thanks grasshopper - i have done so. hopefully they will be able to help.

Why is it? It is standard consultation. Submitting a planning application costs money as does the work being proposed so it is only sensible that an applicant takes advice to ensure they aren't submitting something that has absolutely no chance of success.

The planning system is not supposed to be subjective so an applicant should expect to be successful if they adhere to the relevant parts and plans of the Town and Country Planning system and local authority. Where the application does not fall in a Conservation Area or affect a listed buiding (directly or indirectly) the proposal for a different architectural style should not be used in an 'out-of-character' argument in an objection/refusal. The 'out-of-character' objection should only be applied to things like land-use type, scale of buildings, building line, overly dense population.

Significant structural work on existing, older buildings has the potential to be far more expensive than a new-build, which is possibly why the applicant is proposing a new build.

Subsidence is often covered by insurance but it is wrong to assume that the property was covered by buildings insurance - there are many reasons why it might not be covered. Unless it has been sold in the last couple of months, open source information suggests 139 hasn't changed hands in (at least) the last 8 years. Imagine you are told you have ?200,000 worth of repairs that need doing to your house and, for whatever reason, you are liable for the full cost as neither your insurance or local grants are in a position to contribute. Would you add that money to your mortgage (presuming the banks deemed you financially sound enough) just to retain a standard victorian house? It is more than possible that this person cannot afford to do this (or new-build a house for themselves) and the development opportunity on the site would allow them to return it to residential use and allow them to buy themselves somewhere to live again.

I dont want to see every house in Forest Hill replaced by flats but neither do I think that all apartment blocks should be built in the same place, just because there is a precedent. 11 flats might seem a lot but it seems to meet the required residential density and 125-129 Sunderland Road has 11 flats on a similar sized (but different shaped) site.

Hi Rob,
I was lucky to pick up your comment thread within a Google search. I have had a look at the plans to 139 and its surely over development of the site. The worry is that the owner has already had a preliminary meeting with the planning officer and is reasonably confident to submit an outline planning proposal.
I am doing the development at the corner of Alyward and Sunderland Rd, those horrible old maisonettes ( i have owned 133b since 1994 so no property developer jokes please !). We ensured our design was in keeping with the road - i.e. pitched roofs, family houses etc.
The underpinning figure is a joke and has no factual evidence backing it up.
I have submitted an objection and would propse that if enough neighbours object, then we can instruct a planning consultant to tabulate a more formal objection, circa costs would be between ?800 to ?1500.
Let me know.
Regards
Mark

The Forest Hill Society has objected to this development. You can see the objection at http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2008/11...-road.html

There are already 12 objections but I would recommend that anybody living close to this development write in to make their objections clear. Emails can be sent to planning@lewisham.gov.uk

There seems to be 12 letters against on the main page (see link on first post from RobF) if you then click where it says "click here for a list" it still says;

Received: 12
In Favour: 0
Against: 12, etc...

But there are 64 addresses listed below that have sent a letter - does this mean there have been 64 letters regarding these plans to the council but only 12 of them have been actual objections?

Sorry if this a basic question but I'm not sure how to find the content.

Regards
Ben

Hi Ben,

I think those 64 addresses are the local residents to whom the original notification of planning permission was sent to.

As you can see, several of them are in adjacent roads such as Gaynesford Rd or Whitney Path off Mayow Road, which have no view of the property, (so I assume they are within a certain geographical area which is required to be notified) so those people are less likely to have objected.

Also 12 of those addresses are in the 125-129 Sunderland Road property, which I believe is a "half-way-house" for "care in the community" or something similar, so again it's less likely that they have objected.

Also, a number of them are in Aylward Rd where I believe a number of the properties are owned by the family of the proposed development at 139 Sunderland Road, so once again they are unlikely to have objected.

There have been 12 objections on the Lewisham website for over a week now, so I hope that will increase to 13 given that the FHS have now objected too.

I'm don't think you can see the details of each objection on the Lewisham website (although the FHS have posted theirs on their website). If you PM me, I can probably give you some more detail.

Rob.

Mark,

The only property developer joke I can make is "if you've owned those horrible old maisonettes since 1994, why has it taken you so long to knock them down...??!!"

Seriously, thanks for your support and your objection. The planning consultant idea is maybe not a bad one, although I think that probably can wait 'till we hear back from Lewisham about what happens next.

I'll keep in touch.

Thanks, Rob.

Hi RobF - Thanks for the info.

If you think think my objection will be counted I will do so asap - But I do live well out of sight (Farren Rd) of the property in question and am not sure if it will be taken into account.

Hi Ben,
Please object, if you are not happy with these proposals. It's not just about where you live, although notification is only sent to those within a certain area.
thanks, Rob.

We live on Sunderland Road but we haven t received anything. Is that normal ? We will object. Thanks

Millesens: I think you live at the other end of the road from 139. Only near neighbours are sent letters.

It looks like on the even side of the road, they were sent to numbers 62 (on the corner of Gaynesford Rd) to 70 (the last house before Perry Vale). On the odd side it's very similar - from the large half-way-house opposite Gaynesford Road (next to the school) down to the junction with Perry Vale.

For some reason the houses on the even side were sent their notices 3 weeks after everyone else - strange as they are the houses directly opposite the proposal, and therefore you would have thought the most interested!?

Forgot to add Millesens....please object, even though you didn't get a letter.

I walk by 139 every day. It looks fully occupied. But two of the other 'big' houses in the row down to Perry Vale look like they are either being reonvated or cleaned out in preparation for a renovation.

Does anyone know the fate of these houses? They look like they could be lovely family homes, or at hold two or three flats, if done up well. 141 and 145 look empty.

According to the council address list, 145 is already split into 5 flats, 143 is 3 flats and 141 is a single property.

I haven't looked closely at them recently, but I thought they were all occupied - certainly 145 always looked a total mess, but despite that has been occupied...

Local gossip/conspiracy theory is that the people (or their family) who own 139 also own 1 or more of the others and that the development at 139 is just the start....

I noticed today that this application has been withdrawn, which is good news.

That's excellent news - an early Christmas present!

I expect they'll have a rethink and come back next year with a revised plan - let's hope it's more acceptable than this one was.

Merry Christmas all, and a Happy New Year.

A similar shoehorned executive flats development, was built on the site of a single house with subsidence damage on the junction of Underhill and Overhill Roads on the upper Dulwich side of Forest Hill.

The design is pretty poor - I think the architect tried to limit the overall height of the building by putting the 'ground' floor below the surrounding ground level, which is hopeless security-wise, with lots of windows.

The development has been completed nearly two years and its still empty with lots of To Let signs. Suggests to me that the market won't support such developments in SE23, especially now we are in the Great Depression.

Merry Christmas! Les.

There is a new planning application for this site - http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=56115

I won't comment in detail other than to note that the new planning application is for 8 rather than 11 units on the site and a number (but not all) of the concerns expressed by neighbours and by the Forest Hill Society, have been taken into account.

It is nice to think that last year's application was withdrawn because of legitimate concern from neighbours, civic societies, and gossiping coffee-morning miscreants. This is how the planning process is meant to work.

New plans have been submitted for this planning application:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/43547_6.pdf

This has taken account of some, but not all, of the objections by the Forest Hill Society and other neighbours. You can read the previous objection by the Forest Hill Society at http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2009/04...tions.html