17 November 2008
Help Tidy Up Honor Oak Park
Our friends in the Honor Oak Park Action Group are arranging a day of action this Saturday. Please join them to help improve the area around Honor Oak Park Station.
16 November 2008
139 Sunderland Road
The Forest Hill Society has objected to the planned development of 139 Sunderland Road (DC/08/69950/x). You can read a copy of the letter to planning officers here.
08 November 2008
Tree Preservation: 35 Sunderland Road
At 35 Sunderland Road is a large eucalyptus tree that already has a preservation order and application DC/08/69850/FT requests permission to fell the tree. The Forest Hill Society have written to object:
We wish to object to the proposal to fell the eucalyptus tree at 35 Sunderland Road, for the following reasons:
1. Factual inaccuracy: the application states that the tree has caused damage to the 'pavement'. However the accompanying surveyor's report states that the damage is to the 'paving', presumably in the front garden. I recently walked past the property and saw no damage to the pavement in front of the property.
2. The application does not include an arboriculturalist's report. The report submitted is a brief report by a chartered surveyor, which contains only two paragraphs about the trees. The report recommends that "an arboriculturalist be invited to inspect and report on the trees". The application provides no evidence that this has been done.
3. The loss of the eucalyptus would be contrary to policy URB 13 Trees of the Unitary Development Plan. Lewisham has previously acknowledged this, in relation to a planning application in 2006 (DC/06/63172). At that time the outlook for the eucalyptus was positive, with no suggestion that it needed to be felled, and both Lewisham Council and the Planning Inspectorate supported the retention of the three trees on the site:
3.1 An arboriculturalist's report by Simon Jones Associates was submitted with the above application and categorised the eucalyptus in accordance with British Standard (2005) 'Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations' as Category B: "Trees of moderate quality and value: those in such a condition as to make a significant contribution (a minimum of 20 years is suggested)". This categorisation took into account the tree's species and the contraints of its physical location. In no way did the report suggest that the eucalyptus needed to be removed. It did acknowledge that pruning or tree surgery was likely to be required on a regular basis to manage the tree's conflicts with its urban surroundings (s. 2.2.8), and that the constraints of its present situation would entail the need for crown reduction in the very near future (s.4.1.2).
3.2 Lewisham refused planning permission, one of the grounds being that the proposed development would be likely to prejudice the retention of the protected eucalyptus and two limes trees, contrary to policy URB 13 Trees of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (s.5 of decision notice dated 1 November 2006).
3.3. The applicant appealed against Lewisham's refusal (Appeal reference APP/C5690/A/07/2042273). Based on a site visit in August 2007, the Planning Inspector supported Lewisham's decision in relation to the eucalyptus and two lime trees, stating 'To my mind, the loss of any protected trees in this urban setting would be a negative step in redeveloping the site. Views towards the site from Waldram Park Road confirm the value of the on-site trees and others in the street scene." (s.6).
It is for these reasons that we believe any claim that the eucalyptus is causing damage to property should be supported by strong expert evidence - evidence which is absent from this application. Both Lewisham Council and the Planning Inspectorate have acknowledged the importance of the eucalyptus and two limes, and permission to fell any of these trees should be given only as a last resort. The trees may well need pruning or crown reduction, in which case any work that is permitted should be carried out in a way that maintains the trees' contribution to the streetscape.
We wish to object to the proposal to fell the eucalyptus tree at 35 Sunderland Road, for the following reasons:
1. Factual inaccuracy: the application states that the tree has caused damage to the 'pavement'. However the accompanying surveyor's report states that the damage is to the 'paving', presumably in the front garden. I recently walked past the property and saw no damage to the pavement in front of the property.
2. The application does not include an arboriculturalist's report. The report submitted is a brief report by a chartered surveyor, which contains only two paragraphs about the trees. The report recommends that "an arboriculturalist be invited to inspect and report on the trees". The application provides no evidence that this has been done.
3. The loss of the eucalyptus would be contrary to policy URB 13 Trees of the Unitary Development Plan. Lewisham has previously acknowledged this, in relation to a planning application in 2006 (DC/06/63172). At that time the outlook for the eucalyptus was positive, with no suggestion that it needed to be felled, and both Lewisham Council and the Planning Inspectorate supported the retention of the three trees on the site:
3.1 An arboriculturalist's report by Simon Jones Associates was submitted with the above application and categorised the eucalyptus in accordance with British Standard (2005) 'Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations' as Category B: "Trees of moderate quality and value: those in such a condition as to make a significant contribution (a minimum of 20 years is suggested)". This categorisation took into account the tree's species and the contraints of its physical location. In no way did the report suggest that the eucalyptus needed to be removed. It did acknowledge that pruning or tree surgery was likely to be required on a regular basis to manage the tree's conflicts with its urban surroundings (s. 2.2.8), and that the constraints of its present situation would entail the need for crown reduction in the very near future (s.4.1.2).
3.2 Lewisham refused planning permission, one of the grounds being that the proposed development would be likely to prejudice the retention of the protected eucalyptus and two limes trees, contrary to policy URB 13 Trees of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (s.5 of decision notice dated 1 November 2006).
3.3. The applicant appealed against Lewisham's refusal (Appeal reference APP/C5690/A/07/2042273). Based on a site visit in August 2007, the Planning Inspector supported Lewisham's decision in relation to the eucalyptus and two lime trees, stating 'To my mind, the loss of any protected trees in this urban setting would be a negative step in redeveloping the site. Views towards the site from Waldram Park Road confirm the value of the on-site trees and others in the street scene." (s.6).
It is for these reasons that we believe any claim that the eucalyptus is causing damage to property should be supported by strong expert evidence - evidence which is absent from this application. Both Lewisham Council and the Planning Inspectorate have acknowledged the importance of the eucalyptus and two limes, and permission to fell any of these trees should be given only as a last resort. The trees may well need pruning or crown reduction, in which case any work that is permitted should be carried out in a way that maintains the trees' contribution to the streetscape.
29 October 2008
Forest Hill Society AGM
Minutes from the 2008 AGM can be downloaded from here. With the chairman's report available from here.
15 October 2008
New Chair for the Forest Hill Society
Congratulations to Peter Irby, the new chairman of the Forest Hill Society.
Peter was previously the vice-chairman of the Society and has now stepped up to the role of chairman. Michael Abrahams has moved from chair to the position of vice-chairman.
As well as Peter we have a strong Executive Committee of approximately 20 people, with many old faces and a number of new faces.
Many thanks to all those who attended tonight's AGM - photos to follow.
Peter was previously the vice-chairman of the Society and has now stepped up to the role of chairman. Michael Abrahams has moved from chair to the position of vice-chairman.
As well as Peter we have a strong Executive Committee of approximately 20 people, with many old faces and a number of new faces.
Many thanks to all those who attended tonight's AGM - photos to follow.
12 October 2008
October Update
The Forest Hill Society’s AGM - Wednesday 15th October at The Hob pub, 7 Devonshire Road, opposite Forest Hill Station. Doors open at 7pm, proceedings get under way at 7.30pm. This will be an opportunity to discuss the key issues affecting SE23 and to elect the Executive Committee. There will be a bar!
23 Club - Thursday 23rd October
The 23 Club conintues to pick some of the finest local restaurants to visit and share a meal with other Forest Hill Society members. For October we are back in Honor Oak at the Honor Oak Tandoori, 57-59 Honor Oak Park at 8pm.
The 23 Club conintues to pick some of the finest local restaurants to visit and share a meal with other Forest Hill Society members. For October we are back in Honor Oak at the Honor Oak Tandoori, 57-59 Honor Oak Park at 8pm.
Last month a number of people turned up on the night and we had to divide into two tables, so please remember to book in advance by calling the restaurant on 8699 2255. Map available at http://www.honoroaktandoori.co.uk/images/map.gif
Crofton Park ward Assembly - Monday 13th October
For people living in Crofton Park ward (north of Stanstead Road and east of the railway - i.e. Brockley Rise area) there will be a ward assembly tomorrow. This will take place at St Hilda's Church Hall, Courtrai Road, SE4 2DG at 7:30pm - 9:30pm
Further information can be found at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/ElectedRepresentatives/Councillors/LocalAssemblies/CroftonParkAssembly/
Forest Hill Library Users Group meeting - Thursday 23 October
Forest Hill Library, Dartmouth Road, 6.30 for 7pm
The first meeting of the users group since the library was refurbished and an opportunity for users to meet John Hughes, the Head of Lewisham's Library Service and Glenys Englert, District Librarian.
01 October 2008
11 Perry Vale - Planning Application
DC/08/69686 - 11 Perry Vale
On behalf of the Forest Hill Society I wish to object to this application for the conversion of a warehouse into 3, 2 bedroom terraced houses.
1. Gardens
From the plans and application there is no evidence of provision of garden area or external amenity space for the new houses. This is in contravention of council policy HSG7:
"The Council will seek in all new dwellings the provision of a readily accessible, secure, private and usable external space. Family dwellings should be provided with their own private garden area. Normally, a minimum garden depth of 9 metres will be required."
As two bedroom houses these should be considered family dwellings and should have gardens of 9 metres in depth.
2. Cycle storage
The application mentions cycle storage (paragraph 5.05) but the plans do not show where this cycle storage will be provided. From the description it would appear that this would be on a public right of way which may reduce vehicular access to other properties in the location. We ask that the council confirm the plans relating to the cycle storage, including the numbers of cycles to be housed and the security of the storage, prior to approval of this planning application.
3. Environment
The area around this warehouse appears to have been used to dump disused vehicles and work is required to make the area around these new dwellings suitable for a residential area. There are no pavements on this narrow road and provision would need to be provided for deliveries to the rear of the commercial units on Perry Vale without causing significant inconvenience to residents of these new houses.
No information regarding building materials has been provided. In converting a warehouse to residential use increased insulation should be included in the design to provide normal levels of energy efficiency for residential accommodation.
4. Design
The ground floors of the properties only have single north-east facing windows to light the kitchen / dinning room / living room. This will result in low levels of light in the living room and poor ventilation available to the property. The low levels of light at points 8.4 metres from the windows will result in higher than necessary use of electric lighting during daytime. This is contrary to council policy HSG5 a and e:
"The Council expects all new residential development to be attractive, to be neighbourly and to meet the functional requirements of its future inhabitants. The Council will, therefore, only permit new residential development which:
(a) provides a satisfactory level of privacy, outlook and natural lighting with appropriate provision of private amenity space;
...
(e) would encourage energy and natural resource efficiency"
An additional concern relating to policy HSG5 is the second bathrooms in each property with no natural ventilation or lighting. These will require mechanical extraction which will use excessive energy. The positioning of all of the bathrooms and en suite facilities directly beside bedrooms in adjoining properties is likely to cause excessive noise for neighbouring properties. In is usual in terraces houses to reverse the layout of each house so that bathrooms are back to back rather than next to bedrooms. Proper consideration of policy HSG5 relating to "be neighbourly and to meet the functional requirements of its future inhabitants" should demand better design of these properties.
There has been little change in the outlook from the new properties, particularly on the rear of the ground floor. We believe that the council's second reason for rejecting the previous application (DC/08/68193): "The proposed development would fail to provide a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers by reason of poor outlook contrary to Saved Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 6 Alterations and Extensions, HSG 4 Residential Amenity and HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Accommodation, of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)."
I hope that you will consider the concerns listed above and reject this application for the proposed development at 11 Perry Vale
On behalf of the Forest Hill Society I wish to object to this application for the conversion of a warehouse into 3, 2 bedroom terraced houses.
1. Gardens
From the plans and application there is no evidence of provision of garden area or external amenity space for the new houses. This is in contravention of council policy HSG7:
"The Council will seek in all new dwellings the provision of a readily accessible, secure, private and usable external space. Family dwellings should be provided with their own private garden area. Normally, a minimum garden depth of 9 metres will be required."
As two bedroom houses these should be considered family dwellings and should have gardens of 9 metres in depth.
2. Cycle storage
The application mentions cycle storage (paragraph 5.05) but the plans do not show where this cycle storage will be provided. From the description it would appear that this would be on a public right of way which may reduce vehicular access to other properties in the location. We ask that the council confirm the plans relating to the cycle storage, including the numbers of cycles to be housed and the security of the storage, prior to approval of this planning application.
3. Environment
The area around this warehouse appears to have been used to dump disused vehicles and work is required to make the area around these new dwellings suitable for a residential area. There are no pavements on this narrow road and provision would need to be provided for deliveries to the rear of the commercial units on Perry Vale without causing significant inconvenience to residents of these new houses.
No information regarding building materials has been provided. In converting a warehouse to residential use increased insulation should be included in the design to provide normal levels of energy efficiency for residential accommodation.
4. Design
The ground floors of the properties only have single north-east facing windows to light the kitchen / dinning room / living room. This will result in low levels of light in the living room and poor ventilation available to the property. The low levels of light at points 8.4 metres from the windows will result in higher than necessary use of electric lighting during daytime. This is contrary to council policy HSG5 a and e:
"The Council expects all new residential development to be attractive, to be neighbourly and to meet the functional requirements of its future inhabitants. The Council will, therefore, only permit new residential development which:
(a) provides a satisfactory level of privacy, outlook and natural lighting with appropriate provision of private amenity space;
...
(e) would encourage energy and natural resource efficiency"
An additional concern relating to policy HSG5 is the second bathrooms in each property with no natural ventilation or lighting. These will require mechanical extraction which will use excessive energy. The positioning of all of the bathrooms and en suite facilities directly beside bedrooms in adjoining properties is likely to cause excessive noise for neighbouring properties. In is usual in terraces houses to reverse the layout of each house so that bathrooms are back to back rather than next to bedrooms. Proper consideration of policy HSG5 relating to "be neighbourly and to meet the functional requirements of its future inhabitants" should demand better design of these properties.
There has been little change in the outlook from the new properties, particularly on the rear of the ground floor. We believe that the council's second reason for rejecting the previous application (DC/08/68193): "The proposed development would fail to provide a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers by reason of poor outlook contrary to Saved Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 6 Alterations and Extensions, HSG 4 Residential Amenity and HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Accommodation, of the Council's Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)."
I hope that you will consider the concerns listed above and reject this application for the proposed development at 11 Perry Vale
18 September 2008
Mayor and Cabinet - next steps on Swimming Pools
The mayor considered the pools issue this evening and once again reaffirmed his commitment to swimming in Forest Hill.
STFOFH (Save the Face of Forest Hill), the Forest Hill Society, and the Forest Hill Ward councillors all recommended to the mayor that a design competition is held. The mayor said he liked the idea and would not rule out the possibility, once we have the next feasibility study. He was concerned that it could add significantly to the timescale for developing the pool and he would need compare this with the timescale for appointing an architect through other means (European Tenders process).
The mayor was confident that English Heritage would not list the pools building following two rejections of the listing. Some people from STFOFH suggested to me that they would not seek to do this (however, it only takes one person to apply for listing). The mayor did indicate that the officers are making sure English Heritage is aware of their plans for the site. Both local councillors and I had suggested that the council apply for immunity from listing for the pools, to make sure that the 'sheds' at the back do not get listed and that the council can properly consider redevelopment that includes just the frontage or total demolition. However, this is apparently not possible until the planning application stage - which is still a long way off.
The mayor did clearly rule out refurbishment as too much of a risk even if it were technically possible - which is apparently doubtful.
There was no commitment to extra funding but a reassurance that the £7.5m allocated to the project would be safe.
Councillor Chris Best emphasised the need for a quality facility fit for the 21st Century with proper provision of accessibility requirements. She suggested that the changing facilities were 'not fit for purpose'.
Conclusion:
The mayor accepted the report from the officers. Suggested that the feasibility study should be completed by January / February 2009 (a clarification sought by the Forest Hill Society regarding 'early 2009'). He asked that between now and then that officers keep the stakeholders group informed of the situation and progress.
It will be interesting to see what the conclusions of the feasibility study will be, what can be done with Louise House, what the future holds for the frontage of the pools, if there could be a design competition, and how much it will all cost.
STFOFH (Save the Face of Forest Hill), the Forest Hill Society, and the Forest Hill Ward councillors all recommended to the mayor that a design competition is held. The mayor said he liked the idea and would not rule out the possibility, once we have the next feasibility study. He was concerned that it could add significantly to the timescale for developing the pool and he would need compare this with the timescale for appointing an architect through other means (European Tenders process).
The mayor was confident that English Heritage would not list the pools building following two rejections of the listing. Some people from STFOFH suggested to me that they would not seek to do this (however, it only takes one person to apply for listing). The mayor did indicate that the officers are making sure English Heritage is aware of their plans for the site. Both local councillors and I had suggested that the council apply for immunity from listing for the pools, to make sure that the 'sheds' at the back do not get listed and that the council can properly consider redevelopment that includes just the frontage or total demolition. However, this is apparently not possible until the planning application stage - which is still a long way off.
The mayor did clearly rule out refurbishment as too much of a risk even if it were technically possible - which is apparently doubtful.
There was no commitment to extra funding but a reassurance that the £7.5m allocated to the project would be safe.
Councillor Chris Best emphasised the need for a quality facility fit for the 21st Century with proper provision of accessibility requirements. She suggested that the changing facilities were 'not fit for purpose'.
Conclusion:
The mayor accepted the report from the officers. Suggested that the feasibility study should be completed by January / February 2009 (a clarification sought by the Forest Hill Society regarding 'early 2009'). He asked that between now and then that officers keep the stakeholders group informed of the situation and progress.
It will be interesting to see what the conclusions of the feasibility study will be, what can be done with Louise House, what the future holds for the frontage of the pools, if there could be a design competition, and how much it will all cost.
14 September 2008
DATES FOR YOUR DIARY
Wednesday 15th October The Forest Hill Society’s Annual General Meeting at The Hob pub, 7 Devonshire Road, opposite Forest Hill Station. Doors open at 7pm, proceedings get underway at 7.30pm. This will be an opportunity to discuss the key issues affecting SE23 and to elect the Executive Committee. There will be a bar!
Tuesday 23rd September
The 23 Club at Yune, 25 Dartmouth Road at 8pm.
Thursday 23rd October
The 23 Club at the Honor Oak Tandoori, 57-59 Honor Oak Park at 8pm.
(see the 23 Club article for more information)
Ward Assemblies:
Forest Hill - 24th September, 7pm, Holy Trinity Church Hall, Trinity Path, Sydenham Park, SE26 4EA
Perry Vale - 2nd October, 7:30pm, Forest Hill School Dacres Road, SE23 2XN
Tuesday 23rd September
The 23 Club at Yune, 25 Dartmouth Road at 8pm.
Thursday 23rd October
The 23 Club at the Honor Oak Tandoori, 57-59 Honor Oak Park at 8pm.
(see the 23 Club article for more information)
Ward Assemblies:
Forest Hill - 24th September, 7pm, Holy Trinity Church Hall, Trinity Path, Sydenham Park, SE26 4EA
Perry Vale - 2nd October, 7:30pm, Forest Hill School Dacres Road, SE23 2XN
Back to Square One
On the 20th August 2008, it was announced that Louise House, part of the Forest Hill Pools site, had been listed Grade II by English Heritage following a request for listing from an individual living in the local area. This means that the recent feasibility options for the new pools will need to be rethought and the process begun again. This was completely fresh news at the Public Meeting held at The Methodist Church , Normanton Street, on the 21st August and attended by over 200 Forest Hill residents.Louise House has been listed mainly because of its historical importance (as a Victorian Girls Industrial Home that took in girls suffering extreme poverty and trained them for work in Domestic Service) and the unaltered condition of the building. A number of these buildings were built in London but this is a rare surviving example. The listing also notes the importance of the building as a 'group' with the Library and the Pools Building, even though the Pools building itself has previously been considered and turned down for listing.
The problem (or opportunity) this causes is that Louise House was included as part of the site for the New Pools/leisure complex recently consulted on by Lewisham Council. It means that the options that were on the table are no longer achievable in their current form and additional work will be needed to find out what it is possible to deliver on the site.
When the Mayor announced in March that he was abandoning the original plan to refurbish the pools (intrusive surveys and discussions with potential developers persuaded him this was not feasible), he set a short timescale for delivering the pools (to be open by 2011) and this led to the 'rushed' production of feasibility options for the site and a public consultation during August, when unfortunately many people are away on holiday.
The options presented to residents were 3 versions of the same scheme, with more or less housing, leisure uses and open space on the site. The preliminary results from the consultation were presented to a stakeholder meeting on the 27th August. The Council received around 600 replies to the consultation and views were fairly evenly split between the 3 options with about 10% of respondents choosing not to select any of the options. The FHS submitted a response (the highlights of which are included in this Newsletter) raising a number of concerns about the proposals but mostly supporting the need for a new pool facility in Forest Hill in the foreseeable future and seeking to ensure a high quality building is developed – possibly secured through a design competition.The public meeting on the 21st August was very lively and heard a wide range of views. It clearly demonstrated that the area does seem to be split on whether to try to keep parts of the existing Pools Building in the scheme or not. The main area of consensus seemed to be that we do want a new pool, that the consultation process had not been very good and that the 3 versions of the scheme proposed left a lot to be desired. The Listing of Louise House has helpfully given the Council a get-out from its previous 'options' and it was acknowledged that there is the opportunity for a significant rethink.
Meanwhile, the Stakeholder Group continues to meet.
It includes representatives from both the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies, residents groups, swimming organisations and local schools. To clarify, the stakeholder group does not in any way set the agenda.
Rather it is a forum for the council to present its plans and the group to make comments and seek information. However, it does mean that the Forest Hill Society gets the chance to have an input into the process as things move forward.
The Forest Hill Society members of the Stakeholder group are Hilary Satchwell and Penelope Jarrett. Both are keen swimmers as well as enthusiastic residents of Forest Hill and Hilary has particular experience of architecture and planning issues.
One of the key issues now will be testing whether it is still possible to achieve the range of leisure/residential options on the site and what the new use should be for Louise House. If any members of the Society have any positive ideas for new uses for Louise House that may be able to attract funding and allow a small element of public access, we would be pleased to hear from you so we can feed these ideas into the process.The next step will be a meeting of Mayor and Cabinet on the 17th September 2008 when the Mayor will make recommendations for how the project should continue.
If you have any particular comments on what you think should happen at the Pools please let Hilary or Penelope know (hilary@foresthillsociety.com or Penelope@foresthillsociety.com).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)