|
Planning: Tyson Road
|
| Author |
Message |
michael
Posts: 3,260
Joined: Mar 2005
|
22-04-2010 12:36 PM
I'm afraid that I got news today that the planning inspector has granted outline permission for the 2009 proposed scheme. I have not had the opportunity to read the fine print but it is worth noting that she agreed with enough of our points to reject the 2008 scheme (but clearly not enough to reject ther slightly improved 2009 scheme).
|
|
| |
|
 |
FHSoc
Posts: 134
Joined: Nov 2009
|
22-04-2010 03:30 PM
Outline Planning Permission has been granted for the demolition of existing buildings on land to the rear of 39-53 Honor Oak Road and 15-17A Tyson Road and construction of 9 blocks comprising up to a maximum of 71 apartments; together with associated landscaping and infrastructure.
The inspector decided
options for reducing the accommodation at Blocks 1, 3 and 7 in Scheme B would unbalance the composition of the individual buildings concerned and unacceptably compromise the designs. For that reason, I endorse the option that would bring forward 71 units
Here are some more quotes from her ruling:
Design
I share some of the concerns about internal space standards, legibility and the inconvenience of parking arrangements for the occupiers of Block 7. However, in the context of the design merits of the scheme as a whole, such shortcomings are overcome by the overall quality and merits of the schemes, which would generally provide good quality accommodation.
Access
On layout I conclude that Scheme B would achieve a good balance of openness and built development. There would be sufficient high quality, open and supervised space about buildings for future residents to enjoy, without feeling hemmed in or overshadowed. The scheme would comply with the Government’s recent response to concerns about the treatment of previously developed land.
Over-development
The density, style of architecture and form of accommodation may
be very different to the pattern of development or buildings on Fairlie Gardens, but Scheme B would similarly provide a comfortable, attractive and safe environment for future residents, with the added advantage of increasing the Borough’s stock of affordable homes.
Reduction of green space
It has to be said that both schemes would radically alter the character of the land through removal of trees and vegetation within the body of the site. Many of the trees likely to be removed are self seeding or in poor condition, but valued by local people. The losses and changes would be compensated to a large extent by the comprehensive replacement planting scheme and management plan proposed for Scheme A, and potentially replicated in Scheme B.
Character of the area
In the context of the marked visual and physical changes that would occur on the Tyson Road frontage, I consider that the effects of stepping Blocks 8 and 9 forward of the established building line are overstated. In any case, there is townscape logic to the proposed infringement, insofar as the two blocks would mark the entrance to the development, and in so doing would provide natural points of surveillance.
Taken overall, I consider that both schemes demonstrate that a development of such unabashedly modern themes and concept has the capacity to relate well to the immediate and wider surroundings without impacting adversely on the character or appearance of the area.
|
|
| |
|
|
Cidered
Posts: 50
Joined: Nov 2007
|
23-04-2010 03:07 PM
Very disappointing news and not just for those like FH Society who've put in so much time and effort fighting this planning application.
Despite 349 objections and the petitions etc there seemed to be an inevitability the developers would eventually produce an application which Lewisham would grant. I assume if the correct process has been followed there are no avenues for appeal?
Well, 71 new flats (sorry, apartments) and the associated council tax revenues will at least pay for a few much-needed road repairs around the borough.
|
|
| |
|
|
Johnc
Posts: 138
Joined: Jan 2007
|
24-04-2010 12:40 PM
Well if Forest Hill central is anything to go by the place will be an eyesore for a year or two before any revenues are forthcoming
|
|
| |
|
|
roz
Posts: 1,796
Joined: Mar 2005
|
24-04-2010 07:20 PM
This is a shame. I would imagine the only other route for appeal would be to seek a judicial review or to petition the secretary of state directly however suspect its difficult to overturn the decision of the Planning Inspectorate unless there are significant errors of judgement.
The clearly tenacious developer still has to raise development finance to build out the scheme which may not be so easy at the moment however I have read in Acorns blurb that property prices in Forest Hill are now 'higher' than they were in 2007 and mortgages are cheaper than ever before- news to me.
Re the comment about internal space standards- I assume that they still meet minimum standards even though they are not particularly wonderful?
|
|
| |
|
|
Theotherbrian
Posts: 95
Joined: Mar 2005
|
25-04-2010 10:06 AM
Disappointing but hardly surprising.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Roo
Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 2010
|
30-04-2010 04:15 PM
Hello All,
We only recently moved into the neighbourhood and would be directly affected by the development.
We did know a little about it, but were unaware of the hearing dates until after and so could not lend support (not sure what we could have done though).
Although we were expecting the inevitable and felt we were prepared for it, since we settled we really hoped it wouldn't happen. That said, all campaigners efforts - not only recently, but over the years in fending this off as best as they did, haven't gone unappreciated.
A shame that Bill Oddie and the Springwatch crew couldn't have stuck a pin there when they got the map out - as I'm sure that would have had some sway during an election month!
More of a shame that the very kids who are being taught today's importance of environmental issues are going to be able to watch the trees they are trying to save being cut down right in front of their very eyes!
:-(
|
|
| |
|
|
michael
Posts: 3,260
Joined: Mar 2005
|
02-07-2010 01:25 PM
Jim Dowd has kindly been investigating the affect of the changes to PPS3 (garden grabbing) on developments that have been recently granted planning permission:
In Parliamentary Written Answers
Jim Dowd
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will make revisions to Planning Policy Guidance 3 to allow for the revocation of planning consents previously granted.
Bob Neill (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
Local planning authorities already have powers to revoke or modify planning permissions, but use them rarely and exceptionally. Local authorities are liable for compensation to applicants for abortive expenditure and any other loss or damage resulting from such action. A key tenet of the planning system is that once planning permission has been granted the applicant should be able to proceed with certainty.
Unfortunately it looks like the safeguarding of garden land comes too late for Tyson Road.
|
|
| |
|
|
michael
Posts: 3,260
Joined: Mar 2005
|
07-01-2011 09:36 AM
There was a further setback to this development last night in planning committee when Andrew Wood made a strong case for the council doing more to investigate bat activity on the site before reaching a decision on the landscaping proposals.
The decision was deferred to allow the planning officers and lawyers more time to investigate whether the council had fully carried out it's obligations, rather than relying on a three word email.
This deferral does not change the outline planning application for the site and the development will almost certainly go ahead once the issue of bat activity and roosting has been properly dealt with.
|
|
| |
|
|
katger
Posts: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
|
10-01-2011 11:32 AM
Hey All,
I was hoping that someone would have some contact details for Loromah Estates? They are supposedly redeveloping the building next door to me, and I cannot find any contact details for them, only for their architects. Does anyone have an email or phone number for them? They seem to be a bit of a ghost company.
Thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
Londondrz
Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
|
|
| |
|
|
shzl400
Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
|
13-01-2011 02:14 PM
While Googling for something else entirely, found this.
Seems like others have had designs on this site - I presume this was some time ago (but undated). Also note that is it for a no longer extant housing association i.e. affordable social housing.
|
|
| |
|
|
Woody
No Longer Registered
Posts: 61
Joined: Oct 2006
|
17-02-2011 10:55 PM
The Tyson Road planning application went back to the Planning Committee this evening and was voted through 4 - 1.
Well done to everyone who campaigned to get a better development over the last five years. Whilst the development that has been approved won't be exactly inspiring it is better than what was originally proposed thanks to your efforts.
A bit thanks also to the FH Society and to our Lib Dem councillors for being so supportive.
|
|
| |
|
|
Woody
No Longer Registered
Posts: 61
Joined: Oct 2006
|
07-09-2015 01:29 PM
Looks like the developer has been successful in applying to vary the planning permission so as to remove all of the social housing element in return for a lump sum payment:
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-a...390213.pdf
I wonder if this will be the last variation before anything is actually built?
|
|
| |
|
|
michael
Posts: 3,260
Joined: Mar 2005
|
08-09-2015 09:07 AM
Incredible that the provision of 24 units for social housing has been reduced to bunging the council £200,000 for the promotion or provision of affordable housing.
It is interesting that the applicant was able to write off some of the costs of the appeal against social housing provision to ensure they can make 17% profit.
I have a big problem with these tests of 'economically viability' as it means that housing that is designed to be very expensive (e.g. underground car parking with a number of sets of electric gates) and employs the most expensive barristers in the country, can make it economically unviable to include significant social housing. This is a threat to policies from national, regional, and local government that set quotas for social housing.
If you want to look at the details of the decision and the link above doesn't work for you, search for DC/15/91696 on http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/
|
|
| |
|
|
lacb
Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
|
08-09-2015 10:31 AM
Completely agree with you michael. That is outrageous.
This also means that there is very little risk to a developer lodging such an appeal - not a good precedent. Is there a legal case that the council could have raised? I realise, that even if there was, they would have to pay costs, win or lose.
|
|
| |
|
|
Londondrz
Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
|
|
| |
|
|
Brujo
Posts: 7
Joined: Mar 2012
|
19-03-2016 10:08 AM
Does anyone have an update on this site? It seems to sit there forever whilst the population cries out for more housing supply.
A balanced community driven scheme would work much better than 60+ flats
Doesn't the council have any power to force the profit -maximising developer's hand?
|
|
| |
|
|
jaradras
Posts: 45
Joined: Jan 2014
|
20-05-2016 01:29 PM
Contractor on site, work started last week
|
|
| |
|
|
Woody
No Longer Registered
Posts: 61
Joined: Oct 2006
|
22-04-2017 01:56 PM
The contractor on site is working past 1pm on a Saturday yet again.
First time I queried this the site supervisor claimed that he didn't know the time.
Today apparently it is emergency works (which seem to involve a crane lifting building materials onto the half completed blocks).
This post was last modified: 22-04-2017 01:57 PM by Woody.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
