|Posted on Thursday, 31 August, 2006 - 05:08 pm: |
Are any of you affected by this? Just had a note through my door about the proposed residential development off Tyson Road ie the Christian Fellowship Centre's gardens. Before submitting a planning application, they're inviting local residents to a public exhibition of the proposed scheme on 6th September at the CFC.
|Posted on Thursday, 31 August, 2006 - 05:26 pm: |
Where are the CFC gardens? I live just round the corner from Tyson Road on Devonshire. Cant remember seeing any Christian Fellowship buildings. I may be mistaken.
|Posted on Thursday, 31 August, 2006 - 05:33 pm: |
They are located on Honor Oak Road - where voting station is but they run all way down hill.
Will be looking carefully as house back's onto it.
|Posted on Thursday, 31 August, 2006 - 05:43 pm: |
Good approach that, like it. Who is the developer?
|Posted on Thursday, 31 August, 2006 - 06:11 pm: |
I should check very carefully although I cannot believe it will be good for existing residents.
Since our great govenment have decided to double population of south east they seem to OK every scheme for increasing crowding
|Posted on Thursday, 31 August, 2006 - 07:26 pm: |
Examine the planning application very carefully. Some people are very good at misleading the casual reader.
|Posted on Thursday, 31 August, 2006 - 08:50 pm: |
"Casual reader" - yes, that sums me up pretty neatly.
So if any of you more knowledgeable readers would care to pop into the Christian Fellowship Centre between 2 and 8pm on Wednesday 6th September to view the Public Exhibition of this proposed scheme and then share your thoughts on this thread, it would be much appreciated.
|Posted on Friday, 01 September, 2006 - 07:17 pm: |
Loromah Estates Limited have placed a full page ad in todays South London Press regarding this development.
States the exhibition will provide the opportunity to view the draft proposals and speak directly with the design team. Where appropriate the team will make changes to the scheme in light of your comments.
Have only been able to find Loromah listed as clients of Miller Mitchell Burley Lane, charted surveyors.
|Posted on Saturday, 02 September, 2006 - 07:19 am: |
So, this plan raises its head yet again.
I lived in Tyson Road for several years in the early '90s and the plan was submitted and refused twice in that time alone. Clearly the church intends to keep on until they get their way, possibly relying on people moving away from the area and memories being short.
Haven't seen the current plans (no longer in FH) but at that time they wanted to make a new entry to the site by demolishing a small house to the left of no. 19 (17A I think it is or was numbered). This would have created a very narrow road exiting onto Tyson Rd with no clear view of traffic.
The main objections were:
destruction of green space and wildlife area,
unacceptable increased traffic in residential areas,
dangerous junction at entry/exit to the site onto narrow roads e.g.Tyson/HO Park,
lack of parking space in the plans,
insufficient capacity in existing main sewers to allow increased population density.
Good luck with objecting. These people wish to destroy an important green habitat, increase pollution and traffic and overload local infrastructure. Their only motivation is excessive profit at the expense of the local environment.
One other point. At a public meeting at the time there was a very persuasive speaker in the audience who claimed to share all the concerns of the objectors but spoke strongly in favour of the scheme. It was only when asked challenged directly that he admitted that he was involved with the scheme itself. So beware of deceptive tactics.
|Posted on Saturday, 02 September, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
Thanks, Sydh. Good to know some of the background to this development. There are also protected trees on that site, I understand. I don't know whether that makes any difference.
Anyway, I'm sure there are still enough concerned local residents in the area to mount a strong challenge to this proposal.
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 September, 2006 - 09:19 am: |
The South London Press has further information on this site where an 85 home block of flats is planned.
Stuart Cunliffe of Loromah Estates is quoted as saying "Our design team has worked tirelessly to ensure the scheme is of the very highest design quality and minimises its impact on its surroundings."
The exhibition takes place today between 2pm - 8pm.
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 September, 2006 - 01:46 pm: |
That would be awful. That would destroy the view to that side of my property (already ruined from back due to misleading planning application from property developers). Will be interesting to see what they say about the protected trees.
Would be interested to hear Steve Bullock's views as a "very" local resident of the development?
Can anyone find the planning application? This time or last?
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 September, 2006 - 03:23 pm: |
There is this application by Loromah Estates in August 2000 for Tyson Road Ref: 00/47260. Which consisted of Town Houses.
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/ac olnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultD etail&TheSystemkey=31158
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 September, 2006 - 10:04 pm: |
Did many of you get along to the public exhibition? The plan is for 7 "pavilions" making a Mixture of 1, 2 and 3 beds. Sedum roofs (green, cactus stuff). Underground parking for 74 cars. Access from Tyson road by knocking down 17 and 19 (or was it 15 and 17?) and replacing them with two new buildings. They say almost all of the protected trees surrounding the development would remain and the new development would be barely visible to those of us backing on to the site!!!!
Stuart Cunliffe told me planning application had been approved in 1992 but Lewisham Council rejected it. It had then gone to Whitehall which overturned Lewisham Council's rejection and said the site should be built on (brownfield, windfall site). Not sure why, in that case, they didn't build. That planning application has now lapsed hence they're having to renew it. So they have no doubts that they will be able to build there - having already got approval, he says, from the tree and urban design offices at the Council.
SO, can those of you who are knowledgeable about these things tell me what's going on and what is to be done? 85 flats seems a hell of a lot, for a start.
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 September, 2006 - 11:55 pm: |
As Ross points out these new application is for over 80 flats where as the 2000 application was for 10 new houses, 6 flats and 1 refurb. I would have thought the reasons for the rejection in 2000 would be even stronger with 80+ households and parking for 74 cars.
The Council may have objected to any type of building on the site and it was that which Whitehall overruled. It does not always mean proposed buildings had approval.
Hope that makes sense. Contacting the Council's planning department may provide clarification of the situation.
|Posted on Thursday, 07 September, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
This sounds horrendous. Have we got the local councillors involved. The local infrastructure cannot take an increase in population. What 74 more cars probaly more in local streets. We are already a crowded area.
|Posted on Thursday, 07 September, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
Perhaps this could be the first battle for our new Forest Hill Society????
I feel very strongly about filling a quart into a pint pot.The area is already full. Most large family houses turned into multiple use. Someone has to take a stand
|Posted on Thursday, 07 September, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
It won't be our first battle, but I think it might be discussed at the steering committee meeting this evening right behind the proposed site!
|Posted on Thursday, 07 September, 2006 - 02:07 pm: |
|Posted on Thursday, 07 September, 2006 - 08:25 pm: |
I spent a useful hour or so at the presentation yesterday evening and had the opportunity to talk to Stuart Cunliff about the plans. I share some of the areas of concern mentioned above, such as the impact on local utilities and roads, where clarification is needed, and the massing is an issue, though some considerable thought does seem to be have put into this area. I suspect that greatest impact of the massing is likely to be on Fairlie Gardens, just (though whether it will objectionable is subjective, of course).
In terms of a rough timetable, according to Stuart: the application will be made in the next few weeks, determination is likely to be just before Christmas, and if approved the work up of the plans will take 4 months or so and start on site around the middle of next year. Completion around the middle of 2008.
Comments on the proposals from local residents to firstname.lastname@example.org would be welcome (please include your postcode). I shall try and keep you updated of news if I get any.
|Posted on Friday, 08 September, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
Definately a devolpment too far.
Would appreciate intervention of Councillor David Whiting and The Forest Hill Society
|Posted on Friday, 08 September, 2006 - 01:02 pm: |
I'm no longer a councillor - just a citizen like everyone else.
|Posted on Friday, 08 September, 2006 - 03:45 pm: |
Many apologies. Good of you to still maintain an interest.
|Posted on Friday, 08 September, 2006 - 04:28 pm: |
I think you'll find that's a subject, not a citizin.
|Posted on Friday, 08 September, 2006 - 04:46 pm: |
Shut it, comrade
|Posted on Sunday, 10 September, 2006 - 01:28 pm: |
Now now Hill Top
PVP is correct we are all subjects not citizens.
Even in West Brom
|Posted on Wednesday, 13 September, 2006 - 01:36 pm: |
Loromah were my landlords in Dartmouth Road for a year. They were actually very reasonable. Not sure about this planned project though...
|Posted on Saturday, 07 October, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
The planning application for this development went in on 29th September. So if any of you have concerns, do check out the plans.
|Posted on Sunday, 08 October, 2006 - 10:19 pm: |
This part of Forest Hill is already full enough.
The plans definitely look detrimental to surrounding households.
|Posted on Monday, 09 October, 2006 - 07:38 am: |
I agree 100% with See for miles.
We are already too congested.
|Posted on Monday, 09 October, 2006 - 08:52 am: |
Local residents are organising an objection so some of you might want to get involved in that campaign. At the moment, the application is being checked by planning officials before it is published. People then have 21 days to comment. So it would be helpful if you made your views known to the Council as well as readers of the Forum!
|Posted on Friday, 13 October, 2006 - 01:39 am: |
I understand trees will be destroyed to make way for this. Here's some useful info from the London Wildlife Trust:
|Posted on Friday, 13 October, 2006 - 01:44 am: |
This is also useful:
|Posted on Tuesday, 31 October, 2006 - 08:37 pm: |
Spoke to Lewisham Council today. Official notification of the application has just been sent out to local residents. The application is now on the Lewisham Web Site see this link:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/ac olnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultD etail&TheSystemkey=48548
If you want to object you now have 21 days to write to Lewisham Planning Department. The application number is DC/06/63803/X
|Posted on Tuesday, 31 October, 2006 - 08:56 pm: |
As the Lewisham Web link says, you can email an objection:
"If you would like to comment on this application please send an email to email@example.com including the Application Number, your name, address, comment and reason for interest."
|Posted on Tuesday, 31 October, 2006 - 09:41 pm: |
Email will be sent.
|Posted on Wednesday, 01 November, 2006 - 09:32 am: |
I've registered my objection on the grounds of noise pollution, loss of green space, extra demand on parking, more traffic on the roads and general housing over-saturation in general (there can't be many houses on Tyson/Devonshire and Honor Oak Roads that aren't already converted to flats). I live on Devonshire Road near the bottom of Tyson Road so I hope that the whole thing is booted out.
|Posted on Wednesday, 01 November, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
How come none of the planning documents are on Lewisham's website? For such a large development I'd have thought they'd be there.
|Posted on Wednesday, 01 November, 2006 - 12:14 pm: |
You can also submit comments on planning applications via an online form here: http://www2.lewisham.gov.uk/lbl/planning/planningf orm.asp
It gives you the option to support, object, or be impartial.
|Posted on Wednesday, 01 November, 2006 - 01:00 pm: |
I also hope booted out but I suspect they will be permitted. I understand councils are under extreme pressure to permit building on so called brown field sites . Never worry about infrastructure. Even if in the unlikely event LBC throw it out all they have to do is apply to fatty P's old department who will undoubtably pass it.
|Posted on Thursday, 02 November, 2006 - 03:27 pm: |
I've just spoken to the planning office. They tell me they're going to be scanning in the plans this afternoon and they will appear on the website by the weekend.
They also said that this is such a major development raising so many concerns with local residents that they're expecting to organise a public meeting. Therefore, there won't be a strict 21-day cut-off point for letters of objection/praise.
|Posted on Saturday, 04 November, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
Documents have now been posted on the Lewisham website so do please examine them if you are in any way affected by this development.
4 objections have already been received. No letters in favour.
|Posted on Monday, 06 November, 2006 - 07:14 pm: |
Why is it that whenever a developer plans to concrete over another bit of our green and pleasant land they give the buildings names such as "The Oaks", "Maple Court", "Apple Tree Court" and "Cherry Court"? It is particularly ironic and tragic with this development given that those are just the kind of trees that are going to be cut down to make way for the roads, buildings and underground car park.
|Posted on Monday, 06 November, 2006 - 08:27 pm: |
I refer you all again to my London Wildlife Trust link. There are steps you can take if a development threatens trees or wildlife.
|Posted on Wednesday, 08 November, 2006 - 07:55 pm: |
9 votes now in showing 9 against. that's still a low number from the list of 403 consultees.
Have been told this means that they are against the scheme in current design so may/will include those who accept the development but are unhappy with some aspect(s) of the design.
|Posted on Sunday, 12 November, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
There is a meeting for local residents opposed to the proposed development at 8pm on Wednesday 15 November in the Christian Fellowship Centre.
|Posted on Friday, 17 November, 2006 - 09:18 am: |
I couldn't make it to Wednesday's meeting, did anyone go and was anything important/exciting said?
|Posted on Friday, 17 November, 2006 - 09:34 am: |
I was there, along with about 40-50 other people. Woody has put together an objections template which outlines many of the concerns that were expressed in the meeting. You can access this template at http://www.box.net/public/ygk0q4g06u
|Posted on Friday, 17 November, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
I've already sent a complaint in, outlining many of these features, though not nearly as eloquently. I had no idea that standard letters were allowed, but I'll print a few copies off and pass them around my building.
|Posted on Friday, 17 November, 2006 - 04:05 pm: |
The template has been updated today. For the latest version you can go to http://foresthillsociety.blogspot.com/2006/11/tyso n-road-objections-template.html and click on the link, which I shall keep updated.
(The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the Forest Hill Society, but equally I would say we do not necessarily disagree with them!)
|Posted on Tuesday, 21 November, 2006 - 01:09 pm: |
Lewisham has received 90 objections to this planning application so far!
|Posted on Thursday, 23 November, 2006 - 09:34 am: |
Over 100 objections today and I can confirm that one of these objections was sent on behalf of the Forest Hill Society.
|Posted on Thursday, 23 November, 2006 - 03:39 pm: |
How many objections does it take for the project not to go ahead?
|Posted on Friday, 24 November, 2006 - 08:57 am: |
Here's the deal. Lewisham assess each planning application on its "planning merits". You and I assess the application on grounds of local knowledge and what we would like to happen. The two are not necessarily the same. Yes, the objections will be taken into account and the more the better but it will be the Lewisham planners or the Lewisham Councillors on the planning committee who will make the decision. By the way if you are interested in why so many people are opposed to this development check out the photos of the site by using this link:
I think you will agree that to describe it as "brownfield" is spin gone mad.
|Posted on Friday, 24 November, 2006 - 09:14 am: |
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tysonroad/ for a clickable link that is easier link to remember (but goes to the same site).
|Posted on Friday, 24 November, 2006 - 04:02 pm: |
I cant for the life of me think where that is. I only live around the corner aswell. It looks like a small park or someones garden. Is it public land?
|Posted on Friday, 24 November, 2006 - 04:12 pm: |
Here it is from above:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=se23&ie=UT F8&om=1&safe=active&z=17&ll=51.446692,-0.052904&sp n=0.002695,0.008422&t=h&iwloc=addr
It is not public land but is one of the hidden bits of greenery in Forest Hill.
|Posted on Tuesday, 16 January, 2007 - 09:30 am: |
This development has been refused by Lewisham. There reasons for refusal can be read at: http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/ac olnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultD etail&TheSystemkey=48548
Well done to Woody and the team who opposed this development and got such a good response from local residents who wrote to the planning department.
Of course it is likely that this is not the last we have heard about this development. It is possible that the developer may come back with a revised proposal or appeal against Lewisham's decision.
|Posted on Tuesday, 16 January, 2007 - 09:32 am: |
Lewisham have refused consent for this particular planning application.
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/ac olnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultD etail&TheSystemkey=48548
The reasons given can be summarised as follows:
1) Overdevelopment/excessive density.
2) The proposal does not reflect the existing character of the surrounding area and is out of scale with the neighbouring buildings.
3) Poor design of proposed buildings on Tyson Road.
4) Insufficient work done in relation to existence of protected species and lack of compliance with Council policy on nature conservation.
According to Lewisham's web site 193 individual objections and 6 petitions against the proposed development have been lodged making a total of 199 objections with none in favour.
Many of the 199 objections expressed concerns about the loss of open space, the extra traffic, parking problems and the pressure on local services that would result from any development. These issues are not mentioned in the Council's refusal.
Photos of this largely green field site can be found at:
I understand that the Developer is likely to appeal against the refusal of planning permission. Any appeal would be heard by a Government Planning Inspector. See this link for information about this body.
|Posted on Tuesday, 16 January, 2007 - 11:14 am: |
Great news! Fingers crossed that the Government Planning Inspector will agree with the council and everyone that has objected so far.
|Posted on Tuesday, 16 January, 2007 - 01:22 pm: |
Can you actually get to this greenfield space? I mean is it a small park? Its really difficult to see it at all from the top of tyson road.
|Posted on Tuesday, 16 January, 2007 - 09:04 pm: |
Yes, that it is a very good description, it is like a small park. The site is landlocked and so it is difficult to see it from the surrounding streets. You can get a good view from the Christian Fellowship Centre if you attend any of their functions. Otherwise the Google aerial view (as linked by Michael on 24 November) is your best bet.
|Posted on Thursday, 18 January, 2007 - 10:23 pm: |
This is certainly good news. However, I don't want to rain on our parade but the presumption for developments like this is usually in favour. It might be green but gardens are brownfield sites in government thinking. LBL might see it as unsuitable but I have a sinking feeling that our business friendly government might view it differently. Despite all the green rhetoric, the record isn't good. So we need to keep alert.
|Posted on Friday, 19 January, 2007 - 09:46 am: |
Of course you are right but government and local government policy is not set in stone. It changes over time to reflect public opinion.
After yesterday's storms the issue of climate change is in the news again. Given the problem how sensible is it to cut down trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) to replace them with concrete (the making of which puts huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere)?
As for the shortage of housing wouldn't it be better to bring back into use some of the 3,800 empty residential properties in Lewisham before building another 84?
I am sure that we all know of at least one empty property that could easily be returned to use without the loss of green open space.
|Posted on Friday, 19 January, 2007 - 09:54 am: |
'Scientists warn earth may be absorbing less gas as figures show higher than expected rise in CO2'
'Tesco to introduce emission labels' These are leaders in todays Guardian online.
|Posted on Monday, 02 July, 2007 - 08:03 pm: |
As mentioned in another topic Lewisham are consulting the public on the future development of the Tyson Road/Christian Fellowship Site.
Under the proposals Lewisham’s preferred option for the Tyson Road/Christian Fellowship Site is for residential development. If you agree or disagree with this view you have until 2 August to submit your comments.
It is not easy to navigate the documents on the Lewisham website and so if you want to find the references to the Tyson Road/Christian Fellowship Site here are some directions:
Document name – Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment - Preferred Options Report - Development Policies and Site Allocations.
This looks at various plots of land in the Borough and, in Appendix C, sets out the Council's preferred development option for each site. The Tyson Road/Christian Fellowship Site is listed as Site 20 and discussed on page 239 (numbered 541) of the document. It can be found here:
Document name – Development Policies and Site Allocations - The Preferred Options Report
This summarises the Council's preferred development option for each site. The Tyson Road/Christian Fellowship Site is again listed as Site 20 and discussed on page 281 of the document. It can be found here:
Any comments that are submitted to Lewisham will be available for public inspection.
I believe that the site should be preserved as open space and set out my reasons why on the proposals on the Flickr website under the "profile" tab:
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 July, 2007 - 02:10 pm: |
Sample letters and the email address for feedback to the planning department are available on the Forest Hill Society web site http://foresthillsociety.blogspot.com/2007/07/tyson-road-in-local-development.html
Although a small development on the site might be reasonable, this planning guidance offers no protection to any part of the site and, if implemented, will force councillors to look favourably on development on the site and they will not be able to argue that the open space is a community asset if the planning department recommend building on it.
|Posted on Thursday, 26 July, 2007 - 06:13 pm: |
It looks like the developer has lodged an appeal against the application that was refused permission in January:
|Posted on Thursday, 26 July, 2007 - 07:17 pm: |
any idea on what grounds they are appealing? It does not say on the planning site.
|Posted on Monday, 06 August, 2007 - 08:13 pm: |
A letter from Lewisham has arrived setting out the grounds of appeal:
1) The Developer is arguing that residential development for this site is OK and meets local and national planning rules.
2) It reckons the proposed density is fine and that its proposals on chopping down protected trees are OK.
3) The Developer disagrees with the argument that the character and scale of the proposed development are inappropriate.
4) The Developer has submitted an interim ecological report (dated June 2007) which it says shows that the site has no significant ecological value. It goes on to say that it will submit a copy of the final ecological report when it is ready in September 2007.
Arguments 1 to 3 seem to be all about interpretation of planning law. I am no expert on ecological reports but it does seem strange that the Developer has already come to a conclusion on the issue of ecological value based on an interim report. Unfortunately, the interim ecological report has not yet been scanned onto the Lewisham website and so it is not possible to comment further. It seems a pity that that there has been no independent ecological survey of the site.
If you want to make a written represenation about the appeal (and you aren't on holiday) you must submit it by 31 August to:
Mr Anton Godfrey
The Planning Inspectorate
3/14 Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol BS1 6PN
You must submit your comments in triplicate and quote the reference APP/C5690/A/07/2050248/NWF
Alternatively send them by email (presumably not in triplicate) to firstname.lastname@example.org
The objections previously submitted to Lewisham will have been sent on the the Inspector.
If you submit a comment remember to ask the Planning Inspectorate to send you a copy of the decision letter.
|Posted on Monday, 06 August, 2007 - 10:31 pm: |
What they have not addressed in the appeal are the other points that Lewisham made in refusing planning permission on the grounds; that it was out of character of the surrounding properties, it creates a poor outlook and sense of enclosure to adjoining properties, and poor internal environment.
Their appeal claims that the plan is not overdevelopment as it meets national, regional, and local planning policy. Having read the planning guideline they may be correct that the regional guidelines are not exceeded (Ken wants to allow every meter of London to be high density) but it clearly contrary to the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan of July 2004 which considers this area to be suburban not urban. This view is reinforced by the proposed local development framework which, although not adopted by the council, provides continuing guidance of expected suburban densities.
All views previously expressed in the initial planning stage will automatically be considered by the Inspector as part of the local public inquiry. I hope the inspector considers all the other issues that make this development unsuitable for the location that were not referred to in the rejection, including issues of drainage and underground water courses, which have been given no consideration when building 84 flats with underground parking.
One good way to see the site is to use http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=sk6zwhgzw0kz&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene= 12466622&encType=1
It is not a huge site, which makes the construction of six blocks of flats significant overdevelopment for this site.