|Posted on Monday, 20 March, 2006 - 09:26 am: |
Someones already mentioned this on this thread, and I've heard more about it this weekend - its the Wren spire in Round Hill. Apparently part of St Antholins Church in the city which was I believe partly destroyed in the war. Does anyone know any more about how this spire has come to be in Forest Hill? And why don't I know about this having lived here for over 20 years?
It is cited in English Heritage records but not much information is given.
I also walked up Manor Mount the other day ( as you do) and noticed number 8- a detached house in the Luteyens style with a original front door. Does anyone know any more about this, as its a fab building.
|Posted on Monday, 20 March, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
You probably know about the Christmas houses spelling out names or is it initials of names?
You may recognise some of the places at the following website.
|Posted on Monday, 20 March, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
There are a great many gems hidden in nooks and cranies in Se 23.
|Posted on Monday, 20 March, 2006 - 12:47 pm: |
St Antholin's was demolished to make way for Canon Street Station (unsentimental lot, the Victorians, despite all the Gothic revival stuff!).
It was brought here by whoever it was who owned the large estate on which Round Hill was developed, and it's been here ever since.
You're right about 8 Manor Mount being a good example of arts & crafts, but I don't know any more about it than that. Try the Lewisham history library at Central Library.
|Posted on Monday, 20 March, 2006 - 01:13 pm: |
Thanks for the info and the link. I was aware of Ted Christmas- I used to live in a bedsit in ' Ulverston' on Perry Vale. ' U' as in
L A U R A- Teds wife.
|Posted on Monday, 20 March, 2006 - 09:46 pm: |
Thinking about new architecture, has anyone seen the new house being built at the top of Ringmore Rise.
It looks a lot like a Huf house to me, although I can't be sure.
In any case, nice details (house number cast into the garden wall, etc), and I'm sure has fantastic views.
I would love a look round if you are the owner!
(for Huf houses see Channel 4 article - http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/ houses/S/surrey_huf.html)
|Posted on Tuesday, 21 March, 2006 - 09:13 am: |
Yes, its high position and modern design does mean the house being constructed in Ringmore Rise has amazing views. Don't believe Huf involved on this site but there are some recently built Huf houses in Woodyard Lane, Dulwich Village.
|Posted on Tuesday, 21 March, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
Makes a nice change from some of the horrid extensions in UDB. Lewisham planning department seem to have lost their way and the area could be 'overdeveloped' ie houses too large for the area or just plain damn ugly!
Hope I get some response from some of the owners, but yes nice to see some interesting modern architecture
|Posted on Tuesday, 21 March, 2006 - 03:25 pm: |
Hi Baggy D
Where or what is UDB.
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
Brian you clearly have not been following earlier posts (right versus wrong side of the tracks). Unfortunately most of the contributers seem to have been kicked out. Following my continual pointing out of how nice it is in upper Forest Hill/ South Dulwich (aka the Hornimans area or Tewkesbury Estate) one of the more jealous citizens cristened the area "Upper Dulwich Bottom" which appears to has now become common parlance.
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 03:13 pm: |
Well, me and you use it. And despite my lofty residence I'm common enough.
The rest of you in Lower Catford A* are right to be jealous.
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 04:11 pm: |
I have noticed on other threads, people that live on 'the Hill' often complain about vandlism, trash, crowded parking, rat runs etc.. I seem to remember a poem...
Anyway, as I live in the 'lowlands' around Christ Church, these problems are alien to me.
A friend who came to visit a few months ago has started looking for a flat in Forest Hill. However, as of now, most of his viewings have been on or near 'the Hill'. He came back to me and said. 'I wanted to move to Forest Hill because I like your nieghborood. It's not as nice on the other side of the station."
Keeping with the Architecutal gems, the lowlands have a large amount of villas on Perry Vale, Christmas houses, as well as 'The Church' (currently being made into flats)
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 04:22 pm: |
Well, it takes all sorts. After all - it's not as if Catford is empty. But the other side of the railway, Christmassy bits excepted, has no distinctive character and is the same as the rest of the dreary swathe of SE London.
The railway line is the boundary between areas that aren't too far from civilisation in the form of Zone 2, the tube, Dulwich, etc etc, and places where you may as well be in Hither Green or Eltham or somewhere even more obscure. There is more in the way of mattress-in-garden scruffiness in Lower Catford Armpit than UDB; it is indisputably less respectable and more dreary. The reason such things as mess go remarked on in UDB is they are rather incongruous. The selling points of Forest Hill are the trees and the slopes! Our part does what it says on the tin!
Sing along now "Are you Catford in disguise, are you Catford in disguise?"
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 05:22 pm: |
Oh dear Hilltop, and there was I actually enjoying (and agreeing with) your views on McDonalds…. Whereas Baggydave is being quite tongue in cheek – I actually think you are almost being serious! Do you realise you live in Forest Hill – Kensington it isn’t. Claiming to be from a slightly better part from a largely anonymous part of London is frankly ridiculous. Ok, its slightly closer to desirable places such as Dulwich – but its still a long way from being Dulwich.
Yes, I do live on the South Side of the tracks - on your logic so do most people in Honor Oak (a much more pleasant part of SE23 if you ask me). Shock horror we also have a very impressive vista from our house, as we have hills (I should know I walk up and down them every day). The local architecture is impressive in places, dreary in others but that applies to the whole area I’m afraid. Oh, and although I can’t speak for the people of Hither Green (never had the pleasure), I have visited the wonders of Eltham Palace on more than one occasion – one of the most impressive architectural sights in the south east – perhaps you should visit and broaden your clearly narrow horizons.
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 05:42 pm: |
Well, it's just the bit I prefer I'm afraid - not too keen on grids of terraces, although not keen on some of the 30s semis on the Hill either.
Don't know that you should take something ending with a bit of a terrace chant too seriously though!
As for Honor Oak, depends on whether you mean Duncombe Hill etc or some of the pebble-dash-'n'- aluminium-glazing-'n'-bricks-painted-red crimes against aesthetics you get towards Crofton Park... which goes to illustrate, I guess, that round here it is all a bit patchy and street by street, and if you want and can afford to live somewhere uniformly smart then other parts of London may suit better, I agree.
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
I'm a strange hybrid. On the hill but in ( I suppose) a slightly less desirable building. So it's not all elegant leafiness round these parts either. Nevermind! I'm hoping I can sell up and get more for my money on the other side of the tracks.
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 10:37 pm: |
Meanwhile a former architectural gem of Forest Hill, St. George's Church can be purchased in large bits at Lassco's.
|Posted on Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 - 11:47 pm: |
When did it end up there, and where was it before?
|Posted on Thursday, 23 March, 2006 - 07:24 am: |
It ended up at Lassco's after it was demolished in 1999. It stood at the junction of Vancouver and Woolstone Road. For more info and history try this web page...
|Posted on Thursday, 23 March, 2006 - 07:29 am: |
This all sounds a bit like the Lesley Thomas novel "Tropic of Ruislip" with the railway line defining the divide between the 'Posh' side and the 'Plebs' !!
|Posted on Thursday, 23 March, 2006 - 10:07 am: |
No pictures of St George unfortunately, on the Sydenham society website. Sounds as if it was pretty knackered before though and has had a fitting replacement, so perhaps not as alarming as it sounds.
Must look up "Tropic of Ruislip"; sounds amusing. It's the other way round when you get to Brockley... No more of this though or I'll be in trouble from Nate again.
|Posted on Thursday, 23 March, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
This looks like a photo taken in the old church hall, I'll let you discover what's happening...
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 07:01 pm: |
There appears to be another horid extension going up in UDB.
It would be good to provoke some sort of response from someone who has errected this sort of monstrosity and from an architect who designs these dreadful additions.
I'm confused by Lewisham's stance on this. Their planning guidance makes good sense yet they don't enforce it.
- Extensions should be in harmony with the original buildings
- Extensions should not be overlooking
- Extensions should be smaller and less bulky than the original building
- Extensions should respect the form and shape of the original building
- side extensions should be generally set back from the main elavation of the original house
But they aren't!
S'pose 'should' and 'generally' let LBL of the hook. 3/4 of the extensions are ugly large ugly overdeveloped and you guessed it.... ugly
Any counterarguments please. I'd much rather be praising some enlightened designs....
Is anyone bothered???
|Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 08:26 pm: |
From recent dealings, Lewisham appear not to give a flying F about planning and are happy just to collect the fee. It would even seem that you are fairly safe not bothering to apply in the first place and doing as you please.
|Posted on Thursday, 13 April, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
I know very well a terrace of 5 houses. 3 of which have built large extensions and I know for a fact none of these got planning permission they just built themselves.
Seems to be a policy of build what you like in Lewisham
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 08:19 am: |
I wouldn't advise anyone to build anything for which planning consent is required without consent. If Brian will contact me with details of what he thinks are major extensions built without consent, I will pursue the matter. Don't forget that a certain amount of development is turned down by Lewisham officers or the committees and then allowed on appeal, and some development may fall into the permitted category.
For what it is worth, a lot of of my planning casework is from people who think that Lewisham planners are excessively finnickety and restrictive, so I wouldn't conclude you can do anything here.
My email: Cllr_dave.firstname.lastname@example.org.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 08:49 am: |
You also need to bear in mind that some extensions fall within the category of permitted development, so planning permission is not necessarily required, although most (sensible people) will probably have secured some sort of regularisation approval from the planners before doing the work. However having said that, I do know of some unfortunate people who did not check the planning position or building regs positon and relied instead on their builder to advise them - which they are not generally contractually obliged to as its a owners responsibility- so the builders do the work, pocket the cash and the owner takes the rap. I can think of one loft extension and window replacement nearby that fall into this category. The person in question will never sell his house as his new windows do not meet building regulations and he will be required to replace them all before he does so. The new window replacement legislation is excellent but not many people have a good knowledge of this and as a result many people have been conned by unscrupulous fitters.
From living here for 20 years and also from making a living from carrying out residential development in 7 other London boroughs, it is almost certain that Lewisham planners more than any other have been the instigators of the most horrendous design disasters in London on the back of what is essentially an aesthetically unappreciative populace- I will make no apology for this statement. Have another walk along Devonshire Road from the south cir and look for Upvc Mansions to your right. Absolutely criminal. No other borough would have let them get away with this. No other borough would have let the Capitol get away with the half specified half finished job they did either. No other borough would grant planning permission for developments just of major trunk roads without asking for a method statement- result? Construction traffic reversing on to a main road, delivery vehicles blocking the south circular for 20 minutes in rush hour. Wake up.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 09:47 am: |
Sock it to them Roz. I have been trying to get them to take action on some planning infringements since last Autumn and have just been ignored.
I think the shop conversions on Honor Oak Park fall into much the same category as some of the local delights you describe above, despite Councillor Susan's shrill protests of "..but they're much needed housing!". Yeah, we know - but why have you allowed them to be so ugly?
What really strikes me is the beautiful symmetry in all this of Lewisham's simultaneous neglect of their own buildings - Library, Pools and Louise House - which are only some of the most important buildings in the Forest Hill townscape.
"Lewisham - working in partnership to ruin our local architectural heritage!"
"Lewisham - together we'll make it ugly!"
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 09:17 pm: |
Infringement is bad enough but the biggest crims seem to be the Lewisham Planning Department who don't turn down a lot of applications and whilst they have excellent guidance, adherence to it is indifferent to say the least.
I'm taking this up with them although this is like whistling in the wind. I've also written to one of my Councillors and hope to find out where I can take this next. My rantings against other Borough's - Bromley and Sothwark, didn't get far so not hopeful.
But like the slogans Hilltop, would make a banner and hang it from my roof but then you'd all know where I live and I'd get armies of vigilanties with ugly extensions and their architects fireboming my place.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 09:23 pm: |
Hilltopgeneral and Roz - you guys in SE23 really need to get your act together! A Forest Hill civic society is long overdue - and probably the only way to exert pressure on the Council and planning dept where unsympathetic extensions, unsightly buildings etc are concerned. In the Sydenham Society we have an effective Conservation and Planning committee and spend, on average, about two hours every three weeks in the planning dept looking at plans and making comments and objections. We have also campaigned long and hard for conservation areas within SE26 - after about a decade of lobbying we got the Thorpes Estate designated as a conservation area with an article 4 direction (which restricts possible kinds of development). Although outside of SE26, we currently have our sights set on the Christmas houses of Forest Hill. Please, please start getting together and meeting - rather than sounding off on this Forum! The Dartmouth Arms I'm sure would give you meeting space - and the Sydenham Society will give practical support. Plus, the Civic Trust and the London Forum will also help.
|Posted on Friday, 21 April, 2006 - 10:57 pm: |
I thought the Sydenham Society covered Forest Hill- does it not say this on its website? It would seem sensible to join an established group....
|Posted on Saturday, 22 April, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
Yes, Roz, the web-site does say SE23. However the part of SE23 Sydenham Society covers is up to London Road and Perry Vale/Rise. We just do not have the resources (or manpower) to cover all of SE23 - Honor Oak Road, Devonshire Road, Woolstone Road and Perry and Catford Hill and all roads between.
There really is a need for a Forest Hill Society - residents of Forest Hill should not be looking to the Sydenham Society to cover the entire area from Crystal Palace to Catford.
|Posted on Saturday, 22 April, 2006 - 03:10 pm: |
Thanks for the clarification- I did not realise this. I would love to be involved in a Forest Hill Society but with a full time job I do not personally have the time at present to take a role in starting this up. If anyone else can take this on, I would be happy to support them.