BUILDING & ARCHITECTURE
Great alternative developments and why this tower is harmful
Overview
The demolition and replacement of the existing sound building with a proposed new tower is:
in conflict with Lambeth’s net carbon zero by 2030.
does not consider adaptation, re-use or roof extensions; as is characteristic of buildings in the area.
generic detailing, poor design and a tall building that is unlikely to be “exemplary” to meet Lambeth’s net zero carbon requirements.
over-dominant in height, scale and massing; overbearing effects on neighbours, heritage assets and the area’s character.
contrary to many of Lambeth’s policies, and the Lambeth Local Plan.
The existing Job Centre site adjoins both the Kennington and St Mark’s conservation areas. The building is not listed and the developer has assumed that it is acceptable for this 1970s “underutilised and outdated” (their words) building to be demolished, without justification. Although the developers have told residents that “a traditional residential scheme had been explored for the site previously”, no such scheme has been found on Lambeth’s planning portal (only Prior Approval applications for change of use from Class B1(a) offices to Class C3 residential use in 2016 and 2017, i.e. keeping the existing building, which were rejected).
Demolition is destructive and contradicts Lambeth’s Climate Action Plan
The building is still occupied, appears structurally sound and demolition would cause the loss of embodied carbon.
According to Lambeth’s Climate Action Plan, it was “the first London borough to declare a climate an ecological emergency and committed to ensuring the council’s operations are net zero by 2030.” As you can see in the extract below, it would be better to re-use as much of the existing building as possible and retrofit it, rather than demolishing it and starting from scratch.
“As we improve the energy performance of our existing buildings, and build new ones, we also need to consider embodied emissions. These emissions are associated with the production, transport and use of materials, and in the construction of new buildings are already responsible for 20-50% of the whole life cycle emissions. As we reduce the operational emissions from heating and powering our buildings, embodied emissions will become an even more significant proportion of overall emissions. To reduce embodied emissions, we need to support and enable retrofit wherever possible, and also work with our partners in the construction industry to ensure that where there are opportunities to re-use existing assets or materials as opposed to developing or procuring from scratch, these are taken. Where new buildings are necessary, we will ensure they are built to be exemplary in meeting net zero carbon requirements”Extract from p29 Buildings and Energy of Lambeth’s Climate Action Plan
Adaptation and re-use of an existing building by a renowned architect
The existing 1970’s building was designed by R. Seifert and Partners, a famous firm of architects. Other buildings by Seifert have been successfully refurbished/extended:
Centre Point, London (converted into flats 2018).
Hotel, Knightsbridge, London (roof extension and base plinth extension).
Space House, Kingway, London (2 extra storeys, refurbished office building).
Birmingham (refurbished office building, 1967, ATV art studios & HQ, 28 storeys).
The current building pays respect to its neighbours, see the comparison of Horns Tavern and Seifert buildings next to Grade II* listed Prince Consort Lodge and model housing. It is of a similar height to residential buildings in the neighbourhood - no more than 4 storeys - and it’s neutral appearance means that it doesn’t dominate its surroundings.
Postcard view, c.1912, which shows historic relationship Between the Horn Tavern which occupied the 409 KR site (on the left) and the Grade II* listed Prince Consort Lodge / model housing
Similar recent view (Google Earth) showing current 409 KR Seifert building (on the left) and the Lodge with the park (on the right)
Instead of being demolished, the existing building could be adapted for re-use and its appearance improved / enhanced, e.g. different glazing, external materials particularly at ground level, roof extension upwards to provide more accommodation.
Local buildings that have been successfully adapted and extended - in-keeping with and enhancing Kennington:
Images of Edinburgh House, Kennington Cross (part refurbishment, new entrance, new glazing, cleaned and extensions at roof level): before refurbishment/extension (on left), after refurbishment/extension (on right)
Canterbury Court, 1-3 Brixton Road, SW9 6DE, 1905 industrial buildings, taxi HQ. 3 storeys. Overlooks Kennington Park on south side. Roof extension 2007 part of refurb works.
Old Print Works, Stannary Street – set back roof extension, office refurbishment
405 Kennington Road – retail ground floor, offices mid-level, residential on set back upper storey(s), mixed use
30 Old Street (not quite local) images: before (on left )& after (on right) – office to residential (Marek Wojciechowski Architects)
The design proposed is harmful and non-compliant
The site is not designated for tall buildings in Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (see below for Lambeth Policy Q26).
The tower proposal does not achieve design excellence
In its form, proportion, silhouette, detailing and materials etc) as required by Lambeth Local Plan Policy LLP Policy Q26 Tall buildings A. ii. The combination of the development’s footprint and height result in a development of a significant scale which is wholly out of keeping with its immediate neighbours. At 52m+, it will dwarf all other buildings in the locality and adversely affect the amenity of local residents in their homes and when visiting Kennington Park (LLP Policy Q2: Amenity).
Its height will have an overbearing effect on designated heritage assets.
Contrary to Lambeth Local Plan Policies Q20,Q21 and Q22, the proposed tower due to its scale and height will encroach on the setting of neighbouring heritage assets and have a negative / damaging effect on the 2 storey Grade II* listed Prince Consort Lodge / model housing and protected Kennington Park, Grade II listed, and buildings in the local conservation area.
Major over-shadowing and excessive overdominance of adjacent buildings
The scheme shows disharmony, and is not good design. The developer’s architect has aligned the “shoulders” of the building to the top floors of the neighbouring roof extensions, rather than the parapets, and has not attempted to step the building back to align with the set-back roof extensions, which are subordinate to the buildings below. No attempt has been made to relate the materials of the upper levels to the change of materials of the adjacent extensions at roof level. The gap between the existing 409KR building and the neighbouring 405KR building does not appear in the proposal (see images below), resulting in an overdominance. The developer’s mentioned how the building is complementary, but the height and scale of the development dominates all other buildings. The proposed building is replacing a building within an existing urban block where there should be no windows in party walls, no direct overlooking or undue sense of enclosure (Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q7). This must be respected.
Recent image showing clear gap between 405 and 409 Kennington Road buildings
Image provided by developer’s team in December 2024 showing proposed 409 KR tower building butting up to 405 KR building, i.e. no gap
The adjascent image is by the same architect, TP Bennett, from their website, showing an office scheme in Leeds.
Note: similar roof top expression of the building’s framework continuing upwards. The “chimneys” related rooftop design of the 409 KR proposed tower scheme is not unique/special to the old Horns Tavern site.
Development does not have design quality, nor does it relate to local character
According to Lambeth’s LP Policy Q7 Urban Design: New Development paragraphs i and ii, it should be of ‘a quality design which is visually interesting, well detailed, well-proportioned with adequate detailing/architectural interest’ and it should have a bulk, scale/mass, siting, building line and orientation which adequately preserves or enhances the prevailing local character”.
The developer’s architect has attempted to detail the façade design with reference to chimneys and pattern/decoration but the development is completely different in style and architecture to other buildings in the vicinity. The detailing of the new building is generic of the 2020’s, more in character with newer large developments like Berkeley Homes Tesco, Elephant and Castle regeneration area, or Canning Town where clusters of similar towers have been introduced. In Kennington, other developers are designing schemes in keeping with local architecture – Sancroft Street, Cleaver Street – county courts, infill building in Kennington Park Estate – good practice and standards.
If the developer is keen to refer back to the old Horns Tavern building, then the architect should look more closely at the detailing of the old Horns Tavern building. e.g. rhythm of the bays of the façade, variety of window openings and sizes, mansard roof expression between the chimneys, etc, - see the following historic postcard image below.
The new development will not be “exemplary” in its sustainability, nor meet net carbon or servicing requirements in Lambeth Climate Action Plan.
The proposed new tower building will need to be “exemplary” to meet Lambeth’s net zero carbon requirements (see extract from p.29 of Lambeth’s Climate Action Plan). At the pre-application consultation stage, the developer’s team did not provide details of how the proposal will be sustainable, how it will meet net carbon and how it will be serviced. Please take the following into account about new residential towers when making your objection:
“Their sustainability credentials are also famously unimpressive, with tall buildings demanding disproportionate outlays of embodies energy, carbon energy, mechanical servicing and climatic mitigation. As carbon profiling expert Simon Sturgis explains, ‘The higher you go, the more inefficient the building becomes in terms of the net area measured against carbon emissions from operation, construction and maintenance’.
Extract from p.66 of the Tall Buildings: A Policy Framework for Responsible High-Rise & Better Density publication, 2024, by policyexchange.org.uk
Policies and other documents
The Lambeth Local Plan policies that we think are relevant for this new tower development are:
Section 10 Quality of the Built Environment:
Q2 Amenity
Q5 Local distinctiveness
Q7 Urban design: new development
Q8 Design quality: construction detailing
Q18 Historic Environment Strategy
Q26 Tall Buildings
Section B says: ‘Outside the locations identified in Annex 10 or as identified in site allocations, there is no presumption in favour of tall building development…’ (BBK409’s emphasis) and outside these locations/identified in site allocations, ‘the applicant will be required to provide a clear and convincing justification and demonstrate the appropriateness of the site for a tall building having regard to the impact on heritage assets, the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of the immediate buildings and the character of the local area (including urban grain and public realm/landscape features)… in addition:
‘1. Proposals for tall buildings will only be considered acceptable in established low rise residential neighbourhoods where they are part of a comprehensive scheme which integrates well the locality.’
Tall Buildings: A Policy Framework for Responsible High-Rise & Better Density publication 2024: