Planning News

[JRW]

Two planning issues, from the Lewisham Planning website.

Firstly, on 27 March 2018, the Head of Planning, Emma Talbot, issued a
'Refusal of Permission to Develop' notice on the site of St Philip Neri school at the corner of Sydenham Road and Fairlawn Park

The reason for refusal is that:
'The proposed external materials would, by reason of their appearance, quality and
fixing method, resulting in a poorly detailed and incongruent building harmful to local
character and contrary to Policies 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core
Strategy (June 2011) and Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) DM
Policy 30 Urban design and local character.'

This document is found at
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk and search for st philip neri. search with planning reference number,DC/18/105610, click on the Documents tab, and the decision was made on March 27th. Currently at the top of the list.

I am not a lawyer, but it sounds as if we might get a chance to improve the exterior of a building, currently discussed on the board as 'the Monstrosity'


Also, just to mention that, in case you haven't heard, a substantial development of up to eight floors is currently being considered for 86 - 92 Bell Green. The SydSoc are on the case, but do have a look at the plans, so you can contribute your thoughts, as an 8 floor building on such a small footprint is going to be eyecatching. Get your thoughts in online, as only 1 objector can speak at a planning meeting

DC/17/102792 | Demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part 6/ part 7/ part 8-storey mixed use development comprising 23 self-contained residential units, and 59sqm (GIA) commercial ground floor space (Use Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) & B1 (Business), 5 car parking spaces, 40 cycle parking spaces, refuse stores, and private residential balconies and communal amenity area at 86-92 Bell Green SE26. | 86-92 BELL GREEN, LONDON, SE26 4PZ

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications and search for DC/17/102792 or Bell Green.

[stuart]

That's good news on the school.

As for the other planning application - I was led to a login page that was unencrypted (no https://). Only an idiot would nowadays send their password in plain text for anyone in between to see. But not as idiotic as the planning department for making that possible.

That's breaking every rule in the security handbook. Who needs Cambridge Analytica with inept folks like that?

Stuart

[JayB]

many thanks JRW, very useful post.
My initial reaction to 86-92 Bell Green is a massive yes to housing and not more shops. We will be looking directly on to this building from Perry Rise so my concerns would be now that we sadly have learned so much about the dangers of cladding ,what can the architects do to make the building attractive, yes even if the developers have to spend more money.They are making money hand over fist anyway.

As we have had the gas holders towering over us for so long i am not sure 8 stories will be of such an impact though of course you could see through the holders when they were not full. To me the overall quality of design is much more important than it being 8 stories high, or less. The flats adjacent are what, six stories?

But overall I fully support the use of the land for housing and in particular it will involve the riddance of that awful fencing, the unsupportable amounts of litter and dumping we currently suffer and it should also rid us of the horrendous, migraine- inducing signage that we currently are forced to look at. each and every day. Please say the council won't allow them to use a residential block for similar purposes!!!! Look at Sports Direct and learn a simple lesson.Who knew failing Art GCSE could be a condition of being a developer in Bell Green (and much elsewhere in Lewisham!)

Re St Philip Neri- who on earth is commissioning and briefing the architects, without being rude to its congregation, the church itself looks for all the world like the arse-end of a crematorium from Sydenham Road and the new school building has yet to inspire me at all . Come on guys!

[JRW]

Hi all,
I am glad that the info is useful to you; I am thrilled that Lewisham are playing hardball over the school, as the diocese has been making it up as it goes along, changing all the specs, and counting on getting permission anyway. Well done Lewisham Planning!

Re the Bell Green plans, just to be clear, this is not the gasholder site. It is the very shabby run down block next to the doctors surgery, which used to have a little bakery. All tenants were cleared at the end of last year, and it certainly needs something new on the site. The artists impressions look lovely, but they are misleading, as they don't show the building's proportions in relation to its neighbours.

I like a lot about the design, but am not convinced that eight stories on such a tiny footprint won't look like a pillar. If the surgery added an extra couple of well-needed floors, it might work. With the current surgery building, it would be weird.

As for the gasholders, I suspect I am from the other side to you; I am one of the objectors, and am passionate about keeping them. Part of my objection was that the demolition gives no utility or community benefit, in return for losing the gasholders. No development is indicated, so we can't comment on the design quality of their replacement, and whether it would have an adverse effect on the group of listed structures. SGN's poor record of site maintenance means that immediate neighbours' hopes of tidying up the site are unlikely to be met. I do stress this point - we cannot trust them to maintain the cleared site adequately, as they have let the current appalling conditions keep deteriorating.

Have you seen Place+Ladywell? Brilliant modular homes which can be moved four times, as sites are ready from permanent development. Designed by Richard Rodgers, they are stunning, and would be absolutely brilliant on some of the vast acres of landbanked property at Bell Green. Sainsbury's, you are a particular target of mine. Designer temporary housing could be a great use of a fraction of their vast carpark, while they wait for the Bakerloo Line to cash in. Check out the ariel view of Bell Green on Google Earth, and you can see the vast area that could be considered.

So, I think that YES housing, more than could fit onto the gasholder pitch, but using some of the derelict land before we demolish one of LS's few landmarks. I have asked the planners to consider drawing up some guidelines about what could be amazing, if we can get the developers co-ordinate. Otherwise Bell Green will end up with random buildings dropped from above, with no sense of community, public space or pedestrians being welcome.

Sorry for the rant, hope you aren't offended that I am a conservation nut, but I really think we need to press for a strategy, otherwise Bell Green will look like a wasteland for eternity.

[JRW]

PS: Thanks, Stuart, for alerting me to the security issue. If you know how to do clever hyperlinks on this site, please do go ahead, as it would be much easier than following my instructions.....

[Pally]

The Bell Green flats are better than the dreadful green box flats next door to that site!!

[TredownMan]

Thanks for flagging

I’ll be emailing in to support. According to the design statement, the gas holders are ten storeys so they’ll blend in well and stop the ironwork being quite so out of keeping with the visual amenity. More importantly, more homes for more people to enjoy our neighbourhood, which can only be positive.

According to the doc, this is the fourth round of the process after the council asked for a succession of requested tweaks, so hopefully it should meet the planning dept’s concerns.

[JRW]

Pally - I totally agree with you about that ghastly doomladen-green cladding next door. Perhaps they took the Bell Green address a bit literally.... This block is an example of the need for joined-up thinking. There used to be room for pedestrians to pass the bus stop, until they put them up. How many decades before the bus shelter is moved?

I will check up on the cladding and detailing, but it looks rather good, and if a floor is added to the surgery, it could look excellent. God knows, the surgery needs more space to expand, and cope with the influx of patients that each new block brings.

I will give you s cheerful greeting across the barricades at the gasholder battle!

[JayB]

Full agreement about the algae-green flats-another example of the unlovliness we are all treated to ,as if living in Bell Green weren't enough already.

The flats opposite the proposal (ie on the Sainsburys side of the main road) are 7 stories are they not, so i am inclined to think the new proposal could work well with them.I like the design. I suppose the key will be the finish which could make or break it.

Out of interest , perhaps those with a better knowledge of planning procedures could tell us, do things like the doctors' capacity, rubbish collection, school places and bus capacity in an area get reviewed strategically as population density increases? Dare i mention road capacity given the counci lhas already said the roads are at or over capacity in Bell Green. Or do we have to wait until the authorities see fit? Surely they ought to be looked at automatically- that is not a reson for not building housing which I fully support, i am just saying they ought to automatically consider increasing services to match the population growth.

[TredownMan]

The design and access statement gives a sample of the materials proposed on this development, and some examples of the look they want, in the "design and access" statement here: http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... 637125.pdf


One thing I would add is that if you are sort of ambivalent about the design, and can live with it, I’d be cautious about letting perfect be the enemy of good by forcing the designers back to the drawing board.

Clearly, there is going to be a new building here – the shops have already been cleared. The question is what, and whether by delaying the project you’re going to get a lower or a higher quality of design.

For example, if you try to cut back on height from eight to six storeys, will the developer need to balance the books by e.g. fitting in smaller flats (bad for tenants) or cutting back on the quality of design (plastic cladding instead of bricks, plain brickwork instead of textured, getting rid of the electric car charging and roof garden, etc etc). So often taller buildings are more handsome precisely because the builder has greater returns.

[JRW]

That is a really interesting point, TredownMan. I was walking past the site today, and looked from all angles, and I think that the height would be fine. I will check the finishes, though, as the monstrosity has made my trust levels plummet!

[TredownMan]

One option open to everyone is to tell the council that you could support such height/density in principle but only if they deliver as billed the materials/parking/greenery etc. They often build in such conditions in the permissions to prevent any rollback to cheaper materials later on. Tactically it’s probably a more effective way of driving good development than objecting on multiple fronts (eg height plus density plus noise plus light plus pollution plus taste etc etc) as conservation societies are prone to do.

[JRW]

The Queensthorpe Road smart bench is under consideration for retrospective planning permission. This, and the case of every other such bench in Lewisham, will be decided any day now. If you have a view, register it online now, as once confirmed it will be with us a long time. As it is in a conservation area, your views are particularly important.

I am enthusiastic about smart benches, but this design has an extremely prominent advertising board, which I think adds to the street clutter, and detracts from the renovated high street. Other designs are available, and we can definitely do better. As of now, I am the only person to comment, and they will probably be waved through unless other voices are heard.

[Growsydenham]

A planning application for a block comprising five flats at 219 Sydenham Road has been approved. From the latest planning committee minutes:

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... inutes.pdf

5. 219 Sydenham Road, SE26
Planning Manager Helen Milner outlined the details of the application to members and noted
that one letter of support for the scheme had been received in addition to an objection from
the Sydenham Society. It was noted that the development would be car free which is
considered to be acceptable at a site with a PTAL of 4.
Councillor Reid asked whether the building was higher than the neighbouring property and
requested a definition of a family dwelling. Helen Milner stated that the building was not
higher than the neighbouring properties and clarified that a three bedroom unit is considered
to be family sized. Councillor Mallory asked if there was a CPZ. Helen Milner responded that
it was not a CPZ but is situated on a red route. A discussion then took place regarding CPZs
and car free developments within the borough.
Members then received a verbal representation from David Lawton (applicant). Mr Lawton
explained that the scale of the development had been reduced following two pre-application
meetings with officers. David Lawton stated that he was aware of the objection but that he
had worked with neighbours to deliver an acceptable scheme as evidenced by a letter of
support. Mr Lawton concluded by claiming that the size of the units meet the needs of local
residents.
The committee then heard a presentation from Annabel McLaren representing the
Sydenham Society. Annabel McLaren stated that the design of the proposed building was
bland and would not contribute positively to the streetscene. It was then stated that the
conversion of the existing building would be more in keeping with the surrounding buildings.
Annabel McLaren then raised concerns regarding the retention of a side entrance noting that
it does not contribute to the streetscene.
Councillor Moore noted that the existing building has a side entrance. Annabel McLaren
responded that the conversion of the existing building could have included a front entrance.
Annabel Mclaren concluded by noting that a neighbouring building built in the 1960s
contributed positively to the streetscene but reiterated that the proposed building would be a
bland and uninteresting addition to the road.
Members then received a verbal representation from Councillor Best speaking under
standing orders. Councillor Best welcomed the proposal to provide additional housing.
However, it was noted that the site forms part of an attractive corner of Sydenham Road and
explained that the Council have refused applications in the past that would be detrimental to
the appearance of the area. Councillor Best stated that the proposed building does not
reflect the architecture of the surrounding buildings particularly in regard to the design of the
roof.
Helen Milner responded by highlighting that there are a variety of different roof forms in the
surrounding area and noted that the proposed flat roof contributes to the contemporary
design of the proposed building. It was also noted that there are a variety of architecture
styles in the vicinity including buildings that share the proposed contemporary design
approach. Helen Milner concluded by stating that the proposed building was consistent with
the building line and heights of the surrounding buildings and noted that a condition securing
materials had been imposed.
Councillor Mallory explained that the area requires additional housing and noted that the
existing building is not of any particular architectural merit. Councillor Mallory then stated
that the proposed building would be an improvement on the existing and moved a motion to
approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Reid.
Members Voted as follows:
For Approval: Councillors Reid (Chair), Ogunbadewa (Vice Chair), Mallory, Moore & Muldoon,
Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/17/104391

[stuart]

As for the other planning application - I was led to a login page that was unencrypted (no https://). Only an idiot would nowadays send their password in plain text for anyone in between to see.

Delighted to report I have received an email from Lewisham that this security problem has been fixed. So you should be able to login to the planning site securely.

Stuart

[Growsydenham]

An update on the Bell Green development, an eight-story block of shops and flats to replace a shorter block of now-derelict shops/flats.

The council officers in their written report recommended it go ahead. However at the meeting councillors voted to delay a decision for six weeks while they look into reports on air quality and affordability.

Two residents, a local councillor and the Sydenham Society wrote in opposition to the development. 32 residents wrote in favour of it. The full report listing the arguments and the council assessment can be found here:

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... Report.pdf

[Growsydenham]

News report here

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16401 ... ing-plans/

Unfortunately does not mention that big majority of respondents (32) were in favour.