I used to live in Devonshire Rd from 85 to 09 and remember complaining when they ( the church ) took over the right of way from Devonshire Rd to Manor Mount.
Many locals I spoke to who had lived there from before the war confirmed it had always been a right of way.
I did mention it about 5 years ago when the ROW was closed and was advised
difficult to prove ROW.
This was a great short cut from DR to Sainsbury.

As we know, Lewisham has recently extended the Conservation Area. To me this suggests that as a community we value the look and feel of our streets, and don't want them defaced based on special interest or personal preferences. This said, the 'Conservation Area' designation will only have real meaning if it cannot be disregarded or by-passed by making changes and simply applying for planning permission retrospectively.

I hope our local Counsellors will come out and support us on this. It needs to be clear that flouting the rules, especially if you're a church, is not acceptable.

These plans are rubbish anyway as they don't show any steps leading down to the Church....
It says 'Line of new path to follow slope of ground'.......hmmmm....this results in a pretty steep slope....

Many thanks to everyone who has said they will write in. It's much appreciated by those of us nearby (although of course you may be nearby as well). The application isn't on the council website yet, but doubtless it will appear soon.

Brian - my understanding (for what it's worth) is that the path was indeed used by local people for many years, but that this was only by permission of St John's Church, and that it wasn't actually ever a legal right of way. It is indeed a shame that it has been closed.

Thanks for the clarification , that I think was the answer I got at the time.

Seems the COE had a more Christian attitude than the new owners.

Isn't there some old law that you can create a right of way by regular usage over sufficient number of years? Can CoG be prosecuted for denying what has become an established footpath?

Lewisham has sent out letters to residents letting us know that the Church is applying for planning permission to: retain the new railings, brick walls, concrete steps, balustrades and hard and soft landscaping.

For those of us who felt we missed our chance to object last time around, it seems we now have an opportunity to make our views known.

Plans and drawings are at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Environment/Planning/ It's planning application number DC/10/75507 (Steve Isaacson is the Planning Officer).

I'm not sure from the Council's letter when written comments need to be received by. Does anyone know what the procedure is?

I see from the Council's website that planning considerations are:
- Substantial damage to the amenities of residents caused by noise, disturbance, smell or loss of light
- The visual impact of a development - what it will be like to look at, but not the loss of a view
- Highway safety including the need for parking
- The policies of the Council as contained in the unitary development plan
- Government advice as set out by the Department of the Environment in planning policy guidance notes
- The existing use of the site or any previous planning permission already granted
- The design, materials and amenity space in the scheme.

I presume objections need to relate to one or more of the above, and Conservation Area objections would come under the visual impact consideration and design, materials etc consideration. Again, any advice out there to help those of us who want to write in would be gratefully received.

These are the links to the planning applications. There are actually two: one for the signage and one for the steps/handrails/railings.

Signage
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=61225

Steps/handrails/railings
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=61226

The consultation process apparently started on the 29 September, which was the date of the two applications. However, they weren't on the website until late last week, which means we've lost over two weeks already, so we need to get our skates on. It also says that the target date for a decision is 24 November, which will be on us before we know it.

Was met by a delightful group of churchgoers coming the wrong way up St Davids Road in their car. Some very un Christian like language used at me when I refused to reverse up the road so that they could keep on with their illegal manouver.

Charming.

The Forest Hill Society development committee are currently finalising our objection to this development. I will provide the full text once it has been finalised (probably after the AGM on Thursday as we have an opportunity to hear from local residents affected by this development).

However, I would point to a few policies:
Lewisham Policy URB 9 Signs and Hoardings - 'The Council will resist the display of poster hoardings which are considered to be out of scale and character with the building/site on which they are displayed.'
council policy URB 8 Shopfronts - 'In Conservation Areas the Council will additionally:
(h) require all new shopfronts and advertisements to relate well to existing buildings and street scene, be of a high quality design with appropriate materials that preserve and enhance the character of the area; the use of wood will be encouraged and aluminium or UPVC discouraged;
(i) normally refuse permission for temporary promotional banners and other forms of temporary advertising where they would detract from the character or appearance of a conservation area.'
London Plan policy 4A.14 which states 'Boroughs should encourage the retention of soft landscaping in front gardens and other means of reducing or at least not increasing the amount of hard standing associated with existing homes.'
council policy STR.URB 2 - 'To preserve and enhance buildings of architectural or historic interest and their settings, and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas'

I hope this helps in formulating objections.

One of my neighbours has just spoken with Steve Isaacson and he has told her that Lewisham are going to refuse planning permission for both applications. It's not going to reach the planning committee.

However, I think we should back Steve up by phoning, emailing or writing to the Planning Dept, as before.

I have just written, making use of Michael's excellent work on finding Lewisham's policies on these issues.

Thank you Michael for the time and effort spent researching Lewisham's planning policies and posting these on the Forum. Very useful even for future reference.

However, if and when the Lewisham Planning Department refuse the retrospective planning permission, it is likely that the case will go to appeal adding at least another 6 months which the offensive signage, concrete steps, hardstanding, steel gates and railings stay.

If the case is dismissed then I still wonder how Lewisham can enforce the 'Church' to restore the area to what it was before. What is likely is that the Church will submit another application showing minor amendments in an attempt to satisfy the planners.

Renzon,
As you point out, by applying, appealing, reapplying, it is possible for institutions to avoid carrying out their responsibilities and fitting in with the local community for years. Another example of this happening is at 35 Sunderland Road.

However, if there are complaints from local residents and civic societies, Lewisham planning department and the church themselves are more likely to take account of the objections. If this doesn't work you could always take along your own banner one Sunday!

I want to say a massive thank you for posting Planning and Conservation Area hints and tips on this thread. I've written in and actually having some direction from many of you in terms of what the Council looks for has made it a much easier letter to write. Plus you can email your letter to planning@lewisham.gov.uk (added benefit that also makes it much quicker!)

Great too to hear that they plan to refuse planning permission. Personally, I think its important that we continue to register our objections though. There are a couple of reasons for this from my point of view: (1) because the Church probably will appeal and we should have a representative view from local residents on record, and (2) because it's important that the Church realise the strength of feeling they have engendered by flouting the rules.

On the second point, I had to laugh at the incident of the parishoners (sp?) driving the wrong way up David's Road and shouting abuse at Londondrz... Silly us for following the law of the land, eh?

Anyway, soap box time: please jot the Planning Department a line if you object to what the church has done. With all the help on this thread you can knock something out quickly and easily, and it really sounds asthough our views do and will count.

Thanks again.

Sorry surely God fearing people would not shout abuse. Must be a mistake here.
I complained about 18 months ago when they were parking Sundays on the paved area outside W H Smith and Son . It is amazing people think they have a right to park where they like.

Maybe they live in such a way that they need to go to church on a Sunday to get forgiven???

I did have a chuckle when I drove past the family after they had reversed, lowered my window and said "that's not a very Christian attitude".

Have never seen anyone slump under a steering wheel in shame but the driver did. Idiot.

To return to topic, and away from the vitriolic (and dare I say racist?) nonsense of some posts I'm not sure there's much wrong with the signage. To avoid these signs you'd need to avoid London. They've become part of the metropolitan skyline, often marking out buildings that would otherwise be unused.

Vipes, to suggest some of the posts border on racist is stretching it to say the least. As to saying the signage is just part of London is unusual. They COULD become part of London if allowed, they dont fit and are not welcome.

Please explain why you think they are OK.

Vipes, people are annoyed that a certain sector within our community seems to feel it is exempt from following the law. There is nothing vitriolic or racist in people expressing their annoyance at that. If anything, the church is showing itself to be disrespectful of the local community in which it finds itself. And your comments seem intended to incite feelings that simply aren't there. An apology wouldn't go amiss.

Full text of the objection by the Forest Hill Society can be read by following the link from http://foresthillsociety.blogspot.com/20...e-and.html