|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 01:56 pm: |
An application was lodged on 10th May, and this is now out for public consultation, with the closing date of 6th June.It is for 14 newbuild flats to the rear of the main building, on the current garage and refuse site. DC/07/65424/X; CONTACT JAMES PARRY, PLANNING OFFICER. LBL. Respond to firstname.lastname@example.org
This ought to be of interest to the residents of Perry Vale and Dacres Road ( Inc Ian Court and Perrystreete) for the following reasons;
a) Refuse collection. The developer is proposing to relocate the existing bin store to a ridiculous location which can only result in lack of bin capacity, poor access for collection, overflowing bins, and increased vermin. It is much too close to the flats to be acceptable.
b) Car parking pressure on Dacres Road. The developer is proposing a car free development for the new 14 units on the grounds of existing low parking need. If you recall the previous discussion on this, the low parking need (nonsense by the way) is demonstrated by lack of interest in existing local residents of the 48 flats inrenting the 16 garages to the rear and lack of parking demand on the access road within the grounds. However as a former resident of this block, I could never rent a garage due to lack of response from the managing agent, and/or when I did hear back, there were never any vacancies,- or when they were the rents were extortionate! Instead these garages were rented out to a range of dubious interests ( not residents) who used them for brick cutting, car repair businesses, and what was suspected to be housing stolen property. The developer is using this lack of take up as an argument for demolishing the garages and rebuilding a flatted development.
The freeholder also not so long ago imposed parking restrictions on the access road demanding over £300 pa for an unmarked space. This proved to be illegal and in breach of the rights of many longstanding occupiers. The resultant effect however was displacement onto Dacres Road; many people complained of this on this website.
The new proposals can only exacerbate this problem, and effectively, the developer is not telling the Council the whole story about the parking/garage/parking need situation. They say it will be a car free zone but this is increasingly impossible to legally enforce. The 28 +or so residents of these 14 flats will simply park in surrounding streets, therefore increasing the problem in Dacres Road, etc, even further.
There have been currently two objections to this application- the Council need 10 to hold a consultation and to take this seriously. There are many issues of material planning concern which should be taken into account, parking and refuse are only 2 of a long list. ! If you feel strongly about this issue, then please let James Parry know as soon as possible.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 02:17 pm: |
The original discussion on this was archived June 2004-' Vale Lodge, Dacres Road.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 02:56 pm: |
I think this is the link to the current planning applicatio:
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 03:36 pm: |
Remember too that the development at the Finches site was granted in November 2006 - for 70 flats and just 19 car parking spaces! Also, around 2 years ago planning permission was given for a development of 12 flats at 33-35 Dacres Road - details at this link: http://www4.lewisham.gov.uk/acolnet/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/acolnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeRe sultDetail&TheSystemkey=45036
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 03:55 pm: |
With regards to this development, I think Roz has some valid points and I wish the residents of Vale Lodge and Perrystreete all the best.
With regards to the lorry park discussion, when viewing the 'site location plan' on the link above, the station car park is referred to as the 'car and lorry park'. Has the decision already been made?
Does anyone know what the take up has been like on the new development, in the words of Maceo Parker, (a)cross the tracks, on Clyde Terrace? I suspect that any potential developers (Berkeley Home and Mr Newman) are keeping a keen eye on this.
|Posted on Thursday, 31 May, 2007 - 06:53 am: |
I agree Roz
My mother lives in Dacres Road.She does not drive but impossible for visitors at present to park anywhere near there.
I well recall the worse problems last year when the freeholder imposed high parking charges in Vale Lodge. The result was about 1 or 2 residents at the most parked there , the rest on Dacres.
When are we going to stop allowing ruthless devolpers to fill in every nook and cranny with houses.
Our infrastructure cannot take any more people. We need more jobs in the area not houses although I know very few employers would be interested in srtting up here because of logistics and infrastructure problems.
|Posted on Saturday, 02 June, 2007 - 10:21 am: |
Need to bump this discussion up a bit and also encourage some action, as there is not a lot of time.
Currently the planners have three written objections and none in favour. However 3 is not enough to prevent the automatic granting of permission, should the planners choose to do so under delegated powers- more are needed. There are 48 flats in the existing block, I would have thought some would be reading this website! If you are happy with the situation then fine, if you are not, then you need to complain to the planners, and fairly fast. If you are complacent, then this will go through and you may regret the outcome for years to come.
The other issue for existing occupiers is that this is likely to be in breach of your current lease, and also may seriously affect your property values due to reduced amenity,ie parking, rubbish, quiet enjoyment of your property, not to mention the hassle living next to this ill conceived development will cause. So think pounds and pence coming out of your pocket. If you have just paid the record sum of £200k for a flat there, or are hoping to get this from an incoming buyer, you may find several thousand dropping off the value with immediate effect.
Although this is not a material planning concern or reason for refusal of permission, it is still a most valid consideration for existing residents of Vale Lodge and requires further investigation by solicitors as at the very least, a Deed of Variation will be required to amend the amenity use.
This issue of parking will as Brian has confirmed, continue to impact on Dacres Road residents so they too should act to oppose the principle and nature of this absurd development.
I note that the Forest Hill Society is not one of the formal consultees to this application- should it not be?
|Posted on Saturday, 02 June, 2007 - 10:31 am: |
Just to clarify the parking position in respect of Nasarocs point, this is not just an issue about providing 14 new homes without parking - it effectively means 48 existing flats plus 14 new homes will not have parking, ie 62 dwellings, most of which are 2 bed flats, some 3 bed, hence you are really looking at a potential parking requirement/need in total of around 100 car parking spaces if some homes have more than one car which is indeed possible. Many of these cars including visitor parking have already taken up residence in Dacres Road as a result of the absurd and illegal parking charges imposed by the landlord. Additionally, unlike the Finches development, none of these 14 units are for affordable housing as the development is deliberately just below the threshold of 15 units rquired for the imposition of a 25% quota, hence the argument used in the Finches development that social housing tenants do not generally own cars does not apply here.
|Posted on Saturday, 02 June, 2007 - 11:18 am: |
I looked today and hard top see where they have the space to put any more units.
This is a sorry tale of a greedy freeholder. All leaseholders should be aware that there gardens and even roof space could be under threat. I am glad I now own my freehold.
This will devalue all properties in Vale Lodge. The current owners should be up in arms . Only acting as one can they defeat this plan.
I would like to think the council will throw it out but you never can tell.
|Posted on Sunday, 03 June, 2007 - 11:47 am: |
I doubt it.
I have seen applications with dozens of objections approved.
|Posted on Monday, 04 June, 2007 - 09:51 pm: |
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I emailed my objection this afternoon.
It seems that Lewisham's website is down so I can't tell how many others have objected - hopefully we've had some more over the last 24 hours.
|Posted on Friday, 08 June, 2007 - 10:22 pm: |
As of tonight there were 41 objections listed on the Lewisham website.
|Posted on Tuesday, 12 June, 2007 - 09:45 am: |
Unfortunately, I think that Sherwood is correct. Even with the increased number of objections it is still possible that permission could still be granted. What I think is really needed is the support of a local councillor or two. Only then might they overrule a delegated decision and the application be taken to committee, where the public can have their say.
|Posted on Tuesday, 12 June, 2007 - 11:18 am: |
Are only neighbours allowed to object . I live 8 mins walk away.
I would like to object on behalf of my mother who lives in Dacres and parking is a nightmare , even more so when the freeholder of Vale Lodge imposed changes.
Would not it be possible under new legislation for the leaseholders to jointly apply to buy freehold. The free holder here seems bad news and only out for profit not wellbeing of leaseholders.
|Posted on Tuesday, 12 June, 2007 - 11:45 am: |
Brian: anyone is free to object to a planning application.
I think parking will be a (if not the) major issue. On the Finches development Berkeley Homes argued that having so many units and so few parking spaces wouldn't cause additional parking on nearby streets because (1) it would be written into the terms of the flats that occupants couldn't apply for residents' parking in Hindsley's Close [a small Controlled Parking Zone which the council said they don't propose to extend], and (2) residents wouldn't want to park further away in non-restricted streets because people don't like to park too far from their homes for car security reasons. The fact that residents of Vale Lodge already park in Dacres Road shows there is an existing demand for on-street parking and the loss of parking space within the grounds of Vale Lodge and the increase in number of flats can only increase demand for parking on Dacres Road.
|Posted on Tuesday, 12 June, 2007 - 12:21 pm: |
I will put in objection.
I personally have no problem parking 150 yards or so from my home. I agree some people get very upset if they cannot park outside their house.
Dacres Road is a no go area for parking. I think combination of commuters and Vale Lodgians. They could solve overnight by banning parking for 1 hours say 10 to 11 am or 2 to 3 pm. Only need to swamp area with wardens at that time. No need for local permits etc.
|Posted on Sunday, 24 June, 2007 - 02:50 pm: |
I understand that this application is to be refused outright; good news all round I think.
|Posted on Sunday, 24 June, 2007 - 03:26 pm: |
Yes I agree.
|Posted on Monday, 25 June, 2007 - 09:35 am: |
Even if it is thrown out, you have to remember that the applicant can resubmit their application as many times as they like or simply appeal. Unfortunately, the objector has no right to appeal. What can often happen is that the applicant will keep making minor changes to the application until it is accepted. Planning applications very rarely disappear completely, rather they are compromised until mutual agreement is reached. So if it gets thrown out this time, keep your eyes open for a revised application or appeal.
|Posted on Monday, 25 June, 2007 - 10:09 am: |
Very good point. I find it hard to believe any new application would be allowed. This is a monsterous proposal. Next they will be suggesting taking of the roof of Vale Lodge and adding a new floor to the building .
They have already driven most of the cars onto Dacres Road despite the fact loads of parking space
in The Lodge
|Posted on Monday, 25 June, 2007 - 03:06 pm: |
You also have to consider that if it gets thrown out then there is nothing to stop the applicant discussing the application with the appointed council planning officer. After all, the planning officer is there to advise both applicant and objector. The planning officer would be obliged to advise the applicant on what might need to be changed to the application to make it acceptable. If the applicant resubmits and satisfies the planning officer's guidelines, then it becomes significantly harder to object. As I said, it's all about compromise, but invariably the applicant will eventually gain something from the process and usually it's the making of money!
|Posted on Monday, 25 June, 2007 - 03:08 pm: |
Residents of Vale Lodge. Rise up and buy your Freehold
|Posted on Tuesday, 10 July, 2007 - 11:00 am: |
I have copied the refusal notice- see below;
1) The detailed design of the proposed building does not relate to its surroundings and Design and Access Statement lacks sufficient information regarding the context of the proposed building and its impact on the town scape. The materials to be used, a blue/grey brick with green windows, doors and metal cladding are considered unsympathetic and out of keeping with its surroundings. As such, the development would be contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing and Policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG 4 Residential Amenity and HSG 5 Layout & Design of New Residential Development of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
2) The scheme would fail to provide sufficient car parking and disabled car parking for the 14 units proposed, to the detriment of on street parking pressures in the vicinity. As such, the development would be contrary to Policies TRN 23 Car Free Residential Development and TRN 26 Car Parking Standard of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
3) The proposed development, by reason of excessive site coverage and the high number of habitable rooms per hectare, would result in an overdevelopment of the site and as such would be contrary to Policy HSG 16 Density of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)
4) The positioning of the cycle parking, outside of the proposed building is not acceptable as the cycle parking should be secured, inside the building. The proposal would, therefore be contrary to Policy TRN 14 Cycle Parking and URB 4 Designing out Crime of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
5) The siting of the refuse 45m away from the existing vehicular access is not acceptable as it is likely to result in refuse lorries parking on Perry Vale and causing a build up in traffic along that road and would, therefore not comply with Policy URB 3 Urban Design and HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).
Informative notes: There are no informative notes
Appeal Received Date: This case has no appeals against it
|Posted on Thursday, 12 July, 2007 - 07:27 am: |
Seems refused on a number of points so hopefully appeal would be futile. I agree especially with point 3 re overdevolpment in that area. You have Ian Court, Vale Lodge and The Council Block all high rise and in a row.
Let us hope the Landlord lets the matter rest but I somehow doubt it
|Posted on Thursday, 12 July, 2007 - 01:21 pm: |
It is more likely that the Landlord or developer will resubmit a further planning application amended to satisfy the five points mentioned in the refusal notice. It would be wishful thinking to assume that nothing is going to happen on that site eventually, especially at this stage when time and money has been invested.
|Posted on Thursday, 12 July, 2007 - 05:00 pm: |
Hopefully the fact that the proposals will be in breach of the various leases and will need lessees consent to proceed will also be an influencing factor in whether this monstrous development proceeds, regardless of whether it gets planning at some point in the future. I can't see how a fresh application will fare any better however appeals have a life of their own and some councils rely on the appeals process to make the decision rather than get themselves into hot water with contentious applications.
|Posted on Friday, 13 July, 2007 - 09:52 am: |
I'm very pleased that it's been thrown out and there is no doubt that there would need to be significant change for it ever to be feasible, but I must repeat the comments I made above on the 25th June. Unfortunately, when there's money to be made, these things rarely go away.