Heron House - offices / hotel / flats?

Next year the lease for the job centre at Heron House runs out.

The landlord that owns the whole building was in the other day with some other people & a staff member asked if he was renewing the lease & his answer was no because he’s turning it into a hotel!

The staff also heard the group talking about plans for the hotel!

I didn’t hear it personally, the staff members told me, but this won’t effect their jobs they’ll be moved elsewhere.

I think this would be brilliant for FH

I used to live next to Bermondsey Square. Then they built the Bermondsey hotel and my rent went up 25%.

Travelodge ?
Seems like their kind of location.

A Travelodge / Premier Inn in that location would probably do well. Good transport links and a real shortage of local hotels for visitors.

Or would it be something like the Church St Hotel in Camberwell? Again, there might be a market for that.

Totally agree, hopefully a Travelodge, my preference lol. And somewhere close by so I don’t have to put visitors up haha.
Would do well though, and hopefully increase footfall on Dartmouth from visitors. Win win, if it happens.
Would it get the blessing from planning?

The main challenge is going to be car parking, I’d guess.

Yup, that could be a stumbling block, but not all Travelodges (as an example) have on site parking. Probably end up making a deal with the Perry Vale car park or something, 5 min walk away, not unheard of.

In general it depends on the building and how it is redeveloped. We were late to the game for underground parking, and only seem to have picked the ball up around the 90’s to the 00’s.
Larger old buildings of greater importance seem to have it.

I guess at the end of the day its all about cost. Digging down isn’t cheap, and depending on the use of the property will dictate if it is cost effective. Space is a premium. House next to me, spent £180k on groundworks and foundations, putting in two £250k flats. There is no way they would have made the same amount of return on 5 parking spaces added to the cost of the price of the remaining flats. If that makes sense.

Digging holes aren’t cheap. There is the cost of digging (JCBs), removal (lorries) and landfill tax. Can put a huge cost onto the building, one which most developers aren’t happy with unless there is strong argument for it.

With the high ground water levels round there - you dig a hole, it quickly turns into an ad-hoc lido.

Now there is an idea, basement pools for all new properties! That has to be a selling point.
Ironically the plan when the foundations were dug out from the Victorian house next to mine, shortly before it collapsed into the ground.

One small request, any chance of an in-house Nando’s ?

There’s a small car park at the back of the building.

The impression I got from the staff from the job centre was that it will be the landlords hotel, so probably an independent hotel, but I may be wrong on that one though I hope not

Can’t we get it turned into a second cinema for Forest Hill?
Out of interest where is the next nearest job centre?

Stop trying to be greedy on the cinema front Michael

Not sure where the nearest job centre is beyond FH, but I’m sure I can find out!

Bring it on. Surprised we don’t have a budget hotel yet and Penge does on Croydon Road.

When i read this i thought they were reopening the old Forest Hill Hotel Pub! I was under the assumption that the bottom part would be opened as a bar again at some point.

And named Crystal Palace… Wonder if this would be Outer Dulwich

Pauline, it would be incredibly brave for an independent to open especially of that size, but would be interesting all the same.

Well if a hotel didn’t work out it could always go the same way as Miriam Lodge and become a hostel.

Nooooooooo Michael!

This would be my preferred option Michael, it COULD be pretty cool!

What’s wrong with it being a chain? I’m sure something like a Travelodge will be more successful and good for the area than a hopeful independent. It’s hardly the trade of SE23.

i used to live in forest hill and am out of the loop but is there a new job centre opening nearby and if not WHY?

A hotel - or is that someone’s way of saying hostel with a silent s? Even if it isn’t, there are a lot of hotels that are booked-out by local authorities to temporarily house the short-term homeless people of their boroughs, hence, many of these places inadvertently end up being hostels.

All the more reason I hope it is a chain like Travelodge

Not that we’re getting ahead of ourselves here, or anything.

I’ve sent a note to Heston.

Of course not, lol. It’s on good authority and all that.

I think a hotel could do quite well, the nature of the area is that many people have family that live a long way away, and so it’s tricky when they come to visit if you only live in a small place. I don’t know many people that have a house big enough for an empty spare room.

But yes - where does the job centre go?

Considering the cuts to the DWP, I wouldn’t be surprised if they move all the jobseekers to Lewisham Jobcentre+ in Rushey Green, Catford.

Yeh, but many of the poor unfortunate souls will find it much harder to park their 1 & 2 year old Mercedes and BMWs down there!

Just been told the landlord has said this will be either a Premier Inn or Travel Lodge!

@anon64893700 think you’ll like this

In other words that’s what he would like, but it is quite possible that neither company are in negotiations.

Don’t forget we were told by people in the know that The Capitol would become a cinema. So far no change.

Agree Michael, which is why I said I had been told.

I’m hoping I can catch this landlord & have a chat myself to try and get more concrete info!

I have just seen that planning application is put for Heron House to convert it to 20 one bed flats + 4 two bed flats. Seems like the hotel idea is not going to happen.

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_87566

Or, cheaper solution, just wait for a sink hole to open up. Shouldn’t be long, now.

That doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me, and from looking at the application there will be parking for the residents too.

If I’m reading the proposals right, the proposal allows for 8 parking spaces for the 4 x 2 bedroom flats, and no parking at all for the 20 x 1 bedroom flats?

As if Derby Hill wasn’t crammed enough, adding an 11 additional residents vehicles (based on their own ownership figures) is an almighty stretch - especially when the parking stress analysis they cite already states that the on street parking is already over subscribed).

You have got those 11 cars from that development combined with about 20 from the development on the other side of the road where they are providing 3 disabled spaces for 27 flats, so potentially up to 30 cars will all be trying to park on Derby Hill or the surrounding areas.

I looked at the parking stress measurement table in their documents and they have said that there is spare capacity at night time at their measured times of 1 and 2am but not really during the day. And it must follow, as the night the day that those cars will be parked there during the day or at least a high percentage of them where there is no capacity.

Like most people I have no objections to new housing but how do you make sure that existing residents enjoyment is not ruined by new developments that decrease the amenities on your road?

To be clear, this is not a planning application in the conventional sense, but a “prior approval” application. This follows changes to change of use in recent years which mean that office to residential conversions no longer need full planning permission. The borough can only consider transport/highways, contamination, flooding and noise impacts when determining these applications - they can’t ask for any kind of section 106 contribution and can’t apply development plan policies outside of these areas. Prior approval is simply an officer determination so it won’t go to planning committee.

I am not at all surprised that this is happening to Heron House as it is exactly the kind of dowdy (but well connected) office block that the government was thinking of in making the changes.

What about social housing provision?
Can the council insist on any percentage of the units for social housing?

No, affordable housing policies can’t be applied. They will almost certainly be 100% private. This has happened to quite a few older office blocks in London in recent years: see this report (which I wrote ) http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/our-key-themes/housing-and-planning/permitted-development-rights/impact-permitted-development-rights

As mentioned above & after looking at the parking properly - I agree there will be nowhere near enough parking spaces!

But at the moment I’m sure the car park behind the building certainly has more than 8 parking spaces - I’ll check later when I’m passing.

As far as I know the wide pavement at the front of Heron House is owned by them and not LC - Don’t know if this makes a difference with their application or not.

Guess the hotel / chain idea is dead in the water then.

You’d need full planning permission to change use to a hotel so (from the owner’s POV) not sure why they would do that over residential flats.

PS if you’re interested in what does and doesn’t count as permitted development under the current rules I recommend this handy chart from NLP: http://nlpplanning.com/uploads/ffiles/2015/08/776168.pdf

Brilliant, the insider insight we get here on SE23.life. Thanks for sharing, @simonk133

@simonk133, good article. If it has got prior approval, is Lewisham just publishing it for people’s information. Are locals entitled to question their supporting documents if they feel they don’t support the developers assumption or do we assume that the members of the council will do that?

Just checked & at the moment there is 21 parking spaces!

IMG_6127.JPG1936×2592 1.96 MB

Yup - but the proposal document states that the ones on the right hand side of your photo will be used for the offices that will remain on the lower ground floor of the property. Only those on the left hand side will be available for residents.

As shown on the ground floor layout plan prepared by PSK Chartered Building Surveyors (Drawing No.’s HH-4843-0), 8 of the 17 on-site car parking spaces would be allocated to future residents. This equates to a car parking space / unit ratio of 0.33 (i.e. 33% provision), which accords with the latest version of The London Plan. Theses spaces would be assigned to the 4-two bed units. The remaining 20 one bed units would not benefit from on-site car parking.

(my own emphasis)

What I like, is the document later goes on to state;

When the results of the parking ‘stress’ survey are examined in light of the development proposals, it is considered that even under an unlikely / ‘worst’ case scenario in which all residents that will not benefit from an on-site parking space (i.e. 16) owned a vehicle, there is sufficient spare on-street capacity within the study / cordon area, surrounding the site to accommodate this demand.

(again, my own emphasis)

Their own document states that the available night time capacity of the surrounding streets (which covers quite a large area) is ~15 spaces. So that leaves any over-spill reliant on shared bays and having to move the car during the day.

And that’s without allowing any capacity for day use for local shop owners, shoppers, people using the pools, etc…

It hasn’t been determined yet. I assume the council can take representations as usual, it’s just that the grounds for refusal are very limited. (but parking can of course be a transport/highways impact - there may be precedents for PA being refused on such grounds but I’d need to do some digging)

Many thanks @simonk133 for the links.

I didn’t appreciate late in the night the title of the application (Prior approval)

I welcome that the owners want to use more effectively the building, but am disappointed that the plans are not taking into account at least London minimum space standards. You are absolutely right and I will repeat it: this type of approval is not allowed to consider things such as policies on minimum space standards, or dual aspect outlook. And it shows.

One bed flats are from 30-48m2, whereas the standard for 2 people is 50m2 & 39 for one person. This means that 5 flats are more than 20% short on a minimum space for one person flats and no 1beds are suitable for couples. None of the 2 bed places meet the min standard of 60m2. Also some internal walls seem to end in the middle of windows, which surely shows desperation rather than good solution.

So if you know the owner try and point out that a picture of a bed on a plan is not the same as putting a real bed in the space allocated.

Hi @BorderPaul
Yes you can make your representation to the planning department.

@armadillo has a transport issue contradiction that is within the scope of assessment so I hope he will also put in his comment to the palnning department.

I think the main issues here for existing residents is parking!

And think this has to be looked at in more detail.

This in my opinion would be a valid point for peeps & organisations to go against this & request more parking spaces for residential use.

Just my thoughts, but happy to share opinions with fellow traders.

If this was left I don’t think it would be much of an issue.

I think 21 parking spaces would be okay for this development.

IMG_6127.JPG1936×2592 1.96 MB

Comment submitted via the planning portal. I didn’t get any feedback to say that the comment had been received, so I’m kinda hoping that it made it across to the relevant peeps…

Forest Hill already has more than its fair share of affordable housing in my opinion. Have a look at the housing estates off London Road, Dartmouth Road, Shackleton Close, Perry Vale, Dacres Road, Inglemere Road, Sydenham Park Road and more.

I agree that we’re totally knackered around here for parking spaces but, as someone else has pointed out already on this thread, Heron House provides significantly more parking than the new development at 53c Dartmouth Road and the big block of flats behind the Big Breakfast put together.

Ideally, for the sake of the town, these flats will be created and used as homes for young couples some of whom will work locally or from home (and local coffee bars) and others will commute - but who will all contribute to our community by using local shops, eating/drinking places and services.

Just let it fly!

We certainly have a decent proportion of what might be deemed traditional social housing; what is scarcer is the type of product which would be more suitable for people on middling incomes who may struggle to pay local rents and certainly couldn’t buy at full market value, but who would also never meet the eligibility criteria for a social home. I’m thinking of schemes like shared ownership and intermediate rent, which are thin on the ground here and indeed across London. Something like these would be very suitable for this type of block - not necessarily the whole block, but as a share among the private flats, to provide a broader offering. Often those within the eligibility bracket would be exactly the sort of young working couples you refer to.

Yes Simon, I totally agree with that.

I’m sorry, I got my social / part-ownership / affordable all a bit skewiff.

I submitted a comment as well, there was a button at the bottom to get an email receipt which I got. Not being a twitter user I found it hard to put forward an argument in 1,000 characters including spaces.

I would advise anybody who lives locally to comment, the developers are effectively selling the flats with the promise of parking outside your house. They have done a parking assessment at 1am and 2am in the morning and found unsurprisingly they could find a space. They haven’t checked during the day when local residents can’t park. The occupants of these one bed flats are likely to use public transport and park their cars on your street, think about 16 cars suddenly permanently parked on your street from Sunday night to Friday night.

Yes, it is a public highway but local residents are entitled to comment and try to stop their streets becoming a free car park for developers who could provide parking if they didn’t want to make more money.

It’s a positive outlook, but as @MajaHilton has pointed out, these units will be below minimum space standards and are therefore unlikely to be rented by the type of young professional couples that you wish to see thronging round the town centre.

Similarly I suspect that parking is hardly going to be the problem for these units. They are very close a transport hub, and single people living in rented accommodation are the least likely to have or need a car.

I can’t see anything to stop this being approved and getting some poor quality accommodation in the town centre. Don’t be surprised if the main use of these units is for temporary accommodation for single homeless people placed there by our council (or other London councils), rather than using more expensive B&B accommodation.

Rather than young couples commuting, I suspect the residents are more likely to spend their day in one of the designated spots for homeless and vulnerable people in the town centre; the underpass, outside Sainsburys, beside each cash point, and enjoying the al fresco drinking in the revamped town squares.

O-M-G !!!

THIS TOWN CANNOT TAKE ANOTHER MIRIAM LODGE !!!

Does anyone have a line into the Landlords to try to find out what their intentions are?

To those unfamiliar with Miriam Lodge, this topic on the old forum may shed some light on the history and opinions here.

There’s a political element to this discussion so I’ve created a topic for it in our “Politicos” category.

All - if you’d like to join our lively political discussions on SE23.life, please join our “Politicos” group.

Advance warning - any replies here of a political nature will be moved to the discussion in Politicos.

Just a quick one.

Although the proposed units are apparently below recommended spacial standards, I understand that they far-exceed the minimum standards for HMO or hostel-type self-contained units. For that reason and, as I know for a fact that the flats as drawn in the plans will be very attractive to young professional renters and buyers alike, I remain hopeful that those are not the type of units we’ll get here (he says with everything crossed!).

There have been cases in which office blocks have been converted wholesale to residential under permitted development then acquired by PRS investors, who like the ability to own/manage the whole block as 100% private rental. These investors generally do target the young professional market and sometimes offer longer contracts than the standard 6 month assured shorthold tenancy.

I really hope this will NOT be similar to Miriam Lodge slap bang in the middle of D Rd!

Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the units on the ground floor as shops (or even better an indoor market) rather than office space as the development on the other side of the Rd (I think it’s 53 D Rd) will have office units on the ground floor with residential flats above.

I think this would be much more beneficial to the town centre

I got the impression from the proposal documents that the ground floor was to remain as a Job Center Plus.

I think they’d also need to submit a full planning application to facilitate a change of use outside of permitted development rights - which they probably don’t want to do as this is much easier.

I think the JCP premises would be A2 (professional services) rather than B1 (offices) so there would be a permitted development right to convert to retail, but I suspect the landlord would prefer the stabler income of a JCP than a possibly transient retail use.

EDIT: it looks like I’m wrong about this, the transport statement suggests the whole building is B1, in which case there is only a temporary permitted development right to switch to retail, for a non renewable two year period. This is intended to encourage pop up type shops in vacant offices so it wouldn’t be suitable here.

Shame these ground floor units probably won’t be shop units.

If they were it would probably increase the footfall for all existing local traders, and give the local residents more choice on the High Street.

BTW thanks for your insight @simonk133

BTW: What is happening with 77 Dartmouth Road. Is the Conservative Association getting a revamp or is there someone else moving in?

I think it’s just a revamp, no changes as far as I know

Just incase of any mixups:

What was - Best of Both will now be an accountants office
What was - Kids on the Hill will now be a beauty place

They are very neart the conservative association so could possibly have the same number on D Rd…

Hope that makes sense:-)

Well it was certainly looking very white and bright this afternoon when I was on my way back to the Library for my 2nd shift of the day.

Okay so here’s the latest I’ve been told about this from staff members at the job centre today.

From them, apparently the job centre will be taking over the whole building as Lewisham job centre will be closing & all staff & job centre clients will now be using this building, and will need all floors too as it will then be the only job centre in the borough & will have 80 staff to house aswell.

@MajaHilton can you check this out with LC please?

Maybe the landlord is keeping his eggs in many baskets for the best deal financially, and you can’t really blame them for doing this. I wish I could get in touch to have a chat about their preferred plans & also suggest shops on the ground floor

Hi @Pauline

Job centre is part of Department for Work and Pensions so not controlled by the LC.
I see there is one JC in Catford, one in Peckham and one in Woolwich.

Recently in the news there was talk about one in 10 JC closures, so who knows. You may well be right that it may be a speculative application. But in my opinion it is simple greed with no regard to people who may end up living in substandard apartments.

I would have no problem if it was converted into good quality accommodation. One aspect in order to be classed as good is the size of the rooms need to be suitable for human habitation. Another would be not putting dividing walls in the midle of a window. Having some room to store things like a vacuum cleaner or an ironing board. These are very basic requirements.

But are there any reasons that would prevent planning permission being granted? My understanding is that minimum standards don’t apply to conversion of offices to housing.

Hi @Michael

You are right, minimum space standards don’t apply in office conversions, as the government has removed some red tape (those difficult local planning departments) that insist on some minimum standards for all, not just extremely wealthy.

So I can’t even call the decision to be decided by the councillors. My only option is to say that it is wrong in my opinion.

Unfortunately there are enough desperate people who will accept sub standard accommodation as they have no other options. So exploitation of desperate people for extra profit. Shameful.

Thanks Maja, if you could keep myself & @Michael updated on what you know that would be brill!.

Also I would love to know if we could put any type of plan in place to create retail space on the ground floor (regeneration of the High Street) I’d happily do some work on this as it would be great for Dartmouth Road.

Indoor market on that ground floor space would be amazing for the area I think.

A job centre with 80 staff would bring increased business to dartmouth road during lunch trade so it would be favourable

I agree with you Insight - but the downside will be that many poor unfortunate unemployed souls will be be forced to park their BMWs and Mercs on the yellow lines outside while they sign-on. Of course, there’s no fear of the parking fines being paid but the traffic’s gonna be murder!

Going back over this thread though…

I was brought up to make do with whatever I could afford whilst trying my best to get to where I’d rather be as and when I could. So, is there anything wrong with that?

I shared a 9ft x 10ft bedroom with my brother and sister until we were 11, 12 and 13yrs old - and we were happy, well turned-out and well-balanced individuals with no signs of Jeremy Kylism about any of us.

At the age of 29, when my wife & I had our first child, we were living in a rented bedsit with a shared bathroom on the landing below - but I didn’t have a chip on my shoulder so it has never occurred to me that I may have been a victim of some cruel exploitation.

Back to the application, I accept that some of the windows being split by room partitions is a bit weird but apart from that I think the flats work quite well. But coming from the places I’ve lived in I would wouldn’t I!

This convo is starting to verge into Politicos territory folks - which is fine, but please do reply as a new topic in the Politicos category where appropriate.

Note to all: to see political conversation on SE23.life, please join the Politicos group

The amount of expensive cars that park on D Rd to quickly run in to sign on at the JC is shocking!

We’re there day in day out so see this Mr & NONE of them visit the shops, BUT THEY SURE TAKE UP THE PARKING SPACES!

@anon5422159 please don’t move this into Politicos as it’s about our community too x

I completely agree with what @Anotherjohn has said as I too was brought up to appreciate the simple things in life & strive to do better.

Completely with you on this boss x

Also have to say here that @Anotherjohn is the best shop landlord in FH & you wouldn’t find a more decent, fairer, down to earth, & involved landlord in our community that cares so much as he does.

Sorry Boss, had to be said

Hello Chris, with respect, I only described the places where I’ve lived.

Hi John, for what it’s worth I totally agree with and respect your sentiments. There’s no problem at all with what you said.

It’s just I’ve seen similar conversations turn political, so I wanted to pre-empt this and ask that any future political replies from other people are made as new topic(s).

So can we agree to keep this convo here Chris as long as it relates to D Rd, regardless if it’s our opinions on peeps claiming rightly or wrongly at the JC with their cars they shouldn’t be able to afford IF they really are not in employment or should I say making money one way or the other

Yes, don’t panic!

Thanks dude

I’d agree with Chris that this thread is wandering off topic. The future of Heron House is important to Dartmouth Road and this thread will be useful for keeping everyone informed about future plans. So let’s keep it focused.

I agree Rachael, let’s get back on the Heron House development

Please don’t preach to me about the obvious importance of Dartmouth Road to the town and to many, many people.

My main point is that a 350 sq ft one bedroom flat is very livable, despite the government’s minimum living standards. So, on balance, notwithstanding my agreement with previous posters about the odd split-window & partition arrangements on some of the flats, I think they’d be nice, relatively affordable pads for lots of people.

I also wholly agree that the 80-employees office block would be good for local businesses.

So the two options we know about at the moment are:

• Office space for the whole building with 80 staff (and clients) for a JC

• 20 1 bed flats & 4 two bedroom flats with office space on the ground floor

I think both of these would work & give more business to cafes & coffee shops on D Rd.

But does anyone think I’m mad wishing that the ground floor could be shop units (I reckon you could get 6 shop fronts in there OR 4 shopfronts with an entrance to an indoor market using the back half of the ground floor space) I think this would be brilliant for shoppers in FH.

Then the flats could still go ahead above.

I don’t know the ins and outs of planning & costings for this but think it would be brilliant for D Rd shopping experience

Would that be an attractive thing for a developer, @Pauline, given that there are going to be empty units elsewhere on DR? I know Heron House has a prime location, but I’m thinking about Sydenham and the new development behind the Greyhound, and also the Orb - new build flats with a shop unit below. Those have all taken a long time to let. I don’t know if the one in the Orb has even been taken, and it’s been at least a year. And it’s not like there are a lot of free units on Sydenham Road, so these should be attractive. But very slow to let. Empty units in a prime location look bad.

When living in SE5 there was a plethora of new housing developments all with commercial units and almost always empty. Unless taken by Tesco Metro. Was not pleasant for the community.

Not sure if it would be attractive to a developer, also not sure how long units would take to be rented out.

My thinking. and wanting is a few quirky shops that fit in with our merry gang.

A gal can wish I suppose

Rachel, I agree that empty units can do a lot of harm, however, don’t know of any units that are being vacated on DR (he says with his fingers and toes crossed) and the currently empty ones, Montage (31), Cabin Cafe (57), Best of Both (71?) and Kids on the Hill (73?) are, as I understand it, all under offer and the ex-bakery at 41 is being refurbed with a view to letting in the near future. I’m afraid I don’t have a clue what’s going on with the old Indian restaurant at 61a though.

I would also doubt that a developer would see any value in converting the ground floor offices to retail as it would probably take a while to let but, hopefully, the supposedly-imminent start to the road and pavement improvements might make get the attention of some outside business owners who’ve been sitting on the fence.

Another thing that would make the ground floor of Heron House more attractive is if the blank-fronted old Midland Bank next door opened out onto the street again with some sort of interesting business. (One can dream!).

Great to hear that the units that are being vacated will be filled again quickly.

Agreed - there are too many empty shops and I hope this is just a temporary situation. But I wonder how many will become hairdressers, tanning salons, money exchange, betting shops, and nail bars?

If the job centre was to close, it would be a good sized unit for Morrisons, Nandos, Cafe Rouge, Poundland, a GP surgery, or a small cinema. I think some of these ideas would be preferable to breaking it into small shops to become more hairdressers, nail bars, and betting shops. There are not enough large units in Forest Hill, so I would prefer not to lose another.

You’re right Michael - some of these shops are reopening as just more of those types of businesses, which, as you rightly say, aren’t good for the town.

I also agree that a larger anchor type store would be a help, but I wondered if the floor area is large enough - and if larger scale loading might be a problem with the new bus stop bang opposite.

The DWP plan at the moment shows the Forest Hill Job Centre being retained but the one in Catford closing (AFAICT the only one doing so locally).

The ground floor is about 2000 sqft. I’m not sure how that compares with other retail units on the high street (but average Sainsburys local is apparently 4500 sqft, and McKays site is about 3000 sqft). So it isn’t such a small unit - and breaking it up further is probably not the best thing to do.

As for loading, it does have a large car park to the rear, so it is easier to service than almost all shops in Forest Hill. But since the Job Centre is staying, it is all a bit academic.

Could the Council be persuaded to locate some admin from Catford to Forest Hill?

Maybe the staff from FH JC meant Catford & not Lewisham @Brett

They could mean both! If you check the document link from DWP, the branch is listed as Lewisham (Catford) and is in SE6.

Ah yes, that makes sense.

I spoke to another staff member from FH JC & showed her the plans for the flats & ground floor office space.

She said that the info they have been given is that Lewisham/Catford JC staff will be moving to FH JC next year SUBJECT to the FH JC lease being renewed!

She also said that the office space on the ground floor would not be big enough for them.

Keeping in mind thet when I posted originally about this the landlord told staff members he would not be renewing the lease this year, I’m thinking the landlord might want to go ahead with the flats/ground floor office space scenario

Maybe the landlord can be persuaded to make the ground floor into retail space

Life is rough south of the rail track too. We’re about to get our second - SECOND - craft beer shop. And who needs a fishmonger these days. And really… skateboards? What am I? 12? And pop ups. What good are they when they only hang around for a month.

It’s all happening on Perry Vale

There’s also plans afoot for something a bit special on D Rd in a shop that’s been closed for years (Cabin Cafe)

FH rocks

I see that the applicant has formally withdrawn their planning application for the flats -

so does this mean that the whole building is being taken for expansion of the Job Centre?

The HR manager from the JC popped in to me a few days ago & the lease is due to be renewed in April. So we will know for definite then.

Dreams come true in Sydenham:

https://se26.life/t/nandos-coming/59?u=chrisbeach

Yes - Love a good game of Wing Roulette !!