How the new building would look

FROM a cosy family home to an imposing six-floor block of flats – plans to raze a 100-year-old house in Dartmouth Park and replace it with six homes faces blanket opposition with developers accused of “sheer greed” after presenting plans to the Town Hall.

The house, called Lamorna, dates from 1930 and was kept deliberately at two storeys when it was first built to provide a snug home that did not impact on gardens and a sense of space.

Built in what was once part of a garden, the house has recently been modernised to provide what one estate agent called “the perfect NW5 family home”.

But its owners disagree – and their bid to demolish the standalone home and replace it with a six-floor block of flats has met fierce resistance from neighbours and residents’ groups.

Opponents say the plans for the site in Dartmouth Park Road are far too large, will overshadow much-loved gardens and cast dark shadows into homes, and is “horrendous overdevelopment”.

The application has prompted scores of objections and a jungle-drum-style campaign has spread among neighbours who are determined to fight off what one called a “hideous pastiche” and another said was “more in keeping with a posh central New York avenue – not a quiet dead end in Dartmouth Park”.

SUPPORT THE NEW JOURNAL BY SIGNING UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Designs show a modern block with tiered balconies that “swirl” across its facade and floor-to-ceiling windows.

A top floor is recessed and offers a terrace for residents. The plans have prompted a huge backlash.

Pat Soloman, who lives in nearby Boscastle Road, told the Town Hall: “This is a conservation area and Lamorna faces one of the most beautiful buildings in the area that has a blue plaque. Please don’t allow this very ugly proposal.

“This building is not sympathetic to its environment. It looks like the work of a greedy developer forcing a huge structure into a very small space and therefore will always look uncomfortable. It is just truly ugly and too imposing for the space.”

The current site

Barbara Storch, also of Boscastle Road, added: “While creating living space in London is important, and something that inevitably will require compromise, this application clearly only maximises developers’ greed at the cost of the conservation area.

“It is literally changing a small family house and garden with a 100 per cent concrete block. The basement flat has zero natural light – what greed.”

Chetwynd Road resident Marica Rytovaara told the Town Hall: “I thought a conservation area meant just that –  and cannot see how this kind of overscaled monstrosity can even be considered as its bulk, style and height is totally at odds with the environment. It will tower over gardens and remove light and privacy.”

And Dartmouth Park Road residents Alex and Katharine Chadwick added the designs were clear overdevelopment.

They said: “The proposal is disproportionate, excessively dense and is oversized. The size is particularly excessive when considered in the context of the site.”

Designers from Maddox planning consultants, employed by the owners, say they have designed the new housing to lessen impact by putting balconies at the front of the building, adding: “The new units are unlikely to have direct views into the properties along Dartmouth Park Road, nor Chetwynd Road.”

They also called overshadowing issues by the replacement building, which is significantly higher than Lamorna, as being “negligible”.

Calling the proposal “sensitively designed”, they called Lamorna a “brownfield site” whose redevelopment would help hit new homes targets.

The application claims the building is dispensable as it does not mimic others in the mid-Victorian street.

They claimed: “Although in a reason­able condition and not poor quality, Lamorna is at odds with its neighbours.

“The site does not draw in any way on the architectural language of the Victorian villas further along the road.

“The site doesn’t make an overtly negative contribution to the character and appearance of the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area but neither is its contribution a demonstrably positive one.”

They also claim its replacement would be an “innovative and exciting building that replaces an unremarkable early-mid 20th century single dwelling of no heritage interest”.