I agree they’re special and should be preserved if possible. But if you have the time, it would be great to read your own eloquence as to why that’s so.
Can I recommend writing to the planning department to ensure any assessment that has taken place (even partially) is accessed and included in objections to this application. Even written confirmation that the site was being assessed to be a conservation area would help the case.
Going forward I would recommend that if residents wish to see a conservation area around Gaynesford Road, that they work with the Forest Hill Society to produce a full character assessment and plan of a conservation area for the council to consult on. While they may not have the staff, the local community has the skills to put this together and minimise officer time.
Thank you Michael,
I did refer to the conservation plans in my submission.
I think subsequent budget cuts & staffing issues put the plans on ice.
I for one welcome your suggestion of seeking help through the FH society to take it further and will be glad to offer my help if I can. Will be in touch through the society.
Meanwhile, I have asked a local councillor to help get an update on their progress if any from Lewisham.
I think this will be the only way of heading off further applications for demolition & redevelopment on the Christmas estate esp. on corner plots & those with larger gardens, particularly if this application is allowed to succeed.
REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL
- The application fails to suitably justify the demolition of the existing building, which is considered to make an important contribution to the character of the area, and its subsequent loss would detract from the established pattern of development, contrary to DM Policy 2: Prevention of loss of existing housing and DM Policy 30: Urban design and local character of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).
- The proposal, by reason of poor design and excessive scale and massing, would appear as an incongruous addition to the streetscene that would substantially over-develop the prominent corner site, emphasised by the proposed building failing to respect the character and proportions of the neighbouring ‘Christmas’ dwellings, or the established front and rear building lines, whilst the close proximity to side and rear boundaries would compromise the proposed standard of accommodation by virtue of poor outlook, contrary to Core Strategy Policy 15: High quality design for Lewisham, and DM Policy 30: Urban design and local character, DM Policy 32: Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).
- The proposed building would appear as an overbearing form of development that would significantly harm neighbouring amenity by increased sense of enclosure, overshadowing and reduced outlook, contrary to DM Policy 32: Housing design, layout and space standards of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).
- The scheme would provide insufficient cycle parking, whilst failing to suitably demonstrate that the car free development would not result in an unacceptable increase in parking levels to neighbouring streets, contrary to Policy 6.9 Cycling of The London Plan 2015 (amended 2016) and Core Strategy Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport (2011).
Looks like a new plan has been submitted. I got the link from another local forum (Nextdoor perryvale… which I forgot I had joined but it handily sent me an email with this particular tidbit of info).
Interesting looking building at first glance.
Found out too late about this sadly, but will be useful to hear what was discussed, if any SE23.lifers attended?
Discussion continues here: Planning meeting for replacement of Christmas House, 62 Sunderland Road with flats