Perry Vale 66-room hotel on All Inn One site



Having looked into this recently myself for something else, I found the following site quite useful as a first step in trying to understand the objection process… it’s by no means exhaustive but it did help me start to get my head around it… particularly the section where it talks about what will NOT be taken into account when considering the planning application. And, unfortunately, any affect on the value of neighbouring properties is one of those.


Thanks for the tip. I will take look.

The parking will almost certainly be an issue… and beyond that the use of the street as a turning circle, drop off point etc will be an issue too. The fact the banquet hall has to place people on the street to ward off people parking there is proof that provision will need to be made to secure permitted space for residents and avoid congestion.


Something for interested parties to consider perhaps?


If people would like to object and join with other residents, the City Walk residents are meeting on Wednesday next week, either in City Walk or at the Dartmouth depending on numbers.

If @Zoe_Webb and @Graham_Sykes, or anyone else, would like to join or remain looped in on discussions, please PM me.

My current plan is to draft a letter of objection on behalf of City Walk and the distribute copies of this for individuals to sign and send in separately. My understanding is that a letter with fifty signatures is less impactful than fifty identical but individually signed letters.


I’m not exactly sure how strict Lewisham are with dates as on their webportal but according to the site, the Latest Neighbour Consultation Date is tomorrow but there’s no date for the Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date. Not quite sure what the difference is…


The letter we’ve received sates we’ve got til 25th October to object, but we’re going to try and get on it well in advance of that. Where did you see the neighbour consultation date?


It’s on the planning web portal for the application (link below)… but as I mentioned above, I’m not sure they are strict with their dates and I’m not even sure what the difference between the two neighbour consultation dates is…the letter you received though should be your definitive (assuming it came from the council, of course, and not the developer or another 3rd party?).


For clarity, because it’s not clear. Planning proposal include a date, usually two weeks from validation, for comments to be made. However, the planning officer will accept comments up to any date before the decision is made, whether by the planning officer or if by the planning committee.

Great to meet the deadline… but don’t feel restricted to it if you feel you need extra time. We found recently the planning officers are helpful, just not always quick.


@kat.standlake.point is the expert on this stuff so perhaps she could give some pointers.

@Michael is also very knowledgable in planning matters, so any advice given on what is and isn’t a material consideration when making objections is well worth listening to.

Unfortunately though, City Walk, which was originally a few single-storey units with an open yard and car parking, set the tone and, unless the existing building gets some local listing protection, you’ll be amazed how easy it is for developers to get the odd one or two storeys above adjacent properties.


image image


What I find curious is that in the Design & Access Statement, section 19, Statement of Community, it is stated that the applicants met with the Forest Hill Society in May 2006 to present their plans.

That would have been 12 years ago.

Did they make contact with FHS since, or to make their plans known more widely?


That’s not what it says. It says that the Society was formed in 2006, and that they sent designs - that’s where the previous picture came from. They do not say they ‘met’ with the Forest Hill Society, and we have not met, but have spoken by phone and email. The developer specifically asked whether white or brown bricks were preferred.

Beyond this I have communicated that many people have expressed concern about demolition, that there are plans for another 90 room hotel on the Coop site (which the developer seemed unaware of previously), we discussed the importance of keeping pub/restaurant use on the ground floor, I questioned why the bus stop was missing from the mock-ups, and I suggested that parking should be less of an issue here than at the Coop site.

The developer did send me both of the designs above, and I probably didn’t notice the pretty obvious difference between the two heights. But I have since been in contact to share community concerns that it is rather high for the location.

The Forest Hill Society has not agreed a formal position on this development. We will meet at some point to discuss specific concerns about this application in the context of the planning regulations. It is probably worth noting that the Forest Hill Society have previously backed the plans for the Coop hotel while expressing some concerns about parking and road management issues.

I have not personally made up my mind about the development but I think it is useful to maintain communication with developers where possible, even where there may be different priorities.


It might be interesting to do one of our unscientific straw polls:

Regarding the 66-room hotel, restaurant and pub development:

  • I support the development
  • I do not support the development
  • I don’t feel strongly either way
  • Other (please comment)

0 voters


I personally would be in favour of a hotel in the area. My family don’t live close by and I’m in a small 1 bedroom flat so when they come to see me it either has to be for a day or I put them up in The Station pub at Hither Green as it’s the closest half-decent looking accommodation (I’ve tried to book them into the All Inn One before bit it’s always been full). However, I do think the latest plans shared here are a bit too much; 7 storeys would be too imposing in my opinion and of detriment to the nearby residents, the earlier design looked more suitable. Agree with parking issue, there has to be provision for cars - not everyone will arrive by train. The car park opposite could be part of the solution but I do question whether there would there be enough space for hotels guests, staff and locals parking to do their local shopping - particularly for a 66 room hotel. Like the idea but think the plan needs refining.


I fully support a hotel. If it came to be a choice between this and the one proposed for the Coop site I’d be more inclined to support this one.

The proposal retains a community asset (the pub), it much more accessible for the station and the Perry Vale car park. I’d suggest there is some wrangling to do on the final plans including the height.


As a former Councillor who used to sit on a planning committee and decide on the planning application I will say a few brief words about the process in very crude language.

1 - there is presumption to allow any development unless it breaches guidelines (weather local or national)

2- in Lewisham (other boroughs may have different framework) planning applications are assessed by Planning Officers. They apply guidelines etc. to reach their decision. Unless am I aware of 3 circumstances where this decision is then passed to a planning committee:
A - Planning officer is of opinion to grant the application but there are 5 or more individual or a local society such as Forest Hill Society objections.
B - It is a significant scheme (which this is not) and the officer would like planning committee to decide
C - a Local councillor requests that it is heard by the planning committee

Any objection is treated on its merit and @bolgerp has posted a useful guide on this.

Regarding petitions or letter with one signature or 50 will be treated by decision makers on the points they made, and not by how many people signed it. Anecdotally I did make a decision where there were over 1000 objections and 800 in support. The room was packed with people who came to witness the decision. We based our decision on the papers presented, hearing and questioning applicants, objectors and those in favour, together with legal and planning advice to reach our decision.


If it’s to be sold and redeveloped anyway then this looks ok but only in the first iteration… with less floors.
The extra height proposed would totally dominate the surrounding buildings… and despite my being completely jealous of that huge roof terrace I would hate to see it completely overlooked by several of the rooms in the hotel! In fact regardless of floor number the windows on that side should be on the smaller side…
The parking over the road thing should be strictly enforced or encouraged as well… along with a way to stop drop off people blocking the bus stop… which I presume will stay.


I actually support it, I just don’t support all seven storeys of it!


I like it - as long as it isn’t a hostel by another name.

Loads more people who could be spending money in the local economy’s gotta be good in my book.


Yes - I think we need to know if the council plan to use this like Miriam Lodge. That might change local opinions (one way or another).