|
|
 |
| |
Contentious: An artist’s impression of how the Vlachos brother’s design could have looked |
Tempers flare in pond house battle
Brothers accuse conservation groups of smear campaign after latest plans are thrown out
LEADING conservation societies have been accused of a vendetta against twin brothers hoping to demolish a 1950s home on the banks of a Hampstead Heath pond and replace it with a contemporary house.
A tense war of words erupted over one of the most contentious developments in the borough after councillors threw out plans submitted by Alex and Thalis Vlachos, owners of the Garden House in the Vale of Health, on Thursday night.
Angry words were traded in the Town Hall corridors after the decision not to allow demolition and building work to begin. The brothers later criticised the Heath and Hampstead Society and the Vale of Health Society for their objections to every proposal they have come up with for the property.
Alex Vlachos said: “We are frustrated and angered by the societies. We have approached them to discuss our new proposals, which they have declined to do. We have been subjected to a smearing campaign to tarnish our credibility.
“We have acted with civility and decorum throughout despite derisory, disparaging and derogatory remarks about us and our architect’s design. This is notwithstanding that none of these characters who have made these comments knows us in person. Our award-winning architect’s intention is to create a new home to justify, as much as anyone can, such an idyllic plot.”
The refusal by councillors to approve the scheme follows a long saga which has already gone to the High Court once. Conservation bodies insist they are willing to go back to the highest court again.
Two years ago, a High Court ruling blocked building work on the brothers’ original scheme after a judicial review, triggered by complaints from the Heath and Hampstead Society on the grounds the plans involved concreting over metropolitan open land – the urban equivalent of protected Green Belt.
Mr Vlachos added: “This is no longer a campaign to protect metropolitan open land but a demonstration by these societies that they have the power to prevent individuals who want to develop their properties within reasonable and proportionate boundaries, because they object to further development.”
The twins maintained the increase in size of the new development was “comparatively minor”.
But the Heath and Hampstead Society chairman Tony Hillier said: “The combination of the design and the larger footprint meant it was completely unacceptable. We hope the owners will try again. We want something built there but our starting point is that it must not infringe on any metropolitan open land.
“There is no question of the owners not being allowed to develop their own property. It is a question of how they do it.”
Both sides heard a close-run debate among the council’s cross-party panel of planning councillors.
Lib Dem councillor Paul Braithwaite, who voted for the plans, said the new house would be a “positive contribution” while party colleague Flick Rea said: “The house may fit nicely alongside a large lake in the Canadian wilderness, but not by a pond on Hampstead Heath.”
The final vote was five in favour and six against. |
 |
|
|
|
Here is a statement sent to the CNJ by Alex and Thalis Vlachos:
Our reaction is that we are disappointed at the Committee's decision given our efforts to adapt the plan and the scale of the house to accommodate the High Court and Court of Appeal's decision which was clear that in addition to square footage, measurements such as footprint and volumetric space can be taken into account in assessing whether an increase can be deemed materially larger.
Accordingly, when taking these measurements as an aggregate, any increase was comparatively minor.
In addition, given the idyllic setting, we do not think we should be penalised for incorporating within the design glass. This is especially bearing in mind the great lengths we have gone through to appease people of any light pollution concerns by emphasizing the use of non-reflective glass and screening.
We are extremely frustrated and angered by the stance taken by the societies to the new application on two counts. First, we have on several occasions endeavoured to approach them to meet to discuss our new proposals which they have declined to do. Secondly, the threat of a second judicial review which we do not believe was genuine influenced some of the Committee members and ultimately scuppered our application.
This is no longer a campaign to protect Metropolitan Open Land but a demonstration by these societies that they have the power to prevent individuals who want to develop their properties within reasonable and proportionate boundaries because they object to further development.
In addition to that, we have over the years been subjected to what we can only describe as a smearing campaign to tarnish our credibility. As far as we are concerned we have acted with civility and decorum throughout despite derisory, disparaging and derogatory remarks about us and architects' design. This is notwithstanding that none of these characters who have made these comments know us in person and our Architect is a highly respected award winning architect whose intention is and has always been to create a new home to justify, as much as anyone can, such a beautiful and idyllic plot.
Finally, we would like to say that we intend to replace the existing house with a contemporary building of very high quality and notwithstanding the obstacles in our way; and that we are confident that, when the new house is built it will be a welcome addition to the Vale and we are hopeful that some of the neighbours, if not all, despite their initial concerns will also see it as such. |
| |
|
|
|
