Interesting thought is what development would be genuinely acceptable (from an academic point of view, rather than 'we must build here'). My thoughts are that eco things up and that is a big sweetner - and boy do they seem to have ecoed this one up. But only quarter of a mile away you have the Walters way self builds, which were much earlier attempts at low carbon developments. Of course they were for owner occupiers not for a developer to make shed loads.

I think Baggydave has made an excellent point and it is worth remembering that the site is actually three different sites combined into one for the purposes of this planning application.

15 to 17A Tyson Road are large semi-derelict Victorian houses which have been owned by the Developer for many years. Similar properties in Tyson Road have been converted into flats and are very attractive when properly maintained. There is more history of these houses to be found on the Flickr site under the Profile tab.

http://www.flickr.com/people/tysonroad/

The land behind 53 Honor Oak Road is a mixture of woodland to the east and west with a derelict brick building (the Cottage) and about 20 lock up garages (which are also derelict) sandwiched in the middle. Access to this part of the site is down the steep single track lane between 39 and 53 Honor Oak Road.

The final and largest part of the site is the land behind 39 Honor Oak Road (the Christian Fellowship Centre). This land is best described as a small park, it contains many fine and healthy trees and it has never been built on.

Given the disparate nature of three elements of the site it really makes no sense from the perspective of either design or density or environmental protection to adopt a "one size fits all" approach to development.

I know that views on what would be an acceptable development vary considerably but I don't want to comment on that at this stage.

However, you may be interested in knowing that when we were doorstepped by the Developer's PR Consultant we asked why the Developer had chosen and all flat development. The answer? The foundations for buildings on the site will be so expensive that it makes no sense to build conventional houses. In other words an all flatted development maximises potential profit.

An online petition has been set up calling for a rejection of this latest planning application.

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/23558.html

Lewisham do take notice of these petitions so please sign up if you would like like this green space and others like it in Forest Hill preserved.

If you have the time there is also a letter of objection (which I will try and attach to this post) that can be emailed to the Planning Department at the following address:

planning@lewisham.gov.uk

Can the public access this green space? It's always seemed inaccessible and therfore slightly mysterious if it's the bit I think it is.

The land is private property and not accessible to humans. However, this does not prevent wildlife making good use of the site.

Is this what the stuff they're putting up in Blockbusters is all about?

Yes. Is it just me that wants to print off a load of objections from the Forest Hill Society web site plus some pictures of the site from Flickr, and plaster them across the windows? Of course I would never do something like that, or encourage anybody else to do the same.

Hopefully this shop display will encourage people to object to the application and sign the petition.

Sign the Petition: http://tysonroad.notlong.com
Show your support on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?drop=&ref...1450551800
Pictures on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tysonroad/
Forest Hill Society objection: http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2008/11...ction.html

Planning Application: http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=55247

Coverage on the Guardian blog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblo...ris-london

Of course before he was mayor, Ken did voice his opinions against the develpment of Crystal Palace Park, as did Tessa, and our Jim (after realising that there were votes in it, and I HAVE THE LETTER!).

Sad that a labour council seem firmly on the fence, and even worse that Green councilors, from recent experience, may come out less than green.

Really really really haven't a clue what Boris is about. OK so a choice between a (supposed) buffoon and a (supposed) crook in this year's elections.

Michael - worried here, are you another Grauniad reading East Dulwich type?

2-3 years ago the Mayor approved a scheme where the council employed the services of a private company to identify sites on which housing units of 2 or more could be developed.

When I enquired about the list of sites I was told it was for council use only and not for public scrutiny. If the council doesn't have the money to build housing how could the council use the list?

Could it be the council uses the list to suggest sites to developers and the Tyson Road site was among those listed?

(Don't accept anyone from the council telling you any document is for council use only until you've mentioned the Freedom of Information Act and been given a statutory exemption in writing - and then think about appealing to the Information Commissioner).

See page 39:

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...er2008.pdf

Philip
cllr_philip.peake@lewisham.gov.uk

sorry, page 37

Lewisham is still consulting on the proposed site allocations as part of the revised local development framework. The Tyson Road site is one of the sites included in this consultation exercise.

In fact the next stage of the public consultation is due to start next month. It should have started last month but Lewisham are running behind schedule. See page 25 on the document found here:

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Environment/P...Scheme.htm

The table on Page 37 of the document found by Philip clearly shows that the Lewisham Planners have already decided that the Tyson Road site will be developed to meet their housing target. In other words the consultation exercise is a complete sham.

Lewisham's abysmal reputation in relation to public consultation and transparency within the planning process is clearly well deserved.

BaggyDave, haven't you realised that Boris is Blond. Not sure where that puts him vis a vis the Greens. But if LBL have already decided to allow the development on the Tyson Rd site, do we have any recourse, in law?

My worry is that developers put up something that may well fail, have a chat with the planning officer (which of course they are entitled to do), make it slightly less grand, bring in some 'nice' green elements, and that ticks all the boxes. Time will tell when the planning department's report comes out. Trouble is whilst of course this is all part of local democracy it is difficult to find out at times why one proposal fails to meet planning criteria yet something that may not be so far away can be recommended. I hope of course that I am wrong in this case.

A question for Cllr Peake - why do I and others have so many problems opening up some of the on-line planning documents?!

Oh and Boris is now a petrol head so anything but green! Of course he loves playing up to the eccentric image.

Sorry still will not open, perhaps someone can covert this bit of the pdf to text for this web site.

BD, try downloading the latest version of Acrobat Reader:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Thanks Woody for the objection letter.I used it as did my neighbours and this morning received a letter from the planning department inviting me to a local meeting at 6.30 on Monday 15th December at the Honor Oak Fellowship Centre , Honor Oak Road.
It would be great to see a large turn out.

Thanks Phil - it is also because the planning documents are executable documents (or are seen as such) and are picked up by firewalls.

Trust the public meeting wont turn out like the commitee meeting for the proposed Crystal Palace multiplex at the end of the 90s when the largely older and more affluent audience (hundred plus strong) stormed the stage at Bromley town hall. But I hope there are similar numbers. Ah glory days!

I've picked up the article in the SLP elsewhere on the web, and a follow up letter has also been published.

Did anyone out there go to the planning meeting on Monday - I'd be interested to know how it went?

I would have gone myself but had man-flu and so couldn't drag my sorry self out of bed...

Apologies for not replying sooner.Yes I did attend the meeting and apart from reducing the number of flats by 7 and building a "bat tower" for eco reasons it is the same as the plan that was rejected before.
The 9 blocks of flats are to be covered in cedar shingles to make it eco friendly but it was announced that 60% of the trees are to be cut down.
Many protesters spoke eloquently and I agreed with all the protests but I think the developer will keep making applications with minimal changes until he gets his way unfortunately.