SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »
Planning Application: 6 Church Rise
Author Message
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #1
26-03-2008 04:48 AM

Following the collapse of the previous property a new planning application for 6 Church Rise has been made.

In summary the proposal is a 4 storey building plus basement consisting of 6 x 1 bed flats, 2 x 2 bed flats, 2 x 3 bed maisonettes and 2 studio flats.

The applicant Earlsfield Estates now gives the address of 14 Waldram Park Road, which is also the subject of a planning application.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Grangerover


Posts: 35
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #2
26-03-2008 09:43 AM

So, 12 flats then. Sounds like a lot to me. Of course that almost certainly means an extra 12 cars (possibly more) and surprise, surprise, they only plan to provide 3 parking spaces...

Find all posts by this user Reply
robwinton


Posts: 335
Joined: Jun 2006
Post: #3
26-03-2008 09:43 AM

How can they use an address for another building as their registered address when it is under construction? Are they doing this to curry some sort of local favour? Very odd.

No information on the design of the building and whether they plan on ensuring it is in keeping with the road and replaces the one they destroyed. I sure hope so.

One to watch!

Find all posts by this user Reply
blushingsnail


Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 2005
Post: #4
27-03-2008 10:41 AM

It's a good thing you found this. I wondered why I hadn't seen it on Lewisham's website when I was looking for new applications in Perry Vale ward and I've now noticed the ward name is omitted from the online details, so it's not appearing in a 'Perry Vale' search. I've e-mailed Planning to ask them to remedy this.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #5
27-03-2008 11:00 AM

Is all this planned in site of what was one dwelling. The mind boggles how they are trying to squeeze more and more people into London.

Find all posts by this user Reply
blushingsnail


Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 2005
Post: #6
27-03-2008 11:19 AM

Have just received a reply from Planning saying they will add the ward name. They also pointed out that this application is currently invalid, but didn't say why.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robwinton


Posts: 335
Joined: Jun 2006
Post: #7
27-03-2008 05:02 PM

This is all speculation, so I'm not actually accusing anyone of anything [thus insert the word "allegedly" liberally throughout this post]

... But

isn't it odd how a company like this could go quite so wrong with the development of a house that they bring it down? A house that, if well & intensively re-developed, *might* have included 6 or so flats, maybe even 9, but now that the plot is "empty", they can afford to plan a building with 12 (!!!) flats, and more than make back any money "lost" in the earlier debacle?

3 extra flats at around ?300,000 each pays for the original purchase price of around ?900,000 (and I suspect it was less)

It seems somewhat convenient that having paid a certain sum for a house +plot, they have managed to make the plot worth so much more since the time of the 'accidental' knocking down of what was a lovely building

Now, I repeat, this is pure speculation and I'm NOT accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out the convenience of the events to date.

Am I too cynical?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #8
28-03-2008 09:32 AM

Rob, you took the words out of my mouth.

Sadly, from all the people consulted, Waldram Park Road got the go ahead, after receiving only 1 objection. So if the same is done for Church Rise, im sure it will get the go ahead.

Im annoyed that the same person for Lewisham who did the consultation on their behalf is not only still working for Lewisham, but also heading up this application too!

So as most of you know, if this gets the go ahead, I get the pleasure of living next door to this "thing" I cant wait to see the plans for it, but am sure it will be NOTHING like its surrounding buildings.

As for the parking. With the 5 flats they put in at #10 the parking is somewhat stretched already. Putting in god knows how many more people who drive at #6 is gonna make me feel a bit squeezed for parking to say the least.

The worst part of all this.... Having the carefree builders of Earlsfield working next door AGAIN for the next couple of years.
They work out of hours, they leave SO much mess, they damage property around them, block the drive and so on.... all that for another year or so.
AND the other concern.... The foundations of our house are currently being held up by the scaffolding and concrete in the basement of #6. However they plan to build in this now, which means digging it all out...

Like Rob, just speculating, but WHAT IF..... there was a problem removing the basement, and our foundations were seriously damaged. House condemned, land bought, and suddenly they own a row of 3 if they bought the land.
Even better.... if it damaged BOTH houses either side, then they would have a row of 4 houses which back onto........ 14 Waldram Park Road

Personally, im against them building something for so many people next door. Although credit where its due, the people in #10 seem just fine Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
robwinton


Posts: 335
Joined: Jun 2006
Post: #9
28-03-2008 10:44 AM

Well, let's not go too far or we risk upsetting people.

I think we should be realistic that now that the house has had to come down, something will have to replace it and will end up being a multi-occupancy property.

What we should be entitled to insist upon is that the new building is "in keeping" with the surroundings just as it would have had to be if they had applied for planning application to demolish and rebuild whilst the building was still standing.

We should also insist that, based on past problems and neighbour complaints, that this building is monitored closely to ensure it is not unduly noisy, dirty or inconveniences the rest of us.

Snazy - What was your issue with the person proposing the application? And can anyone comment on the issue of using another building site as a registered address?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #10
28-03-2008 11:20 AM

My issue with the applicant? Their history in the building industry. Especially with regards to #6.
The damage they have done to my house and existance there is already bad enough, but the thought that they will again be allowed to chip away at the foundations again is actually scary!

To add to it, lets just say there is a serious health issue in this property, and any upset and disruption from the site next door will make the situation worse, in my opinion anyway.

I would be interested to see how many people will both be invited and actually take up the invite to consult on this application. Having a voice, and choosing to use it are 2 totally different things.

I agree totally with your comments on what should be done as far as the replacement property.

Maybe a neighbourhood consultation is required.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #11
28-03-2008 11:36 AM

A simple solution to ensure this alleged incident does not happen again would be that the builder would have to rebuild the house exactly as it was.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #12
28-03-2008 01:11 PM

Sadly that wont improve my trust in their ability to work on any form of foundations, especially in the house next to mine.

Anyone who thinks you can dig an entire foundation out from under a house and expect it to remain standing should not be in the building industry.

Building a replica, with extensions around it would calm my mind slightly about what will appear next to us, however the sheer volume of people planned to be moved into the property is a major concern, especially given the parking situation as it is, and the proposed allocation of parking for this place.

Find all posts by this user Reply
blushingsnail


Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 2005
Post: #13
04-04-2008 09:37 AM

The application's status on the Planning website changed to 'Registered' so I e-mailed the Planning Dept to ask when the documents would be available online. They replied saying the application was still invalid. I've now replied asking why the website shows the Validation and Consultation Start dates as 20 March and letters were sent to consultees on 25 March.

Snazy: I've been meaning to e-mail you about this and Waldram Park Road but haven't got round to it yet. I'll make another effort this weekend!

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #14
04-04-2008 10:43 AM

blushingsnail Wrote:
The application's status on the Planning website changed to 'Registered' so I e-mailed the Planning Dept to ask when the documents would be available online. They replied saying the application was still invalid. I've now replied asking why the website shows the Validation and Consultation Start dates as 20 March and letters were sent to consultees on 25 March.

Snazy: I've been meaning to e-mail you about this and Waldram Park Road but haven't got round to it yet. I'll make another effort this weekend!


Smile Nice update, thank you, much appreciated. Got a lot going on at the mo, so trying to keep up to speed on this.
Locals seem shocked at the proposals, although no one seems to have received any of the supposed letters yet.

Everyone very interested to see what the story is.

On the other side of the coin. Seem to be a lot of contractors now looking for people from Earlsfield. Strange that eh.

Find all posts by this user Reply
blushingsnail


Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 2005
Post: #15
04-04-2008 11:07 AM

Planning Department's reply is that the application is still invalid because there was a problem with the fees. The consultation letters were printed but not sent out. When the application is validated the letters will be reprinted and posted.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #16
04-04-2008 06:07 PM

blushingsnail Wrote:
Planning Department's reply is that the application is still invalid because there was a problem with the fees. The consultation letters were printed but not sent out. When the application is validated the letters will be reprinted and posted.




Hmmm one wonders if Earlsfield are in money trouble.
No sign of them at 14, contractors looking for them and asking when the last time I saw anyone from there was... Problem with fees for planning dept..... I can hope anyway eh lol

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #17
04-04-2008 06:09 PM

Figures are due, and they disappear off the face of the earth.. Time for a rebrand ?

Name & Registered Office:
EARLSFIELD ESTATES LIMITED
139 KINGSTON ROAD
WIMBLEDON LONDON
SW19 1LT
Company No. 04695813




Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 12/03/2003

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7011 - Development & sell real estate
7012 - Buying & sell own real estate
7487 - Other business activities

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2007 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2009
Last Return Made Up To: 12/03/2007
Next Return Due: 09/04/2008

Last Members List: 12/03/2007

Find all posts by this user Reply
jeh


Posts: 16
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #18
08-04-2008 08:57 PM

Any news on the Earlsfield Estates people? Work seems to have slowed/stopped on a property I know well - leaving quite a substantial mess...

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #19
08-04-2008 09:11 PM

jeh Wrote:
Any news on the Earlsfield Estates people? Work seems to have slowed/stopped on a property I know well - leaving quite a substantial mess...



No suprises there. Seen one of their cars at 14 Waldram over the past couple of nights.

Where is the property you mention, not Sunderland is it ?
As for the mess, thats their signature trademark. You should see the mess they left here! Ohmy

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #20
09-04-2008 07:02 AM

I wonder if it can be put to Lewisham Planning that another officer work on this case?
I guess big developers have a planning person allocated to them? But seeing the matter dealt with by another agent would start to help me relax about it. Especially after the recent permissions granted by this one.

Issuing consent for a basement AFTER the house has collapsed is surely imcompetence. Especially after I have been told by another officer that the original consent was given based on the basement NOT being touched.
So after the developer digs the basement out and fails to make it safe, they are granted permission...... *sniff sniff !

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Planning application to convert Home Accessories Extra to a coffee shop hillview 8 2,894 22-04-2018 12:35 PM
Last Post: hillview
  Planning application to convert Forest Hill Co-op to a hotel hillview 12 3,175 10-03-2018 01:34 PM
Last Post: Uhuru
  Constant alarm at 2 Church Rise Harrysaville90 2 1,322 22-02-2018 03:24 PM
Last Post: hillview
  Redevelopment of 2 Church Rise Snazy 35 12,182 26-09-2016 08:23 AM
Last Post: Giacomo71
  Planning application to change Honor Oak Supermarket to a bar nitoda 10 9,134 03-07-2016 07:42 PM
Last Post: HannahD
  Church Rise wynell 5 2,113 25-04-2016 02:49 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: 1 Manor Mount Mrjamon 50 26,614 14-12-2015 10:46 AM
Last Post: Londondrz
  The 4 Redberry Grove Planning Application robertlondon 21 15,216 15-09-2015 06:16 AM
Last Post: JRW
  Planning Application: M&Co to become a Morrisons Local? edpaff 141 74,628 09-09-2015 03:42 PM
Last Post: michael
  New bus stop at top of Church Rise Erekose 5 3,177 16-05-2014 11:57 AM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: 51-53 Canonbie Road penfold 88 64,696 02-05-2014 01:04 PM
Last Post: Hunter
  Police on church rise? Duckling 1 2,264 22-04-2014 02:07 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application - Hindsley Place and Westbourne Drive michael 124 66,632 09-01-2014 12:46 PM
Last Post: Perryman
  Planning Application: 120 Stanstead Road michael 67 40,717 11-12-2013 02:50 PM
Last Post: Mr_Numbers
  6 Church Rise is a Victorian conversion ... apparently Snazy 2 2,488 09-09-2013 02:10 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Church Rise road surface is 'bleeding' Snazy 7 3,653 19-04-2013 12:10 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: 6 Church Rise NewForester 30 22,934 02-08-2012 04:00 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: Land to the rear of 107 Honor Oak Park alethius 5 4,838 25-06-2012 11:02 AM
Last Post: alethius
  Tree down in Church Rise Erekose 1 1,908 13-06-2012 01:52 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: 27 Shipman Road theirpuppet 50 29,353 07-06-2012 09:25 AM
Last Post: emma