SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About SE23.com | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors



Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (7): « First < Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next > Last »
Planning Application - Hindsley Place and Westbourne Drive
Author Message
hopsicle


Posts: 1
Joined: Feb 2010
Post: #21
17-03-2011 11:37 AM

"Ford Capri orange and Volkswagen yellow"

Laugh
Thumbup

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
seeformiles


Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #22
18-03-2011 07:42 PM

Ok, I understand there's a difference of opinion. It doesn't look so bad in the other pictures, but I'm not sure I'd want to live next door or immediately behind it.

Tonight outside Forest Hill station one of the people behind this application is asking for passers-by to sign a petition in support of their plans.

Does that mean they're hoping a general petition should carry more weight than the potential concerns of people who might be directly affected by it?

On their poster they say this is being built to help regenerate Forest Hill, but that is somewhat disingenuous - and subjective.
There may well be an element of public-spiritedness about it - but nobody builds a home for themselves purely to benefit the local community do they?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joco


Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #23
19-03-2011 07:49 AM

My house will look almost directly on to the 6-storey tower. I confess that artistically/architecturally I'm not really sure what to make of it (there is a feel of stacked shipping containers about it), but I do, nevertheless, approve of the application. It's bold and different, and far too few bold and different buildings get built – certainly in Forest Hill. It will replace a hideous pebble-dash monstrosity that we’ve been looking out on for the four years that we’ve lived here with a structure that could provide the sort of iconic originality that might well provide a catalyst for further re-generation of Forest Hill south of the tracks.

A structure of this height might be an issue on a narrow street, but Westbourne Drive is a very wide road, with a wide range of architectural styles and plenty of tall buildings. Will it blend in? Of course not, but it’s not intended to. It’s making a statement, and it’s a statement worth making.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jefflowe


Posts: 9
Joined: Mar 2011
Post: #24
19-03-2011 02:29 PM

In response to the second posting from seeformiles, I want to build something that I feel inspired to live and work in. I have always tried to make my buildings with the greatest attention to detail and interest and i suppose in doing this what I and others have noticed with my buildings in Havelock Walk and other sites in Lewisham is that they add something to the local area. The building in Hindsley's Place/Westbourne Drive i hope will be appreciated as much as no.6 in Havelock Walk seems to be. Also some of the buildings which i have started have started a community (often an artistic one) which certainly contributes to the quality of the area. I hope i am not being disingenuous with my presentation and comments as i have chosen to live and work in Forest Hill for the last twenty years and certainly appreciate its qualities.What is interesting when talking to people during presenting the tower building is that many people do feel strongly that we have been given a lot of very poor quality architecture and that people are frustrated with the amount of time it seems to be taking for Forest Hill to improve and for Lewisham to deal with many of the very obvious and simple things which would make living here much more pleasant.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
seeformiles


Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #25
20-03-2011 12:29 AM

Fair enough. I just felt I needed to make this point in the interests of balance.
What I think as one individual is of no consequence anyway, but after seeing the attempt to petition the public for support I wanted to present an alternative view.
If the immediate neighbours and the council are happy, then of course it will go ahead.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baggydave


Posts: 390
Joined: May 2004
Post: #26
20-03-2011 09:53 AM

Older visitors will know of Baggy's issues over some developments on the posh estate, which he, and many other residents in UDB consider are a blight. I wont use this thread as a soapbox (that is a surprise), but just to say that there is always a balance to be struck. There has been a good and informed discussion on this thread and I am sure that Jeff is Conciencious in what he does in order to seek benefits for the whole area. Hats off to using the haircut of a minor English footballer and the local indie band Carter USM for his inspiration.

To be more serious - an example of perhaps good architecture but where I think the developer/owner doesn't appear to care about neighbours, is the 'Huf Haus' on Ringmore Rise. Perhaps great architecture, but far too imposing in the height and the closeness to down hill neighbours, they keep their lights on all night, and have this raised rear garden with a shuttered concrete retaining wall that is as ugly as sin for the downhill neighbours. I think that this should have been addressed (apart from light pollution) during the planning approval process. However not a lot of faith in LBL. With FHS involvement, and the discussions here, there is a good opportunity for wider consultation with the community on the current proposal.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
celticexplorer


Posts: 16
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #27
21-03-2011 09:22 AM

I wanted to offer my support for the proposed planning application. I first moved to Forest Hill seven years ago with the hope that it was on the up but to be honest for the most of that time I have considered moving away as it was looking like Forest Hill would be forever stuck in the doldrums of shabbiness and would be for ever known as that place the South Circular passes through. Though still shabby in parts Forest Hill does now, at last, look like it might be changing for the better and might, just might, be able to shake off it's tatty image. This has not happened by chance. The change has come around due to forward thinking people taking risks and putting themselves and their livelihoods and reputations on the line. We all love to see the change in Forest Hill, we like being able to have a coffee or catch a tube train, or , when the pool opens, to be able to go swimming or just simply to see the value of our properties rise but how many of us can honestly say that we have contributed in some way to the redevelopment of SE23. We continue to need these people because it will be their daring speculation that will allow Forest Hill to evolve into a suburb that people will be happy to visit and even happier to live in. For me these people range from the new cafe owners, pub landlords, developers, our councilors, The Forest Hill Society, and ordinary people like Jeff Lowe who put a lot their energy and finances into making the area better so we can have a good place to live.

This is why I think that you/we should support Jeff's planning application. To continue this change for the better, Forest Hill needs to step further away from the hum-drum and ordinary towards the extraordinary and I think that this building would go a long way to helping that process. History has shown that there have been many controversial pieces of architecture that when complete have gone on to become prized attractions. Take the Pyramide du Louvre in Paris..Wikipedia says "The construction of the pyramid triggered considerable controversy because many people felt that the futuristic edifice looked quite out of place in front of the Louvre Museum with its classical architecture" Well we all know that The Pyramide went on to invigorate visitor numbers to the Louvre and today is an icon of modern French architecture. If we continue to oppose these entrepreneurial adventurers then we run the risk of them taking their projects elsewhere in London and we and Forest Hill will lose out on any benefit that we might have had.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
seeformiles


Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #28
21-03-2011 02:58 PM

My point was that if there are genuine concerns from near neighbours (and so far there appear not to be) then this planning application should be treated the same as any other. Petitions signed by those who perhaps live elsewhere shouldn't really carry more weight than the procedures that would normally be followed, including consulting the parties most affected - or not.

That's why I raised the issue, not because I'm personally opposed to it - I'm not especially - it was the petition itself that drew my attention and I wondered if all the issues had been made clear.

But let's not forget there is a degree of subjectivity in all these matters.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baggydave


Posts: 390
Joined: May 2004
Post: #29
21-03-2011 03:34 PM

I travel out with a kids' football team into furthest South East London and North Kent. You should never think of SE23 as drab/bland/boring/dull as opposed to some of the mono architectural styles that seem to spread out down the arterial trunk roads, then followed by equally uninspiring post war in-fill.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
celticexplorer


Posts: 16
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #30
21-03-2011 04:08 PM

Drab, bland, boring and dull were not words that I used, I suggested that Forest Hill was shabby and that it is schemes such as Jeff rejuvenation at Havelock Walk studios and the new build on Perry Vale by Berkeley Homes for example that are injecting new life into SE23 and have gone a long way to tidying up what were essentially eye sores before.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
roz


Posts: 1,796
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #31
21-03-2011 07:58 PM

I'm all for interesting architecture and innovation and making a difference but this particular design just seems hostile to its local community with its 70's faceless design and overbearing height. Imposing is one thing but being aesthetically intrusive and ugly is quite another. I'm not suggesting it seeks to blend in with the uninteresting streetscape that lies around it but if it seeks to make a positive impact it shouldn't dwarf what is already there.
I think it merits a full rethink.

Havelock Walk was a success because it successfully and tastefully restored what was already there. This is a bit different.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
celticexplorer


Posts: 16
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #32
21-03-2011 08:18 PM

THe Eiffel Tower
The tower was much criticised by the public when it was built, with many calling it an eyesore. Newspapers of the day were filled with angry letters from the arts community of Paris. One is quoted extensively in William Watson's US Government Printing Office publication of 1892 Paris Universal Exposition: Civil Engineering, Public Works, and Architecture: "And during twenty years we shall see, stretching over the entire city, still thrilling with the genius of so many centuries, we shall see stretching out like a black blot the odious shadow of the odious column built up of riveted iron plates."[12] Signers of this letter included Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, Charles Gounod, Charles Garnier, Jean-Léon Gérôme, William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and Alexandre Dumas.

Novelist Guy de Maupassant—who claimed to hate the tower[13]—supposedly ate lunch in the Tower's restaurant every day. When asked why, he answered that it was the one place in Paris where one could not see the structure. Today, the Tower is widely considered to be a striking piece of structural art.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
roz


Posts: 1,796
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #33
21-03-2011 08:44 PM

Perhaps, but its practically in its own setting, a long way from residential properties, not plonked right in the middle of an existing neighbourhood immediately adjacent to residential buildings. As I said, I have nothing against interesting or unusual, to me this design doesn't have any merits and is architecturally rather aggressive and inappropriate considering its surroundings. It just needs to look a bit nicer!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #34
21-03-2011 09:37 PM

If this monstrosity gets approved and then becomes a tea shop, me and Guy de Maupassant will have lunch there everyday (the one place in Forest Hill where we can not see the structure.)

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
roz


Posts: 1,796
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #35
22-03-2011 07:56 AM

He's dead. Perhaps Honor Oak Rec might be a better place for tea with him? However as he's also dead and French the thought of drinking English tea might make him turn in his cemetaire.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #36
22-03-2011 08:09 AM

whatever.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sandy


Posts: 191
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #37
22-03-2011 09:37 AM

cimetière, even.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vintagem


Posts: 2
Joined: Mar 2011
Post: #38
22-03-2011 09:55 AM

I have only posted once on this forum and this will be my last as I do not wish to join in but it occurs to me that the last few comments made by Roz (1,936 posts), Perryman (452 posts) and Baggydave (who better get a move on because he some way behind Roz, 1,189 posts).

The term "armchair critics" surley applies as I can't believe that they have had much time to do anything else with their lives. How can so few people have so many opinions on so many subjects.

I won't be looking but lets see how quickly they respond.

over and OUT.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #39
22-03-2011 10:15 AM

So I'm not allowed a view on a building I'll be waking past at least twice a day??
Time that all these sock puppets on this thread got back in their draw.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Satchers


Posts: 262
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #40
22-03-2011 01:19 PM

vintagem
Its a shame that you don't think wider discussion, both positive and negative is useful.

I don't agree with many of the views on the site generally, but do agree with others, but find it useful to understand what other people think about the things that are going on. The debate and the discussion of views is helpful in forming, understanding and moderating opinions.

On this scheme I have both postitive and negative thoughts.

Its a very interesting scheme with very positive regeneration benefits for the bottom of Hindsleys Place, in particular, and which is a very good thing. The taller element on Westbourne Drive is well located to minimise the impact on neighbours in terms of overshadowing, mostly because of the significant width of this street. The buildings are interesting and would be high profile (which I think is good). They would need to be implemented to a very high standard though, but this is something that Jeff says he is committed to doing.

However, I think the proposals could do more to 'repair' the street frontage along Westbourne Drive, specifically by keeping to the existing building line and reducing the height of the boundary walls around the courtyard so that it looks more like a 'front' garden space (albeit with car parking) that is in character with the rest of the street. In doing this I think it would be able to make good one of the problems with this site as it stands at the moment and deliver something back to the particular qualities of this street.

Just throwing that into the mix and debate....

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (7): « First < Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Lewisham Council approve "controversial" planning application samuelsen 1 4,337 10-11-2022 03:43 PM
Last Post: taymountgrange
  Taymount Grange | Planning Application | DC/22/127431 taymountgrange 6 5,060 10-11-2022 03:38 PM
Last Post: HannahM
  Planning application to convert Home Accessories Extra to a coffee shop hillview 8 11,225 22-04-2018 12:35 PM
Last Post: hillview
  Planning application to convert Forest Hill Co-op to a hotel hillview 12 12,927 10-03-2018 01:34 PM
Last Post: Uhuru
  Planning application to change Honor Oak Supermarket to a bar nitoda 10 18,648 03-07-2016 07:42 PM
Last Post: HannahD
  Planning Application: 1 Manor Mount Mrjamon 50 56,236 14-12-2015 10:46 AM
Last Post: Londondrz
  The 4 Redberry Grove Planning Application robertlondon 21 32,334 15-09-2015 06:16 AM
Last Post: JRW
  Planning Application: M&Co to become a Morrisons Local? edpaff 141 160,413 09-09-2015 03:42 PM
Last Post: michael
  Land on corner of Perry Vale & Westbourne Drive blushingsnail 64 70,703 14-05-2015 07:53 PM
Last Post: Londondrz
  Planning Application: 51-53 Canonbie Road penfold 88 115,856 02-05-2014 01:04 PM
Last Post: Hunter
  Planning Application: 120 Stanstead Road michael 67 78,940 11-12-2013 02:50 PM
Last Post: Mr_Numbers
  Planning Application: 6 Church Rise ForestGump 58 72,378 02-04-2013 04:53 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: 6 Church Rise NewForester 30 42,846 02-08-2012 04:00 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: Land to the rear of 107 Honor Oak Park alethius 5 10,070 25-06-2012 11:02 AM
Last Post: alethius
  Planning Application: 27 Shipman Road theirpuppet 50 58,123 07-06-2012 09:25 AM
Last Post: emma
  Codrington Hill - planning application? blushingsnail 1 5,975 24-05-2012 10:02 PM
Last Post: megan
  Planning Application - 113 Bovill Road davidl 7 12,628 21-04-2012 11:06 AM
Last Post: HOPcat
  Planning application: 33 Dartmouth Road Baboonery 16 19,042 29-11-2011 09:41 AM
Last Post: IWereAbsolutelyFuming
  Planning Application: 15 Davids Road NewForester 4 8,363 18-08-2011 07:34 AM
Last Post: notstoppin
  Planning Application: 139 Sunderland Road RobF 48 54,133 04-06-2011 09:00 PM
Last Post: michael