There will be a response from the Forest Hill Society, but it is taking time to get through all the details and planning issues.

Internal layout is often rather difficult to judge from the plans but the smaller bedrooms are generally on the top floor (with sloping roofs) and are part of two bed units. I don't think there are any 1 bed flats that could not take a double bed. I'm more concerned about a couple of the kitchens which are tiny - good news for the kebab shop across the road!

Agree that the rooms look rather small.

Interesting that Steve Grindlay in his short history of the building
points out that the firemen and their families once occupied the building. At that time there were 50 people living at the station, far more than this proposed 13-unit development is likely to hold.

http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/2010/11/a...e-station/

The response from the Forest Hill Society can be read by following this link.

The response is well thought out and considered.
However with regard to site layout and site size, "pint-pot" comes to mind and given that it is unlikely that the site can be extended or altered in any substantial way the constraining criteria laid out in the response in support of a rejection will be applicable to almost any other proposal (with the exception of the HSG 17 issue relating to sustainable living areas).
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Planning Officers to address the individual issues raised with the applicant and seek resolution rather than to adopt a stance that considers an outright rejection to be the only outcome.
Additionally I feel it would be appropriate to see the ground floor proposals being brought forward in conjunction for consideration with this application.

Thanks JGD.

Given the previous use of the upper floors as flats it is difficult to argue that the lower number of flats would today be unreasonable, but increasing the number of flats is more of a problem.

It is fairly normal for the planning officers to make objections available to applicants to allow further discussion and amendments to take place prior to a final decision/referal to committee.

I wonder if they have considered the appropriateness of the ground floor for vehicle storage? It is almost as if it is designed for a car park

There is a committee report recommending approval for the conversion of the upper floors to flats. The main concerns of over development and lack of resident parking are mentioned but were not considered as being reasons not to proceed as the floor and parking plans need to fit within the existing building's footprint without damaging the listed buiding's character. This seems reasonable, but I will be more interested in what plans are brought forward for the ground floor.

Report is available at:
http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/i...4&MId=1896

I'm disappointed at the officers' dismissal of social housing in this development as being uneconomical and their acceptance of the developer's assertion that there is plenty of parking (presumably outside the parade of shops on Perry Vale).

Te proposal will be heard on Thursday 20th January at 7.30 in the Civic Suite at Lewisham Town Hall.

Not sure if I will be able to attend. I am not against the development in principle, but think the developers are trying to cram too many units to the detriment of quality of accommodation being proposed and will be sad if it is approved as it is.

The development was rejected primarily due to the lack of social housing. Councillors were also concerned that without the details of the plans for the ground floor it was difficult to fully understand the impact of the entire development of the site.

Thanks to Councillor Paschoud who spoke against the application, and nice to meet DerbyHillTop.

Let's hope that a new application come forward soon that reduces the number of units and provides better quality of accommodation, as well as providing some social housing (such as part buy part rent) on the site.

Thanks for the update Michael. Was anything said about parking?

Yes, parking was mentioned by John and I, but it was not one of the ground of refusal (only social housing was listed as a reason for refusal)

The developer is appealling against the decision, having been assured previously by officers that social housing would not be required for this development due to its listed status.

There have now been two new applications (which look identical to me) for this site:

DC/11/76849/X - http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=62719

DC/11/76882/X - http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=62755

The only major change that I can see is that the ground floor area that was excluded from the previous application has now been included and will continue to be used as B1 office space (not a bar or a church or Tescos - some of the previous rumours/suggestions).

Still only two parking spaces, no social housing provision, and some rather small kitchens / bathrooms.

Last week there was a local hearing by the planning inspector regarding the initial application. A decision by the inspector is likely in the next 6-8 weeks regarding whether the planning committee's rejection of the application should be upheld or overturned.

A few points that came to light in the local hearing:
1. Following the objection by the FH Society to the initial application the developer spoke to the officers regarding whether social housing would be required, and were told that it would not be given the listing of the property. However, this was the main reason for refusal by the planning committee.
2. Had the officers asked for social housing prior to referral to committee, the developer would have considered including some social housing. Due to the delay and the additional interest payments made by the developer, they are now claiming it would not be viable to include social housing.
3. The subsequent applications have been withdrawn. Apparently one did include social housing provision, but was withdrawn as it was not considered economically viable by the developer.
4. The developer has recognised that a church would not be an acceptable use of the ground floor due to noise considerations. For this reason, should they proceed, it will be with offices on the ground floor.

The inspector has now decided to allow for the development to go ahead without the social housing provision. So that the developer can make a profit of £150,000 on the upper floors of the site.

How is that figure of £150k arrived at Michael ?

Whilst I have not read the full report, the Inspector's points you highlight seem tinged entirely with healthy pragmatism and recognise that little or no scope for further change exists.

In an ideal world and on a larger site without the heritage constraints, any perceived harm could have been designed out.

Interestingly the Inspector concludes that the scheme enhances the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.

Equally importantly we will hopefully now see the building rapidly returned to beneficial use and in particular arrest the onset of an aura of deterioration that has begun to shroud the building in recent months.

The economic viability statement, provided by the developer, is not in the public domain. I only have the figure from the inspector's report.

I don't think the inspector was likely to come to any other conclusion. But the developer said at the local hearing that had the officers recommended the inclusion of social housing when it was raised as an issue by the FH Society, then they would have included it in the scheme (and the work would probably have been completed by now, and they still would have made more profit).

I still worry about parking close to the site and the impact it will have on the parade of shops. But having been inside the building, I think the developer is doing a good job on the conversion and I expect the flats will still be of high quality.

shame the downstairs user is staying as offices though (suspect they will languish empty for some time). Not that a church would have been an improvement either.

A planning application has just been submitted to convert the former offices into A1 retail.
Full details can be found on the Council's website (Ref: DC/12/79194/X)

Is there a way to find out if there is someone already interested in renting. The hours and design suggest a sainsburys/tescos local type retailer. Who else needs staff changing rooms or have I got this wrong.