Stop period property being destroyed - please help us Surbiton!

@CaptainPotato Informed points, well-made.

I'd suggest the developer has not used an architect or architectural historian in the creation of these plans and application.

Happy to see it rejected as it stands, perhaps a more capable & sympathetic designer could get something to work aesthetically and within the engineering constraints you mention.

w1w6xh ,

I forgot to add that it is absolute garbage for the developers to clam that mansard roofs were common on this style of lates 20's early 30s housing.

On the contrary, these flats, and most surrounding housing of the same era was built in the mock Tudor-Bethan style, with watered down influence from the earlier Arts and Crafts style. High ridged roofs were absolutely characteristic, with mansard roofs nowhere to be seen, mansards being characteristic of earlier Victorian inner london terrace housing.

w1w6xh ,

my 1928 house that has an almost identical bay with overhanging ridge roof. It is almost identically styled to the block of flats in question.

If I applied for planning permission for what's being proposed here (a flat-fronted, front dormer loft conversion), the current planning rules would result in instant refusal on grounds of loss of visual amenity. The rough translation would be that it looks ugly and would spoil the character of my house, and the neighbouring streetscape.

If these flat fronted front dormers are barred on all houses, and are deemed ugly, why should they be allowed on period blocks of flats that are almost identical in style to the same houses?

This style of loft conversion was allowed in the past. I can recall examples in The Avenue where fine Victorian houses have had what looks like lunchboxes slapped on top of them. It looks awful, is a monument to greed over good taste, and blights the street as a whole.

There's no doubt that the current housing crisis dictates that we should build more homes, but that is no excuse for poor design. If the freehold owner of the site thinks that it could sustain a higher number of flats, it would be preferable to keep a ridged roof and increase the bay height, or even knock the whole lot down and put up something tasteful and well designed instead.

On a building control, not planning, point I do think that there will be big problems trying to achieve the required minimum levels of soundproofing in this development. The original load bearing walls are likely to solid, made with high density engineering brick that is very good at transmitting sound and very bad for noise nuisance. I really doubt that it is possible to achieve proper soundproofing in such a building.

Here's hoping that the council planners kick this out.

Worth noting that the proposer (Wilmotts of Hammersmith W6 9EU) suggest that the mansard roof is actual in-keeping an 'typical of buildings of similar date where such mansard roof designs were commonly adopted in the original construction'. Whilst I'd agree it looks more than a little ugly and damages the aesthetic of the existing building, we shouldn't dismiss the idea that alterations in this style may have some precedence.

Furthermore, can we keep insisting that no green-belt development takes place when we're being nimby-ish about schemes like this that re-use existing real estate or redevelop brownfield sites?

For the record, I'm not saying I like it, or that I want it, but let's have a reasoned debate about how best to solve the problem that lots of people want to live in Surbiton and environs and that, to do so, we might actually need a little more housing stock that doesn't involve a shed-load of generic new development like Plaza II or the horror going up next to Maple Road infants and the like.

Thanks for your support CaptainPotato! The proposed design of the front, back and inside layout of the new floor is all completely inadequate as you've said. I hope we get many more Surbiton residents like you to take charge and do the same to uphold the Surbiton's character.