Perry Vale 66-room hotel on All Inn One site



Thank you for the correction.

Just haven’t seen a lot of s106 proposals recently.

Edit for additional detail from PAS:

This reports nationally that whilst there is £0.9bn in CIL raised there is £5.1bn in s106 monies - a very much larger proportion. It also seems to suggest that £4bn of that is used to provide socially affordable housing.


Correct - the whole point of CIL is to try and give certainty to the process (for all sides).

Further S106 contributions can only be applied in a fairly limited set of circumstances (must be site specific mitigation measures) and meet the tests as set out in CIL Regulation 122 - this avoids, among other things, doubling up of contributions. Unfortunately, down to poorly drafted legislation and charging schedules things have not been as clear as they should be and issues continue to emerge. It is worth noting that CIL is index linked to BCIS - which can increase the contribution significantly depending on date the CIL Charging Schedule was adopted and planning permission granted.


Isn’t that a problem of poor or absent traffic/parking enforcement rather than planning?


I didn’t mean to imply that JK Banquets (apparently short-lived) attempts to manage patron parking was a planning issue. The point was that the area already suffers from too many cars parked dangerously, and that problem will now only be added to.


We live on Hindsley’s Place and are very concerned about many of the issues mentioned here by others living nearby (lack of parking provision, extra traffic including deliveries, loss of light, loss of privacy, etc).

While we are really sad to see what is a great pub disappear, we understand why a developer would want to create a completely new building and are not opposed to having a small hotel.

However, the current proposal seems far too large for the area. The 3D models in the sunlight report show just how much more it will dominate its surroundings compared to how the pub currently looks -


I wouldn’t want it next to me for sure, so I really sympathise - especially as it would alter the outlook and the feeling of open space at the back of your house.

The architects have been quite clever though, because they’ve stepped-down the rear elevation and cut-away that rear corner to allow ‘adequate’ sunlight and daylight to fall onto the S.E facing rear of your house and to give the requisite 45 degrees line of clear visibility from your habitable rooms.

Unfortunately, most developers’ only consideration is getting the maximum that the rules will stretch to and a kind of “The neighbours will just have to get over it while I’m enjoying the profits in Marbella” type of attitude.


Yellow notices are up this morning:

Not much new of course, but I expect there to be a lot more interest as a result.


Has anybody noticed this has been removed from the Lewisham Planning site?


Definitely hadn’t noticed this. Odd.

Good or bad sign do we think?


Hopefully a good sign, maybe the developer has had a rethink about the size and the impact on neighboring blocks. I wouldn’t get too excited though as I am probably wrong.


Planning Application Re-appears on Lewisham web-site

A revised application for a 65 (formerly 66) bedroom hotel is now in place.

The new number is DC/18/109536 and is dated 1 November 2018.

Interestingly there are no documents attached for scrutiny for any other changes.


The documents usually appear a day after the case is opened on the site.


The documents have appeared on Lewisham’s planning site.

By the look of it the hotel has lost a storey along with its balconies and one room, and the building is very slightly more stepped at the back. However it still seems to have a lot of the same problems - it looks very over bearing at the top of Hindsleys Place, will likely attract the same amount of traffic, and according to the light report it still cuts too much light for flats in the Curch Vale block and City Walk.


Two Porsche’s and an Aston Martin this time.


So is there going to be two hotels this one and one on the Co Op site?


Within six months, Lewisham Council will be using it to house vulnerable people, families and migrants. Why don’t they develop it themselves to save paying the investment group millions each year?


Looks like I’ll be editing the objections letter and sending it again :+1:t3: this is a fun game…


It appears to me that there is a demand in the area for a hotel - whoever gets their permission first!


The transport statement has an interesting section on road accidents, for those wanting/supporting a pedestrian crossing around that area.

In summary:

  • About 9 accidents per year.
  • 0 fatal, 2 serious and 24 slight accidents over 3 years, ending September 2017.
  • 16 of the accidents cite ‘failure to look properly’ as either a primary or secondary factor.

This was from TfL stats, the most recent they had apparently.


Is that what those people are for? Stopping people parking down the residential street? I always wondered why they were there.

Regarding this hotel and the car park directly opposite (that I use during the week - usually daily) I have the following observations. There would always be adequate space available in the carpark - there is plenty (unless there’s a film crew in like a couple of weeks ago.) However, the traffic in Perry Vale is often so bad that a queue of hotel guests trying to exit the carpark towards the South Circular in the morning will cause problems. It will also block the sorting office vans from coming and going. Add to that the bus stop is also directly opposite that car park ramp.

On the plus side, the council might finally put in a crossing out there - it is definitely needs one.