 TOTAL £ 18,077,558

SAY £18,100,000 NOTES SITE BOUNDARY AS DRAWING PROFESSIONAL FEES INCLUDING LEGALS EXCLUDED PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL FESS EXCLUDED SECTION 106/CIL COSTS EXCLUDED PARTY WALL COSTS EXCLUDED MARKETING COSTS EXCLUDED LBW FEES CHARGES ETC. EXCLUDED SITE AND LEGAL COSTS EXCLUDED ESTIMATE INCLUDES FOR PILED FOUNDATIONS TO FLATS AND MINIMAL CONTAMINATION ESTIMATE ASSUME COMMENCEMENT DATE 1Q 2014 TELEPHANY, FF&E, LOOSE FURNITURE , CURTAINS BLINDS ETC. EXCLUDED VAT NOT INCLUDED DECANT/LOSS OF RENT/COMPENSATION COSTS EXCLUDED

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 29 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 C:\Users\Roland\Downloads\CRESSINGHAM COST PLAN VERSION 1.1 (A)

CRESSINGHAM GARDENS REGENERATION OPTION 3 INFILL AND PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT

COST ESTIMATE VERSION 1

DWELLING TYPE NO AREA TOTAL COST PER UNIT TOTAL COST NETT AREA M2 COST ADDITIONA M2 L

DEMOLITION COSTS 232,500 31 DEMOLISHED 20

FLATS/HOUSES FOR SALE 1B2P FLATS 6 50 300 1,200 360,000 2B4P FLATS 13 73 949 1,200 1,138,800 3B5P FLATS 3 89 267 1,200 320,400 COMMON PARTS 296 1,000 295,620 22 1,812 2,114,820 1,516 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1B2P FLATS 5 50 250 1,200 300,000 2B4P FLATS 12 73 876 1,200 1,051,200 3B5P FLATS 8 89 712 1,200 854,400 1B2P WHEELCHAIR FLAT 2 60 120 1,200 144,000 2B3P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 1 70 70 1,200 84,000 3B5P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 1 95 95 1,200 114,000 COMMON PARTS 358 1,000 358,410 29 2,481 2,906,010 2,123 3,639 51 4,293 5,253,330

UNDERCROFT/SEMI-BASEMENT CAR PARKING 0 1,200 0

EXTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 250,000

REPAIRS/UPGRADES TO RETAINED DWELLINGS 275 17,875 790 11,297,000

COMMUNITY HALL 0 1,850 0 11,547,000

326 22,168 16,800,330

ALLOWANCE FOR ABNORMALS WHEELCHAIR PROVISON 4 10,000 40,000 ENHANCED FINISHES TO PRIVATE SALE SPECIFICATION 22 30,000 660,000 ENHANCED TO COMMON PARTS TO OURIGHT SALE CORES 2 250,000 500,000 CSH 4 51 8,500 433,500 LIFTS 0 65,000 0 1,633,500

EXTERNALS STATUTORY SERVICES 178,500 EXTERNAL WORKS 219,300 DRAINAGE 127,500 525,300 SUB TOTAL £ 18,959,130

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS 200,000

UNMEASURED 670,570

326 22,168 £ 895 PER M2 TOTAL £ 19,829,700

SAY £19,900,000 NOTES SITE BOUNDARY AS DRAWING PROFESSIONAL FEES INCLUDING LEGALS EXCLUDED PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL FESS EXCLUDED SECTION 106/CIL COSTS EXCLUDED PARTY WALL COSTS EXCLUDED MARKETING COSTS EXCLUDED LBW FEES CHARGES ETC. EXCLUDED SITE AND LEGAL COSTS EXCLUDED ESTIMATE INCLUDES FOR PILED FOUNDATIONS TO FLATS AND MINIMAL CONTAMINATION ESTIMATE ASSUME COMMENCEMENT DATE 1Q 2014 TELEPHANY, FF&E, LOOSE FURNITURE , CURTAINS BLINDS ETC. EXCLUDED VAT NOT INCLUDED DECANT/LOSS OF RENT/COMPENSATION COSTS EXCLUDED

C:\Users\Roland\Downloads\CRESSINGHAM COST PLAN VERSION 1.1 (A)

CRESSINGHAM GARDENS REGENERATION OPTION 4 INFILL AND PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT

COST ESTIMATE VERSION 1

DWELLING TYPE NO AREA TOTAL COST PER UNIT TOTAL COST NETT AREA M2 COST ADDITIONA M2 L

DEMOLITION COSTS 697,500 120 DEMOLISHED 73

FLATS/HOUSES FOR SALE 1B2P FLATS 22 50 1,100 1,200 1,320,000 2B4P FLATS 55 73 4,015 1,200 4,818,000 3B5P FLATS 8 89 712 1,200 854,400 COMMON PARTS 1,136 1,000 1,136,265 85 6,963 8,128,665 5,827 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1B2P FLATS 25 50 1,250 1,200 1,500,000 2B4P FLATS 52 73 3,796 1,200 4,555,200 3B5P FLATS 20 89 1,780 1,200 2,136,000 1B2P WHEELCHAIR FLAT 7 60 420 1,200 504,000 2B3P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 2 70 140 1,200 168,000 3B5P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 2 95 190 1,200 228,000 COMMON PARTS 1,331 1,000 1,331,070 108 8,907 10,422,270 7,576 13,403 193 15,870 19,248,435

UNDERCROFT/SEMI-BASEMENT CAR PARKING 1,000 1,200 1,200,000

EXTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 250,000

REPAIRS/UPGRADES TO RETAINED DWELLINGS 186 12,090 790 7,640,880

COMMUNITY HALL 0 1,850 0 9,090,880

379 28,960 28,339,315

ALLOWANCE FOR ABNORMALS WHEELCHAIR PROVISON 11 10,000 110,000 ENHANCED FINISHES TO PRIVATE SALE SPECIFICATION 85 30,000 2,550,000 ENHANCED TO COMMON PARTS TO OURIGHT SALE CORES 2 250,000 500,000 CSH 4 193 8,500 1,640,500 LIFTS 4 65,000 260,000 5,060,500

EXTERNALS STATUTORY SERVICES 675,500 EXTERNAL WORKS 829,900 DRAINAGE 482,500 1,987,900 SUB TOTAL £ 35,387,715

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS 350,000

UNMEASURED 1,250,820

379 28,960 £ 1,277 PER M2 TOTAL £ 36,988,535

SAY £37,000,000 NOTES SITE BOUNDARY AS DRAWING PROFESSIONAL FEES INCLUDING LEGALS EXCLUDED PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL FESS EXCLUDED SECTION 106/CIL COSTS EXCLUDED PARTY WALL COSTS EXCLUDED MARKETING COSTS EXCLUDED LBW FEES CHARGES ETC. EXCLUDED SITE AND LEGAL COSTS EXCLUDED ESTIMATE INCLUDES FOR PILED FOUNDATIONS TO FLATS AND MINIMAL CONTAMINATION ESTIMATE ASSUME COMMENCEMENT DATE 1Q 2014 TELEPHANY, FF&E, LOOSE FURNITURE , CURTAINS BLINDS ETC. EXCLUDED VAT NOT INCLUDED DECANT/LOSS OF RENT/COMPENSATION COSTS EXCLUDED

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 30 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 C:\Users\Roland\Downloads\CRESSINGHAM COST PLAN VERSION 1.1 (A)

CRESSINGHAM GARDENS REGENERATION OPTION 5 MAX REDEVELOPMENT

COST ESTIMATE VERSION 1

DWELLING TYPE NO AREA TOTAL COST PER UNIT TOTAL COST NETT AREA M2 COST ADDITIONA M2 L

DEMOLITION COSTS 2,175,000 306 DEMOLISHED 158

FLATS/HOUSES FOR SALE 1B2P FLATS 74 50 3,700 1,200 4,440,000 2B4P FLATS 135 73 9,855 1,200 11,826,000 3B5P FLATS 23 89 2,047 1,200 2,456,400 COMMON PARTS 3,042 1,000 3,042,390 232 18,644 21,764,790 15,602 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1B2P FLATS 48 50 2,400 1,200 2,880,000 2B4P FLATS 105 73 7,665 1,200 9,198,000 3B5P FLATS 54 89 4,806 1,200 5,767,200 1B2P WHEELCHAIR FLAT 16 60 960 1,200 1,152,000 2B3P WHEELCHAIR FLATS 9 70 630 1,200 756,000 0 95 0 1,200 0 COMMON PARTS 2,900 1,000 2,899,845 232 19,361 22,653,045 16,461 32,063 464 38,005 46,592,835

UNDERCROFT/SEMI-BASEMENT CAR PARKING 2,000 1,200 2,400,000

EXTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 0

REPAIRS/UPGRADES TO RETAINED DWELLINGS 0 0 790 0

COMMUNITY HALL 200 1,850 370,000 2,770,000

464 40,005 49,362,835

ALLOWANCE FOR ABNORMALS WHEELCHAIR PROVISON 25 10,000 250,000 ENHANCED FINISHES TO PRIVATE SALE SPECIFICATION 232 30,000 6,960,000 ENHANCED TO COMMON PARTS TO OURIGHT SALE CORES 5 250,000 1,250,000 CSH 4 464 8,500 3,944,000 LIFTS 10 65,000 650,000 13,054,000

EXTERNALS STATUTORY SERVICES 1,624,000 EXTERNAL WORKS 1,995,200 DRAINAGE 1,160,000 4,779,200 SUB TOTAL £ 67,196,035

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS 1,000,000

UNMEASURED 2,386,861

464 40,005 £ 1,764 PER M2 TOTAL £ 70,582,896

SAY £71,000,000 NOTES SITE BOUNDARY AS DRAWING PROFESSIONAL FEES INCLUDING LEGALS EXCLUDED PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL FESS EXCLUDED SECTION 106/CIL COSTS EXCLUDED PARTY WALL COSTS EXCLUDED MARKETING COSTS EXCLUDED LBW FEES CHARGES ETC. EXCLUDED SITE AND LEGAL COSTS EXCLUDED ESTIMATE INCLUDES FOR PILED FOUNDATIONS TO FLATS AND MINIMAL CONTAMINATION ESTIMATE ASSUME COMMENCEMENT DATE 1Q 2014 TELEPHANY, FF&E, LOOSE FURNITURE , CURTAINS BLINDS ETC. EXCLUDED VAT NOT INCLUDED DECANT/LOSS OF RENT/COMPENSATION COSTS EXCLUDED

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 31 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report 6. Additional information Various supporting pieces of work were carried out during the period of the commission and these are included as follows:

• List of comments from the mapping exercise.

• Sketches illustrating common, existing gutter problems

• 1:250 scale model of the estate

• Density study

• Space standards comparison

• Green Retrofit notes (two meetings held with Sturgis Carbon Profiling and resident representatives to explore the potential for high performance environmental refurbishment of the existing properties)

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 32 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 List of comments from the mapping exercise Kids play on hills, All green bits, Cycle circuit, Good view, good for walking, Like the mounds, Like the open space

Upgrove Manor Way Papworth Way Neighbours get on well, Good for buses, Groups hanging around, intimidating, Walkway poorly-maintained Bollards and walkways broken, Roads broken, Gardens between Bodley and Chandlers Way Upgrove, dog poo, picnics, bicycle hump, Feels like a country walk Scarlette Manor Walk Live here and love it Hardel Walk south Kids go ‘knock knock ginger’ door-knocking, Feel teased by other kids - feel Longford Walk different (age 11), Garages aren’t looked after very well and gangs hang Gangs hang out here, feels unsafe, Some minor problems, People use path to around there (11 year old), Bike stolen, Design of the space means kids Brockwell Park, Handy for Transport, Know my neighbours, Handy for transport gather - assaulted here by kids - one-off incident, Space to walk about, Parking expensive, Drug dealing, Flooding on walkway’ Crosby Walk south Open drain Hardel Walk north Gangs in the garage mess it up, Lock-ups well-used, Don’t like going under Crosby Walk north tunnels - smell of pee and enclosed, can’t see if anyone is inside, makes me Houses inside need repair eg. Kitchen sink is blocked, otherwise very safe and feel squeamish’ (Age 11), I don’t like going through the walkway because its like connections to Brixton, neighbours are good, Voids, Bricked up because of quite enclosing and people can look down on you from the balcony walking to subsidence school

Brockwell Park Bodley Manor Way Gap in the fence - useful’ ‘not just for kids’, Park is liked, Love the park, Love the Quiet, friendly walkway, Know my neighbours, Use my garden park, Use the park, path beside park not much used

Hambridge Way General Subsidence, Garden wall falling down, Feels safe Feel scared of teenagers coming on to the estate, Don’t really like to play outside now - other kids are naughty/bad/ Don’t want to play with them’ (11 Rotunda year old), Thames water main across site, People walk through the estate to Like the rotunda, Learning about the estate, The Mounds, Tellytubby Hills, access the park Housing?, Included in Brockwell Park Conservation Area, Dog walking here,

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 33 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Illustrative sketches showing common gutter problems and possible outline remedy (subject to inspection and detailed design)

Surveys by engineers (Tall) identified existing roof and walls suffering water penetration over prolonged period.

Indicative solution:

If the existing roof structure is sound it can be re-used and a new, modern roof placed on top, with a new gutter detail away from the face of the building.

Adjoining a Conservation Area, this will require careful design and detailing

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 34 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 1:250 scale model of the estate - intended as enabling tool for deliberative workshops

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 35 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Density study are relevant and are extracted below from the most recent document on the subject: the Housing Density Study carried out in 2012. This is a very helpful

PTAL document that shows the relationships between density and site conditions Public Transport Accessibility Level: a calculation carried out by Transport for through a large number of illustrated case studies. It can be accessed here: London to determine the accessibility of public transport at a given location, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Housing%20density%20study- taking into account all public transport modes. Precise PTAL ratings can be opt.pdf calculated for specific locations here: These following factors are most relevant to Cressingham Gardens http://www.webptals.org.uk 2.15. The current policy recognises that while the best use should be made The London Plan contains planning policy guidance relating densities of of development opportunities, proper account must be taken of the range of development to the PTAL rating of their sites. factors which have to be addressed to “optimise,” rather than simply maximising, Habitable rooms: housing potential. In its report into the Examination into the London Plan, the For planning purposes a habitable room is usually defined as Panel described optimising density as meaning to develop land to the fullest “any room used or intended to be used for sleeping, cooking, living or eating amount consistent with all relevant planning objectives (Paragraph 3.46, EiP purposes. Enclosed spaces such as bath or toilet facilities, service rooms, Report). Policy 3.4 draws on the SRQ approach outlined above and is particularly corridors, laundries, hallways, utility rooms or similar spaces are excluded from concerned to ensure that the quality of housing output is not compromised by this definition.” (planning policy guidance) the need to make the most efficient use of land. In some circumstances, a large kitchen or kitchen/dining room may be counted 9.9 As noted in Section 2, the London Plan (paragraph 3.28) makes clear that as a habitable room, but the approach varies between boroughs. There is no the density matrix should not be applied mechanistically. The notes to Table 3.2 statutory definition for a kitchen to be counted as a habitable room; nor is there in the London Plan include definitions for central, urban and suburban settings. any statutory size threshold. The draft Housing SPG (1.3.24) makes clear that defining the setting of an area In smaller dwellings, bedrooms and living rooms are normally counted as requires local knowledge and may entail an element of professional judgment. habitable rooms only. In larger dwellings, kitchens are also counted. 9.10 Some sites do not fall neatly in to one existing/expected PTAL rating. In For the purposes of this calculation, habitable rooms will include kitchens in cases where PTAL varies across a site, prospective developers and boroughs dwellings of 3 bedrooms (5 person) and upwards but not in dwellings of 3 should take a common sense approach to identifying the most appropriate PTAL bedrooms (4 person) and below. rating or ratings. For small and medium sites (1 to 149 homes), it will usually Site area be most appropriate to use an average existing / expected PTAL rating for the The site area is defined as the area that can be built on, but including internal site as a whole and to apply the density matrix in the normal way. For larger service roads and amenity spaces that are part of the development. For sites (150 homes plus), it may be more appropriate to assign different existing / this reason, the area of the mounds is excluded from the calculations as expected PTAL ratings to identified sub-areas or phases to establish the relevant it is contained within the park conservation area and therefore cannot be indicative density range for distinct parts of the site; with proposed density built upon. The mounds cannot be included in the calculation of any new expected to be broadly associated with the varying PTAL levels of each phase. development, but in the original scheme the site included this land and it was Interpreting the table for Cressingham a design decision to leave this area undeveloped. This is now a historical fact The character of the surrounding area is generally urban in nature: surrounding and to enable a like for like comparison, the area is excluded from the density houses are predominantly terraced or blocks of flats and Tulse Hill could calculations. A topographic survey of the site is not available and so the area be considered an arterial route. However, there are aspects of the context is based on the Ordnance Survey information, which is unlikely to be 100% that fit the ‘suburban’ character definition, such as the houses on Tulse Hill accurate. opposite Cressingham Gardens which are 2-storey semi-detached ‘villas’ • The site area is therefore estimated to be 3.7 ha. and the generally lower-rise buildings at the top of the hill. Overall it would • The number of dwelling units is 306 be described as an urban site with some suburban characteristics. The PTAL • The number of habitable rooms is 956 rating varies sharply across the site with the northern half corresponding to • The units / hectare is 83 PTAL rating of 2 and the southern half corresponding from 3-5. Taking these • The habitable rooms / hectare is 258 factors into account, the southern portion of the site could correspond to around 450 habitable rooms per hectare, whereas the northern part of the

The habitable room measure is the better measure of density as it takes into site could correspond to around 300 habitable rooms per hectare. This would account the size and intended inhabitation of the dwellings. give an average density of 375 habitable rooms per hectare as compared with the existing 258. It should be noted that the size of the site means that these should not be applied evenly across the site, but corresponding with the

This table shows the London Plan density guidance. A number of key factors different PTAL ratings. Other factors The site borders and partly includes a Conservation area and the view to and from the park is considered a key aspect to be respected in any new proposals for the site. Meetings with the planners have clarified that retaining the pattern of slender blocks perpendicular to the park can achieve this through careful design, whilst allowing for an increase in density. The fact that the site steps down the hill means that this can be more easily achieved on the northern part of the site. The PTAL density analysis above is therefore a starting point for the establishment of massing envelopes that have evolved through discussion with the planners. The London Plan makes it clear that the PTAL rating should be applied to ‘optimise’ density in the context of specific site conditions and not applied mechanistically.

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 36 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Space standards comparison

The following sketches illustrate a comparison between the size of homes on The standards require a minimum of 10% fully accessible housing for disabled Cressingham and the minimum standards required for new housing in London. people, however this will be determined from the household survey as the These are sketches and are not precisely to scale. They are based on the requirement on Cressingham is likely to be higher. Accessible units are more original drawings of the estate (no surveys have been carried out) and the GLA dependent on design and so a space standards comparison has not been planning document (the London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance) carried out here. that contains the space standards for new housing. The drawings of the new The standards cover many other aspects of housing and can be found by standards are therefore abstract and not ‘real’ – they show how homes could searching on-line for ‘London Plan housing planning guidance’ be laid out, but not necessarily how they will be laid out as that will depend on how they are designed. The standards set a minimum that any design Other issues not covered by space standards has to meet, and as well as the overall size of homes, the standards also set minimum sizes for individual rooms. Modern Building Regulations are much stricter than in the 1970s and new homes would be insulated to a high standard and would result in much lower This comparison shows that ‘like for like’, the new standards are bigger than heating bills. However the insulation standards means that windows are the homes on Cressingham. The Council have said that their re-housing relatively more expensive and so the amount of glazing in new homes tends to policy will operate on the basis of needs (or ‘needs plus one’ in larger homes), be less than is the case on Cressingham. Split levels, sloping ceilings and high- determined by a household survey, so it doesn’t necessarily mean that people level windows are also not so common in modern housing. who are re-housed will be offered ‘like for like’.

The comparison also shows that although homes would be bigger, individual rooms are sometimes smaller. This is because the new standards include more storage space than exists in many homes on Cressingham. The standards also cover outdoor space, which is normally provided through balconies and so there is no requirement through the standards to replace larger gardens.

The standards say that north-facing, single-aspect housing ‘should be avoided’ and as options 1-4 follow approximately the existing pattern of the estate, these would need to be dual-aspect homes, possibly with some south-facing single aspect. Option 5 currently shows deeper blocks facing east-west and these assume single-aspect homes, however the Council is currently proposing for inclusion in its Local Plan (the key planning document for the Borough), a statement resisting single-aspect dwellings wherever possible. If option 5 were progressed, the design of these blocks would need to be considered eg. as courtyard blocks.

Cressingham Gardens indicative space standards comparison November 2014

Cressingham Gardens existing GLA SPG min standard Size format block type sq ft m2 sq ft m2 2b4p house A 820 76 893 83 3b5p maisonette A 915 85 1033 96 1b2p flat A 510 47 538 50 4b6p house B 1040 97 1152 107 1b2p flat B 510 47 538 50 1b2p flat B 533 50 538 50 1p studio C 348 32 398 37 1p studio C 531 49 (disabled) N/A (modern accessibility stds apply) 2b4p Flat C 815 76 (disabled) N/A

Notes All areas are Gross Internal GLA minimum standards in the 2013 Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Standards are a minimum and may be larger due to other additional requirements Existing areas have not been verified by survey

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 37 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015

Karthaus Design for Lambeth Council Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 38 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 39 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Green retrofit workshop notes Failed window junctions due to poor installation Maiia: Compriband expanding foam tape is a good solution

Cressingham Gardens green retrofit session 1 Window installation lacking seals etc. 25th November 2014 7-9pm Air sealing a major issue – total sum of all air gaps can be significant Room 31 Lambeth Town Hall Some homes still have warm air heating system within the home. Attendees: Passivhaus offers a set of rules that can be used without having to meet the Tom Keane Passivhaus standard, particularly airtightness performance. Needs to apply to Pamela Woodroffe both build and to maintenance. Maiia Guermanova, Sturgis carbon profiling Various ways of achieving airtightness – inside or outside. Issue of Gerlinde Gniewosz aesthetics. Joanne Parkes Relationship between ventilation and airtightness Gareth Roberts, Sturgis carbon profiling Residents: Roland Karthaus, Karthaus Design (notes) Poor quality of repairs and lack of respect for original design. Inappropriate Eva Bokrosova tradesmen sent out for repairs. Cold bridging

Gareth outlined the scope of the exercise as an outline of possible solutions Efficiency and cost savings from repairs and maintenance – can it be for Cressingham and identify some potential funding opportunities. Following quantified. the first session Gareth and Maiia will try to visit site and some homes to Recognised performance standard required to create a measurable target. understand the detail in advance of the next session. Should also feed into the management options working group. Gareth outlined his background as architectural training and now an General discussion about how a performance-base standard such as economist. Experience on a housing estate where British Gas paid for Passivhaus could drive up standards of both construction and ongoing insulation to gain carbon credits. maintenance due to certification and training requirements. Question about what is retrofit: Energy efficiency improvements inside existing buildings. Passivhaus as an idea Context: reduction of 50% of carbon emissions over the next few decades Example: thermal imaging of terraced housing with one house Passivhaus. can only be achieved by looking at existing building stock, not just new build Insulation materials depend on situation standards. Every element needs to be thermally modelled Agenda EnerPHit – reduced passivhaus standard for existing buildings • What’s possible Initial feasibility for refurbishment of Cressingham Gardens: • Good and bad things Easier to tackle homes above carparks than those sitting on the ground • Passivhaus as an idea High-level outline costs, based on grant income • Technical solutions Passivhaus total cost estimate £20m assuming £8m recovered from grants Sturgis: commissioned by Westminster Council – how to achieve 80% carbon leaving £12m cost to Council. reduction by 2050. Not only about heat and energy, also about improving Discussion about persistent drainage problems – not directly relevant to comfort, health, air quality, noise etc. passivhaus, but related in terms of issues of quality of maintenance etc. Question: does data exist on the human wellbeing and social impact of energy saving measures? Yes, in principle – needs to be backed up by evidence. Treasury provides Technical details guidance. Example of overcladding using brick slips Gareth noted demonstrable evidence of reduction in rent arrears in highly Likely recommendation would be overcladding, either in render or brick slips. energy-efficient housing and that Affinity Sutton were basing a whole Can be done with houses in full occupation. refurbishment business plan on the basis of these savings. Gerlinde noted Maintenance is required eg. filters need changing. Can be accessed from the that rent arrears data for the estate should be requested from the Council. outside. Meanwhile Borough-wide data is available in the public domain. Likely thickness of external insulation New legislation means it is illegal to rent ‘F’ and ‘G’ rated properties Kingspan rigid insulation not breathable – suitable for new build, but not retrofit Project financing through external income: Aerogel is now becoming affordable and is breathable – extremely high Green Deal, ECO (Energy Company Obligation), Feed In Tarrifs, Renewable performance – much thinner than standard insulation Heat Incentive, Enhanced Capital Allowances, Voluntary Emissions Reductions, Sheepswool attracts moths – not recommended various grants Cold bridging – various possibilities, thermal modelling can help to refine Example of Grade II listed Georgian homes, mansion blocks solutions Passivhaus / Enerphit standard does not require heating Sturgis to visit site Monday 1st December at 1.30pm. Other residents not in UK’s largest photovoltaic array on a listed building attendance at the meeting can contact Gareth if they wish to show him their Combined Heat and Power in existing tower block homes at that time. Question: what about people not understanding passivhaus Passivhaus schemes require training for tenants

Good and Bad on Cressingham Comments from residents: Many positive comments about the design of the estate: varying ceiling heights, daylight, borrowed light, views of the park etc. Condensation from original, single-glazed skylights

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 40 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Green retrofit session 2 Carbon Leapfrog 8th December 2014 Technology Strategy Board 7-9pm Brixton town hall room 31 Big Society Capital Finance South East group / community generation fund Attendees: DECC urban community energy fund Gareth Roberts London energy efficiency fund Maiia Guermanova Element of innovation in the project helps to secure funding, not simply energy Joanne Parkes reduction Gerlinde Gniewosz Eg. Local energy generation (ESCO – Energy Supply Company) centralised Karl Brierly power generation – could be gas, woodchip, anaerobic digestion. Chin Ong Subsidies: Roland Karthaus Enhanced Capital Allowance Ann Plant Energy Company Obligation Pamela Woodroffe Feed-in Tariffs Renewable heat incentive. Sturgis visited site to identify specific solutions Dutch solution to retrofit with Social Housing – funded through tenant-owned - Three basic approaches ESCo and paid back through utility bills. Warranties tied to the project meant - What scope suits which unit that tenants had long-term control over maintenance, as well as specification - Costs and funding of kitchens and bathrooms. - Technical solutions Cost and funding summary on 3 different options. Chin asked why Lambeth Council were not represented at the meeting. Gerlinde question about borrowing limits of the Council. Concern about move Question about how the findings of the workshop and implications for any to Special Purpose Vehicles and would wish to push for tenant-owned vehicle. implementation will be discussed within the Council and Lambeth Living. Sturgis suggested a resident owned ESCo could be a viable alternative. Gareth referenced the earlier email discussion regarding making arrangements Detailing solutions for repairs and meanwhile works to enable working towards a higher standard. Showing how existing features can be retained or recreated. Gareth noted that the intention was not to increase costs for Lambeth Living Thermal modelling to show no condensation risk. Insulated skirtings to deal but to discuss how the works could be carried out intelligently in order to avoid with condensation risk corners. abortive costs. Procurement process needs to evolve to be applied to solve the Sturgis suggested using one of the void properties as a case-study to challenges on the site – Gareth gave example of the windows – failing is not in demonstrate the standard. the windows themselves but in the fitting of them, which is a procurement and Gerlinde mentioned Habitat for humanity and Lambeth’s Build-it programme. subcontracting issue, not a product issue. Roland agreed to request meeting All agreed the workshops were useful and had got under the skin of issues and with Lambeth Living via the Council to discuss this further. potential solutions on the estate. Solution 1 Next actions: Passivhaus with simplified envelope to request meeting with Lambeth Living (RK) Gareth explained that the larger the external envelope area of a building, the to coordinate with resident management working group (residents on both more expensive to insulate, so strategy is to simplify the envelope. Maiia groups) pointed out common issues eg. Condensation due to lack of insulation. to present back to the main workshops in January (Sturgis to bring insulation Some blocks have cavity wall insulation, but problems with water ingress and ‘toolbox’ and summarise findings – date tbc). possibly with insulation settling. Sturgis noted that thermal imaging cameras should be used to check performance of insulation before being signed off. Idea to turn external balconies to internal balconies with perimeter glazing – pros and cons of aesthetics and use of the balconies. Concern that the balconies were a key design idea and central part of the social life of the walkways. Sturgis agreed a menu of solutions may be more useful than 3 categories of solution. Solution 1 could achieve 95% carbon reduction. Solution 2 Passivhaus with envelope to match Relies on aerogel internal insulation Solution 2 could achieve 92% carbon reduction Solution 3 – basic fix 38% reduction in carbon footprint AECB (Association for Environmentally Conscientious Building) silver standing could be a possible standard. Airtightness testing could be a simple employer’s requirement added to refurbishment contracts. Sturgis offered to demonstrate airtightness testing, though emphasised the residents should be engaging with the commissioning process rather than checking at the end. Enhanced Capital Allowance and Feed In Tarriffs are funding possibilities Different challenges between single storey homes and blocks above car parks. Sturgis stated Passivhaus, Enerphit or AECB only standards worth considering Project financing Grant funding:

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 41 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015 Cressingham Gardens Summary report Contacts Karthaus Design Roland Karthaus 0208 223 7536 [email protected] www.karthaus.co.uk

Ian Sayer & Co. Alistair Russell 0207 428 2610 [email protected] www.iansayer.co.uk

Karthaus Design with Ian Sayer & Co. | www.karthaus.co.uk | www.iansayer.co.uk 42 Cressingham Gardens for Lambeth Council | Final Report | March 2015