Basements - RA Open meeting - 100 residents - HGS Trust responses - diverse views

The open meeting held by the HGS Residents' Association on 4th October 2011, attended by nearly 100 people, enabled:

• residents to put their views
• HGS Trust, invited by the RA, to explain its position and the limits on its powers under the Scheme of Management. 

The views expressed will help reinforce the dialogue which has been under way for some time between the RA's CONSAM (Conservation & Amenities) committee, the Trust, and the London Borough of Barnet.

Background 

The creation and extension of basements is a growing phenomenon in the Suburb and elsewhere. The majority of applications have until recently related to basements to be constructed beneath new, larger houses.   Applications in the Suburb are growing from a relatively low level and there is a detectable trend towards applications relating to smaller houses in smaller roads, which could soon reach the “Artisans” quarter (one is under consideration). 

Development Nuisance - traffic, disturbance - succession of nearby developments

A great deal of disquiet was expressed about the traffic nuisance and other disturbance generated by basement works which were often prolonged.  The nuisance is exacerbated when the work is being carried out in narrow Suburb roads and closes.  Furthermore, when permission for development is granted there is no mechanism allowing the Trust or LBB to take account of the particular difficulty of the cumulative effect of a succession of developments in the same road. 

Technical Issues - limited Trust powers - Trees - Independent Structural Reports - Party Wall Agreements

The Scheme of Management under which covenants are imposed on freehold properties in the Suburb gives the Trust control over any change to the external appearance of buildings and their gardens, including forming sky lights and light wells, but only the visual “character” of the Suburb.  While a number of residents expressed their own views on what is meant by character, legal advice obtained from time to time by the Trust confirms that this relates to character manifested by external appearance and does not have a social element.  Accordingly, the Trust has limited control over a proposal for a basement development which leaves the external appearance of a property unchanged, irrespective of the use to which the basement is to be put.  However, control over leasehold properties depends on the terms of the individual leases. 

The hydrology of the Suburb is not homogenous.  The Trust requires applicants to commission independent hydrogeological surveys which are taken into account in reaching a decision on any application.  No adverse effect on trees on the property or nearby is allowed and reports are required to ensure this. 

Similarly, independent structural surveys are required to avoid subsidence and similar problems.  Some residents expressed concern that where a basement is to be constructed beneath a semi-detached house, the adjacent undeveloped house will be put at particular risk, either because of the disturbance of the development itself or because improving the foundations of the house with the basement will leave the other half of the semi more vulnerable to subsidence. 

• The Trust has subsequently advised that this is a matter that should be addressed in the engineering reports and through Party Wall Agreements. Where work is close to an adjoining or neighbouring property Party Wall regulations provide for a party wall surveyor to be appointed (at the cost of the person instigating the work) to protect the interests of the adjoining owner.
• Under Party Wall legislation the adjoining owner can require that an independent surveyor be appointed; and there are arrangements for settling any failure to agree, by appeal to a third surveyor.
• Measures that could be considered under a party wall agreement might include: an insurance bond to cover any failure to complete the work satisfactorily - or an agreement to monitor the neighbouring property to check for movement. 

Scheme of Management 

Some residents have suggested that steps be taken to apply to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to amend the Scheme of Management to give the Trust control over basement development.  The Trust’s view is that while this is theoretically possible, given sufficient support from residents, it is an inauspicious time for such an application taking into account the government’s policy to free up development and reduce restrictions.  An application might (unintentionally) result in the relaxation of some of the Trust’s current controls. 

Alternatives 

Several residents voiced the need for more space as an alternative to moving out of the Suburb. Some thought basements a parallel to loft rooms in  their reflection of changing times. One resident suggested that in some cases the cost and trouble of the construction of basements and loft extensions could be avoided if the Trust Design Guidance on the size and type of garden buildings were more lenient (subject to suitable screening and landscaping). 

Other Boroughs 

It has been suggested that other London boroughs, including Camden, currently exercise stricter controls.  However recent consents granted by Camden indicate that once engineering questions are answered, there is little scope for restricting the development of basements under existing planning legislation.

Greater London Authority (GLA) is consulting on whether community involvement in some planning issues can be effective, through a local Order giving some powers to a community body.

Consam met tonight and is recommending to Tuesday (6th September)'s RA Council that we respond that the existence of the RA and the Trust indicates that localism can be effective.  We are not proposing any local Order as (a) the Suburb's Scheme of Management is in place (b) the Bill is not yet through Parliament (c) we await the outcome of the GLA's deliberations.

Consam, with backing from RA Council, has again arranged Suburb participation in Open House London, thanks to funding from the Trust, the RA, and the Free Church. 

This year the buildings open will include Henrietta Barnett School, with tours (architects on hand), on Sun 18^th, 12 - 4pm.  (This takes no sides in the architecture controversy - it's an opportunity to look)

Flyers & London Guide free, from 8 August, at HGS Trust & Library, & from 1 Sept Gallery, 136a Willifield Way.

Consam News: Farm Walk’s entrance from Temple Fortune Lane has been refurbished by Barnet, after detailed negotiations by the Walk’s residents. After the completion of adjacent building works, the pedestrianized entrance was left without posts and with an inviting ramp which attracted trade vehicles up the Walk instead of down the vehicle route from Hampstead Way. After pressure from Farm Walk residents, through Barnet, insurers have installed new oak posts and the kerb has been restored.

Consam welcomes residents’ information on poor maintenance of the ‘public realm’, and endeavours through its members to spot the more obvious breaches of the Guidelines adopted by Barnet after consultation.

Some members of Consam viewed the plans for the Garden Suburb School development and, while they found them lacking in some important detail, the visible impact of the two storey building will be very limited both on Willifield Green and nearby properties. It was suggested that the proposed dormers should match those existing on the original school building, and that adjustment is needed to the fenestration. The unsightly temporary cabins will be removed, as a consequence of the development, and generally the building will be no higher than the adjacent existing buildings. Plans can be inspected by appointment at the Trust's office. The Trust's Policy & Plans Committee will consider the proposal on 3rd May, and the Trust Council probably the following week.

RA members will have seen the News item (Trees & Open Spaces Committee) of the successful opposition to an application by the Tea House insurers to permit felling of a tree on the open site next to the Tea House at the corner of Central Square and Northway. However, the wider issues affecting the Tea House continue, and are summarised here.

Since the Institute sold the Tea House lease to private owners in 2008, the RA has from time to time been informed by the Trust as freeholder of its interest in the three aspects mentioned below.

Consam created a sub-committee last June to liaise with the Trust. The Trust Council has adopted priorities in the following order:

• Maintain the listed building’s fabric
• Maintain indefinitely the tree canopy on the adjacent EDF (electricity sub-station) site

And if possible:

• Continuation of community use since sale by the Institute.

The owner has an obligation to maintain the listed building, but its insurers claim that adjacent trees are damaging it (see T&OS News on this website's home page). The building is suffering from serious structural cracks. The Trust is also freeholder of the adjacent site, which is leased to EDF and has asked for evidence of the alleged cause, and notes that underpinning could avoid the problem, albeit at a considerable cost.

The Tea House, built in 1924, was part of Dame Henrietta Barnett’s vision for community on the Suburb. Initially it was used for tennis changing rooms and for refreshments, with two small flats above. It was managed at first by the Trust but by 1928 it was in the hands of caterers. Unfortunately it seems that was not financially viable and in 1952 a new lease was signed by the Institute with the use of the ground floor restricted to “refreshment caterers with power to hire out the same for dances, parties, receptions or meetings or as a junior school run in connection with the Henrietta Barnett Junior School”. The upper floor remained as two flats.The building  has since been used from time to time for a kindergarten, for residents’ children’s parties, for overflow classes for the school, for Institute classes, for evening parties and other communal activities.

It is believed, from an article in the Ham & High, that the public-spirited owners purchased it to enable the Institute to apply the £750,000 in reducing debt. However, unless the owners can find a financially viable way to make it available for public use, the building might, for example, become a private house.  An ideal use would be an educational Heritage Centre where archives, a museum and visitors reception might be located. An RA working group, currently planning a heritage network for the Suburb, recognises that purchase, at the increased price now asked for, cannot currently be met.

A successful outcome in Meadway - further details to be added shortly.

Basements are a growing issue in the Suburb. Consam has met with Barnet Planning and Regeneration Councillor Cornelius and its chief planning officer to urge that where permission is granted, they should insist on a prior independent specialist engineering report re the security of neighbouring properties. Consam is also unhappy with basement developments in small semi-detached or terraced houses, but at present neither Barnet nor the Trust sees a basis for blanket refusal where there is no material external manifestation, although there is room to insist on a modified 'footprint' in some cases. Consam remains committed to raising reasoned objections where there is scope to protect both the character of the Suburb and the interests of neighbours. We have the support of the Trust in this.

BT is currently applying for Planning Permisson to instal Openreach Broadband metal cabinets in 16 locations around the Suburb on grass verges. Consam has discussed this and, while appreciating residents' reasonable desire for an improved broadband service, is seriously concerned about the additional street clutter and potential visual disruption wich these cabinets would cause. We would prefer the installations to be underground and have contacted LBBarnet Planning to this end and to make the point that BT's current proposals contravene the Public Realm Design Guidelines agreed with LBBarnet last year to better control and reduce street clutter throughout the Suburb.

(But now see March 2011)

Tony Ghilchik, Consam member, writes:

Consam has been talking with LB of Barnet and David Webster Lighting (their PFI lighting contractor involved in renewing all the lighting in Barnet) for many years over new lighting in Suburb streets.

DWL have left the Suburb lighting until quite late in their programme and Consam and the HGS Trust have been talking with Barnet and DWL since February this year on the specific proposals now being implemented.

The intention is that all the street lights, including those in twittens and across the Heath, which are more than about 7 years old are being replaced by DWL this year.

We quickly reached agreement that the new style lampposts with their lanterns attached to the top of the post would be suitable for the Suburb - with the proviso that any replacement posts needed in the few roads which are not being fully replaced will match the old style lights in the rest of the road. The new style posts are designed to be mounted at the rear of the pavements in roads without trees, but at the front of the pavements where street trees would cast excessive shadows.

As Derek Epstein, formerly of Consam, has pointed out on HGS Lists (you can subscribe from this website !), the RA Council minutes on the website show that Consam has been open about these discussions but have not yet been fully successful over lamppost heights. The problem being that DWL have difficulty in achieving their required lighting levels using 6 metre high lampposts in roads which exceed 14metres in width (back of path to back of path) even when using additional posts.

The RA is very strongly against using 8m posts anywhere in the Suburb other than in those wide roads with large houses set well back from the road and where the higher posts would not tower over the houses, such as in the wide section of Winnington Road.

Meadway is the main problem. We would accept 8m posts on the short stretch of Meadway between Meadway Gate and the Hampstead Way roundabout as this would require three 8m posts rather than seven of the shorter 6m posts, and that even with the greater number of 6m posts the lighting level would still fall below the required standard. The standard is, itself, an issue - it is a little brighter than the current level but neighbours I have spoken to are very divided on whether the existing lighting is bright enough.

However we feel strongly that the 8m post would be out of place along the rest of Meadway, which should be lit with 6m posts - even though it would require 40 posts in place of 28 of the taller ones and that, even so, the light level at the Meadway/Grey Close/ Litchfield Way roundabout may not quite reach the target level.

As noted in the minutes we understood that this had been agreed but Barnet/DWL then requested a contribution of over ?28,000 to cover the extra cost of using 6m rather than their preferred 8m lampposts. However, we believe that it is for DWL/Barnet to bear any extra cost of ensuring their lighting proposals are in scale with the surrounding buildings in our tightly controlled Conservation Area.

When it comes to the detailed proposal for each street, we have been getting a copy of the plans as they are prepared, with individual householders getting a copy of the plan for their section of the road. There is some flexibility on the exact placement of the posts outside their house and small changes have been made following requests.

That's the background, but to answer the more detailed points raised on HGS Lists:

As I understand, the plan is to erect all the new posts before connecting up to the power supply and finally removing the old columns. I do not know the exact timetable but expect it has been delayed a bit by the ongoing discussions re Meadway.

The placing of some posts too far, in my view, from the kerb was an issue I've taken up with DWL. I'm told that their standard is to set the columns 770mm from the kerb. There are a few at the southern end of Hampstead Way much further in than this and DWL have, so far, agreed to move the worst offender. I have recently had confirmation that the 770mm is an internal, not legal, requirement - Camden use a 450mm minimum - so I am continuing that battle. In the meantime my Consam colleagues are noting other offenders (with location and exact measurements from curb edge to post).

With the increasing fashion for rebuilds and major buildings works within the Garden Suburb, inconsiderate contractors can - and do - cause considerable nuisance to nearby residents.

Barnet has now agreed, with immediate effect, to enclose with every planning consent, Borough-wide, a set of construction site guidelines based on a draft prepared by Consam in February, drawing on a number of sources.

Although this was a long process, the Cabinet Member for Planning eventually endorsed the proposal in principal in April and we are pleased to have achieved, in the end, a useful outcome, potentially to the benefit of residents across the Borough, not only in the Garden Suburb. To see a copy of the guidelines, click here (pdf).

In spring 2008, Consam was contacted by Hopkins Architects - responsible for such high-profile buildings as the Glyndebourne Opera House - who had been commissioned by The Henrietta Barnett School to design new buildings to provided much-needed extra accommodation for the school. In May, Hopkins showed Consam the proposals for two buildings, in an L-shape, to be erected on each side of the existing building fronting Central Square. The elevational designs were shown to five members of Consam at the end of July, shortly before the planning application was submitted and, when others had caught up, it transpired that Consam was divided, with some members endorsing the Hopkins design and others having strong reservations - a view shared by many residents who took trouble to view the plans at the Trust or Barnet?s offices. Residents also complained of inadequate public consultation about the proposed design.

However, the Hopkins design was welcomed by Barnet, the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust, English Heritage and the Lutyens Trust and planning consent was granted in September by both Barnet and the Trust, with conditions as to approval of window design and colour of bricks.

In November 2008, the RA Council passed, unopposed, a resolution expressing its pleasure that permission had been obtained for the new buildings but that it had "serious reservations about details of the submitted design, particularly the fenestration and the colour of bricks and urges the School and its architects to consider designs and materials in closer sympathy with the existing buildings. The Council supports a vertical theme for the windows, and grey and red bricks."

With the support of RA Council, Suburb residents campaigned for changes in the design. The Trust encouraged, and the school agreed to, a dialogue with Hopkins which took place in the early months of 2009. Consam also pressed the School and Hopkins to present the proposals to local residents. Some 130 residents attended a presentation held on 24 March.

In the event, the detailed design incorporating 'horizontal' windows and red bricks was not materially changed and was approved in June 2009.

The Residents Association has consistently opposed the erection within the conservation area of mobile phone masts and their associated equipment boxes which attract graffiti and are unsightly. Aside from the intrusive appearance of such installations, many residents are concerned about health risks, especially to children. In defeating applications from mobile phone operators, the RA has had the consistent support of the Suburb Ward councillors. Since 2004, 22 applications have been refused by Barnet Council. In addition 8 cases have been taken to appeal by the phone operators and in each case Barnet's decision has been upheld.

The most recent application in the Suburb was from Orange in May 2009,for a mast in Lyttelton Road, opposite Belvedere Court. This was refused on visual grounds and lack of consideration to alternative sites. To read the RA's objection letter, Click here (pdf).

In December 2008, the RA learned of a proposal to install a zebra crossing (the first within the conservation area) in Ossulton Way. Consam objected on aesthetic grounds; then, after carry out some observations, concluded that there was not even a strong case on safety grounds. Sample observations on two school mornings revealed that seven and eight families crossed the road on their way to school within a half hour period. In about a quarter of the cases, the road was clear. In about half the cases, oncoming cars stopped to allow the families to cross. In the remaining cases the families had to wait up to 5 seconds for a stream of 3-5 cars to pass before the road became clear to cross.

Consam proposed to Councillor Harper, Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, that the Council should carry out similar observations to help establish the need. Despite agreeing to this, the 'decision letter', concluding that the installation should proceed, contained no reference to the observations and reported that the proposal was supported by only 31 out of 780 residents consulted. To read the RA?s press release, click here (pdf).

In late 2005 LB Barnet Highways expressed support in principle to an exercise to remove superfluous signs, road markings, bollards etc from the Suburb's streets and in May 2006 the Conservative ward councillors included prominently in their election campaign a pledge to support that initiative. However, in September 2006, Barnet - in a policy endorsed by the ward councillors - refused to fund the work or even to discuss it further until third-party funding had been provided.

In August 2007, when the RA had established that there would be no call on its ordinary funds to pay for its Centenary celebrations, a deal was agreed with Barnet for a budget of £20,000, to be funded 50/50 by the RA and Barnet. The then Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Matthew Offord, instructed officers to work with the RA to define the precise scope of the works. Despite pressure from the RA, this process did not begin until January 2008 and full feedback on a joint survey, promised for the end of February 2008, was not received until October. Finally, a schedule of works was agreed in November, the works orders placed in December and the work (or most of it) carried out in January 2009 - three years from the date of the original agreement.

Around 60 signs and/or posts have been removed or relocated at a cost close of around £9,000, of which half is being borne by the RA. Click here (pdf) for detailed list. Some £11,000 of the original £20,000 joint budget remains available for decluttering elsewhere, including along the A1 and its side roads where negotiations with Barnet and TfL continue.

In the introduction to its excellent "Greening the Garden Suburb" report, prepared in 1994, English Heritage wrote:

"In Hampstead Garden Suburb, the planned pattern of roads and open spaces and the views they create are as valuable as the buildings themselves. A potential threat to the remarkable unity of this early 20th century estate arises from pressures for the more effective management of traffic and parking and from routine maintenance decisions. Left uncoordinated and uncontrolled, these pressures can lead to a significant diminution in the character and appearance of the conservation area. The erosion of the townscape by small-scale incremental changes may cumulatively have a major adverse impact."

In July 2006, a proposal by the Consam for the preparation of Design Guidelines for the Public Realm was welcomed by London Borough of Barnet?s Highways and Heritage officers and the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. A draft was prepared by Consam, drawing on the Greening report, and subsequently negotiated with the Council?s Highways and Heritage officers. The majority of matters were agreed; the remainder, on which it is hoped that agreement can be reached in subsequent discussion, are documented in an appended Residents Association Position Paper.

The Design Guidelines cover such matters as signs, posts, road markings, street lighting, street furniture and street trees; and standards for maintaining pavements, verges, carriageways, and footpaths.

To read the full document, click here (pdf).

Although LB Barnet has agreed to use its best endeavours to comply with these Guidelines, mistakes can occur. Residents are encouraged to assist the Residents Association and LBB by reporting any breaches of these standards and deficiencies in maintenance of public spaces by emailing consam@hgs.org.uk