Looking at the proposed street elevations for Hindsleys place it is quite striking to see that the (Berkeley homes?) development not so far away next to the station was allowed to dwarf its neighbours whilst this one has been cut down (from the original proposal) to match its neighbours in scale.

My feeling is that the Lewisham planners are far more likely to allow an intrusive and out of scale development where a bigger development is involved.

Another example is the comparison between oversized block of flats next to Fairlawn School which is just off Canobie road, which was allowed, and the proposed development for the bungalow on Canonbie road which they have just turned down. Both developments are too big and yet one was allowed and the other refused.

It seems to be one rule for the big developments and another for the rest.

So I am right in deducting that Jeff Lowe is selling up and therefore the plans to use the site as artists studios/gallery/cafe are now longer in the frame?

The planning application permits development for live/work units which would include residential and studios (no cafes). Any alternative development on the site (including changing the balance of work and residential) would require a new planning application.

A new application has now been submitted and as a resident of the immediate vicinity, I have been invited by Lewisham Council to note any disagreements I have with the current proposal.

It seems they want to build 8 residential units on this site, and the buildings will vary between 2 and 4 storeys in height.

My property will suffer a huge loss in natural light if this goes ahead, and I have lodged my objection and I have asked the neighbours whether they agree with my points/have also lodged objections. I have emailed the letter I sent to Lewisham, to the Ward Councillors but have not yet received a response.

I would like to note an error in the Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report which I believe invalidates it.

The modelling comparing the shadowing from the old and new building structures hour by hour at 5pm on March 21st is incorrect. The model uses the new building structure instead of the existing structure on the model of the current shadowing at 5 pm. This is the time when the west of our building is most impacted by the additional height of the new buildings and the report is therefore totally misleading. This error plus the lack of photographs of our rear windows and balconies makes this report useless in its current form.

Aside from the lighting issue, which is my biggest worry, the architectural style is completely out of keeping with the adjacent properties on Westbourne Drive. If the units are to be residential, they should be in keeping with the other residential properties on the road.
Car parking is sure to be a problem with visitors and residents of the new development being tempted to use the parking on Westbourne Drive reserved for Lewisham tenants and Leaseholders.

I am hoping this proposal will be rejected and I am hoping other people will lodge similar feelings! The deadline for submitting objections to the Council is 17th January.

I wouldn't object to the site being redeveloped sensitively but I don't feel the current proposal is at all suitable.

The application documents can be viewed here: http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications
The reference number is DC/13/85802

It is amazing that all these fancy architects seemingly cannot design a residential building that is more pleasing than the current ugly industrial grey block.