SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »
11 Tewkesbury Avenue Development
Author Message
Smiler


Posts: 21
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #1
14-08-2008 04:07 PM

As you maybe aware there have been a large number of extensions built onto houses in Tewkesbury Avenue. The latest development will see the demolition of a semi detached house which will be replaced by a house 3 times the size of the original! Despite a large number of objections raised by local residents the planning application was granted after cllr Dean Walton of the Green Party used his casting vote to make it 3 votes to 2. Mr Walton had already voted in favour of the application which made it 2 votes apiece. When people vote Green they are voting for someone who they think will best serve the local environment, based on this decision think again.

Find all posts by this user Reply
vipes


Posts: 145
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #2
14-08-2008 09:24 PM

Is this No 11? I hear it's going into the next series of Grand Designs.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #3
14-08-2008 11:40 PM

Cant quite see what negative effect this planning application is going to have on the environment?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Smiler


Posts: 21
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #4
15-08-2008 10:56 AM

The loss of garden areas in Tewkesbury Ave has already resulted in gardens in Westwood Park becoming boggy. If you replace gardens with concrete, the water that would have been absorbed runs off to other areas. On this particular development there is an underground greenhouse that has replaced the majority of the garden.

Find all posts by this user Reply
gingernuts


Posts: 505
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #5
15-08-2008 11:01 AM

Tewkesbury Avenue is part of a 1930's estate in Forest Hill. It's a pity when builders/developers gain approval to build and destroy the look of an area with something that is clearly out of place and out of keeping with the style of the location. Apart from that this is a semi - the other house being 1930's in style will most certainly be affected. If not for the foundation distruption - and subsidence is common place in Forest Hill - but just by the whole look of the the building. Personally I think it's a disgrace that this has been approved. Is there an appeal lodged?

Perhaps the Forest Hill Society could push for conservation status in the area. A bit late now but it will prevent more hiddeous buildings being errected in the area. I agree that you would expect the Green Party to 'conserve' rather than demolish and rebuild. Not very Green - smells of corruption.

Apart from the Victorian streetscape issue (eg. pools and Louisa House demolition) there is a 1930's heritage in Forest Hill that we should also protect.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #6
15-08-2008 11:21 AM

I agree buildings on gardens should be a none starter. It is not only Victorian buildings that need preserving. Yes I to believe the society should become involved

Find all posts by this user Reply
vipes


Posts: 145
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #7
15-08-2008 01:34 PM

Knock down a house and build one 3 times the size. Pah. Smallfry. Just around the corner from Tewkesbury Ave there's a plan submitted to flatten 15 Westwood Park and build 9 (count'em) houses on the site. All that concrete should create a lovely waterfall into the properties down the hill on rainy days.

It really feels like anything goes around here. The house behind us has put up the most hideous loft conversion I have ever seen. It's like the roof has grown an enormous boil and where once there was sky there are now vertical roof-tiled (!) walls and windows staring into our living room. The council were not informed and neither did they need to be as it falls under permitted development.

All that said, with one or two exceptions there's not much of this estate that could be considered architecturally impressive. So while they don't impact on neighbouring properties - particularly on their views of London - the more interesting developments (like the prefab in Ringmore Rise) the better I say.

Find all posts by this user Reply
gingernuts


Posts: 505
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #8
15-08-2008 01:49 PM

Oh Vipes, I think I know the one you are talking about! It's a monstor structure! How come they havent needed planning permission? It's not acceptable to be overlooking peoples homes, surely? have you complained to the council?

Find all posts by this user Reply
vipes


Posts: 145
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #9
15-08-2008 02:12 PM

Sadly yes gingernuts and to no avail.

Find all posts by this user Reply
baggydave


Posts: 384
Joined: May 2004
Post: #10
01-09-2008 10:07 PM

The only way to challenge a planning decision (for an objector that is) is throught the high court. A recent decision is of interest:

http://heathandhampsteadsociety.org.uk/i...&Itemid=34

This was through the local civic society - is there a role here for the various ones in SE23? Or should an individual be prepared to stump up ?10k + at the risk of losing far more.

Of course the well funded developer can continue to apply, and had the option to appeal decisions, so one could summise would eventually get their own way (or of course get fed up with the process and hopefully move their attention elsehwhere).

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #11
02-09-2008 09:13 AM

Am I correct that HMG gives LBC targets for new dwellings that must be met , hence they tend to agree to most applications, or is this incorrect.
If correct perhaps we should be contacting our good MP JD , rather than the LBL and Loed Mayor Sir B.????????????????

Find all posts by this user Reply
Triangle


Posts: 133
Joined: May 2007
Post: #12
02-09-2008 10:05 AM

I suppose that some of the properties that were built at the top of Forest Hill in the thirties might also be considered to be of a "grand design" and were perhaps radical in their day. In particular, I'm thinking of some of the houses sited around Hornimans Drive and Liphook Cresent.

But there is of course one major difference - which is that they're detached and do not encroach on neighbouring properties. Is it possible to view the plans for this proposal online?

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #13
02-09-2008 12:41 PM

Quote:
Is it possible to view the plans for this proposal online?

You can but the scans of the papers are very poor and it is difficult to get a real sense of the development from them.

I understand the comments about this place being a semi-detached property but, providing the other half's property is not damaged, there is no reason why both bits need to look the same. A number of times in the FH Pools debate people have rightly mentioned that extensions of different styles have been successfully achieved at the Horniman Museum. Why shouldn't this model apply to semi-detached houses?

I would like to see better quality scans of the Tewkesbury Avenue plans though.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #14
02-09-2008 02:33 PM

It is strange that our elected Councillors ( especially a so called green ) agreed to the increase in size of the property of 300%.
Are not these Councillors meant to represent the current population.
Perhaps the FHS ought to look at this. To be honest this is more important than the fiasco to save Louise House.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Triangle


Posts: 133
Joined: May 2007
Post: #15
02-09-2008 03:27 PM

I can't speak for the neighbour of this semi-detached property, I don't know if they objected to this application or indeed happily approve of it, but from a personal point of view I think that a level of symmetry needs to be maintained and I would have fought this tooth and nail.

Call me the neighbour from hell but when my new (fortunately detached) neighbour purchased the property next door to me and immediately put in an application to demolish it, I took it all the way through four planning applications until the proposed development had been compromised as much as possible.

Why? Because I simply wasn't prepared to have my house and garden which I had worked damn hard to buy, overlooked, overshadowed and blighted by a property which was also three times the size of the original.

One of the biggest problems with many planning applicants is there total lack of consideration for their neighbours. Worse still, having got approval and had it built, they often then immediately sell it and move on.

Regardless of whether the neighbour has objected or approved of this, unless they move out while this is being built, they are surely going to be put through hell.

I think this is appalling.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #16
02-09-2008 11:12 PM

Is the proposal really 3 times the size / 300% bigger than the existing house? That would be extreme. The increase to the floorspace is less than 40%.

Find all posts by this user Reply
sydenhamcentral


Posts: 269
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #17
03-09-2008 11:13 AM

If it's no11, the plans on the Lewisham website which have been approved as of 2008 are for a side extension to the exisiting house, not to demolish it. The extension looks, in the plans at least, quite exciting, although ow it impacts the neighbours is another matter.

Find all posts by this user Reply
baggydave


Posts: 384
Joined: May 2004
Post: #18
04-09-2008 09:59 PM

Rather than give my personal opinion in repsonse to the last thread can viewers please check out the following write up on the TLERA website:

http://www.tewkesburylodge.org.uk/

It is not just the local area that is affected!

Find all posts by this user Reply
sydenhamcentral


Posts: 269
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #19
05-09-2008 09:11 AM

So this isn't no11 (which is a side extension only)?

Which house number is it? Anyone got the link to the planning application on the website?

Apparently it wont be on grand designs. It was rejected.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #20
05-09-2008 09:38 AM

It is number 11 - they submitted two planning applications - both had the same end goal/design but they were to achieved in different ways, one by building onto the existing structure and the other to demolish and rebuild from scratch.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields