Design Statement comments (report dated May/June)

 

 

(Apologies for grammatical errors or spelling mistakes, don’t think the report has been proof-read….)

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1.0 Introduction

 

 

“There is also publicly orientated open space that serves both the community and the inhabitants of the building”

 

It will not be permanently open, as they later on in the report reveal, and certainly not to the local community! (Security etc..)

 

“Over the past 150 years, SCCC’s portfolio of buildings has steadily adapted to meet the needs of the time. In 2003 the new O.C.S stand opened, marking the start a phase of consolidation that will eventually transform the current piece-meal collection of buildings surrounding the cricket green, to a continuous sweeping seating bowl, around a circle of cricket green.“

 

“Piece-meal” - the new buildings neither match Pavilion, OCS stand nor any other building in the area!

 

 

2.0 Site analysis

 

 

“Development in the area is generally high density of four storey and higher. Proportionately, the height of buildings aligning the streets is equal to the width, producing canyon like vistas.”

 

“High density” - therefore we need to have a break of mass somewhere

“Canyon like vistas” - the only open area is along Kennington Oval, giving us a break from the canyon-like streets surrounding us. Taken away = sense of total enclosure (plus noise implications)

 

 

 

3.0 Masterplan

 

 

“[..] Secondly, we could enclose and create a street scene along Kennington Oval on it’s north side, replacing the harsh brick wall that currently exists.”

 

Only in some places. As you know, outside Lohmann will be a 4.5m high wall to hide delivery area. “Harsh” - in their own words! And not quite sure about the “north” here again…

 

Much of the report is about the Pavilion, how it looks from different angles, and how the area surrounding it can be improved. Hardly anything about further along the Kennigton Oval, where we live. The Duchy, apparently, would also like there to be a stronger visual connection between the pavilion, Kennington Park and St. Mark’s Church. The Oval House Theatre is also mentioned: “The theatre will be vacated in due course, “it is necessary that any masterplan consider the way this site could be redeveloped” (Do they want to buy and develop the plot?)

 

- “The pavilion is framing the square and enhancing the street scene along the Kennington Oval lane…”

- Proposal to “create a new urban space in London . Set behind railings, this space addresses the street”

- “…but it will not become a permanent part of the public environment”!!!

 

i.e. not “open” (as opposed to what they state in 4.0 Proposal)

Nice words that don’t mean anything and will not enhance the environment for the community.

 

 

4.0 Proposal

 

Materials and greening

“Along the site boundary the existing high wall is reinstated in part.”

 

Opposite Lohmann House, i.e. beyond the hotel, the wall will not just be reinstated but higher than before (4.5m) to hide delivery area

 

“The wing following the line of Kennington Oval lane is characterised by French windows punched into a lime rendered façade. The façade is modelled by projecting pilasters with simplified capitols and mouldings..”

 

Does not match anything in the area.

 

 

5.0 Sustainability

 

“The Duchy of Cornwall as freeholder of the site has emphasised that the redevelopment of the Lock Laker site must be exemplorary (exemplary?) in terms of sustainability as it will be looked to as setting the standard for all subsequent development in this area. If the proposed new hotel and stand building do not set a high standard it will be hard to ask subsequent developments to use it as a benchmark by which they must set their own standards.”

 

How the Duchy could then approve the plans and reports submitted remains a mystery

 

 

Community

“Public consultation with the local residents is underway to offer local stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the design proposals and their view will be taken into account in the development of the final design.”

 

Well, we all know that this has not happened….

 

 

Envelope Studies

 “We will investigate use of micro switches [..] on tilt and turn windows, so that occupants can choose to naturally ventilate the room, with the air-conditioning system temporarily shut down.”

 

Statement back in February: “No windows on this side” (can’t remember who quoted this in an earlier meeting) or “The windows cannot be opened” (which Marilyn and I remember)

 

 

Materials and Greening

“Planting will be in the pavement on the Oval side of the road and in the green zone on the residential side of the road. Suggested species are oak and hornbeam. However, consideration will also have to be given to suitability for proximity to the adjacent building and other issues such as residents concern about overshadowing. In addition to trees, it is proposed that the street be enhanced by lighting the trees at night from buried lights in the grass zone and from lamp posts set at regular intervals between the trees.”

 

If they are worried about a few trees overshadowing us, how can they justify a 5-storey building directly behind these trees apparently not causing overshadowing? Furthermore, do we need more light coming into our homes at night.

 

“… a ‘front garden’ at the opposite end of the hotel elevation through which all staff enter the hotel.”

 

Is there space? Will the staff take their break here? (noise etc…)