Perry Vale 66-room hotel on All Inn One site

Can’t find the original topic for this, feel free to amalgamate if you’d like.

As City Walk residents, we all received letters yesterday about plans for the development on the site of the All Inn One on Perry Vale. I know the former owners are on here and I have nothing against the property being sold as they have solid reasons. But what the new developers are planning frankly seems ridiculous for the location.

26970×854 742 KB

7 storeys, 66 room hotel, pub and restaurant, refuse stores and “landscaping”. I need to study the plans in greater detail, but already it’s clear this constitutes a threat to the Hindsley Place and City Walk residents in terms of parking problems (which becomes an issue in itself every time JK Banquets have an event); right to light for the affected side of CW; privacy/overlooking issues presented by a seven storey building a road’s width away.

I can’t believe we’re about to get a hotel pop up out of nowhere potentially here AND on the CoOp site (although it’s interesting that the lease on the latter has apparently been extended).

I’m keen that the site stay as a pub of course, I support local business and I am encouraged by our area’s apparent insatiable desire to bring more people into by sticking hotels all over the place. But this site - and yes, living next to it, I’m biased - seems less appropriate than the CoOp space and massively more disruptive.

We’re going to respond as a RA but I’m not feeling confident…

There is a related discussion here: All Inn One – Calling “Time”

…but it’s good to have a new topic about the redevelopment. Thanks for sharing this info.

It’s ridiculous. I cannot see why we need one let alone two hotels. And as you mentioned. The south circular is bad enough as it is. Let alone all this extra traffic and parking.
No thought for residents just money money.

On reading the “travel plan” report, it confirms there will be absolutely no provision for car parking within the development, for either staff or guests, with “encouragement” provided for yawn of public transport or cycles.

This utopian vision of a world on bikes is idealistic at best. Of COURSE people should be reducing their use of private vehicles, but it’s jusg ridiculous to pretend that every guest and staff member is going to rock up on a bus or on a bike. There needs to be some parking provision. Even the Hotel/CoOp plan allowed for 8 spaces!

Design and Assess Statement here:

DC_18_108902-DAS-722987.pdf (4.5 MB)

Not sure where all those Porsches are going to bloody park.

looks at least one storey higher than the other local buildings cited in the design and access statement.
There appear to be 3 Porsches in that pic, so things must be looking up for some.

I was surprised that there is an anticipated market for hotel(s) in Forest Hill, but guess it’s a by product of the public transport links to the West End, Canary Wharf and the City. Then I saw this map which seems to show a real lack of hotel/B&B in our area.

Personally i think a hotel in the area is a much needed thing as there isn’t anywhere half-decent locally for guests to stay. Looks wise the new development is pleasant, in keeping and they have clearly put a fair bit of time and effort in to the design.

That being said if i lived next door I would have a serious issue with the height of it and the parking. Height wise i just think they are chancing their arm with the additional storey as I cant remember it being on previous impressions. Parking wise they may well use the argument that there is public parking over the road and that when combined with the airy-fairy assumption that folks will use public transport it may well be enough to get it through - no matter how ridiculous a concept that actually is.

The daylight/sunlight report within the planning docs is keen to use City Walk’s height as an excuse. It describes the new development as a “mirror development” (in a mirror that adds two further storeys).

It also claims that this building will constitute “more than 20%” reduction of residual daylight to the flats on the Hindsley’s Place side. Anything over 20% is usually grounds for complaint and deemed unacceptable.

BUT - because City Walk currently “enjoys considerably higher levels of light” given the lack of other high rise in the area, they don’t deem this a relevant measure of light disruption. Plus, they blame the “unusually large rooms of 7m depth” in some of the flats on that side of City Walk which mean they will get considerably darker.

So, “you’ve been lucky up to now, the rules don’t apply to us, and your rooms are too large anyway.” Nice.

Porsche and Aston Martin!!

Here’s the previous version that the developer sent to me:

all%2Binn%2Bone.jpg1600×900 206 KB

You can see that in the last month they have added another two floors on top and extended the bulk further back as well. What a pity.

moved by a moderator into this topic

I live on Perryvale and have had a letter from Lewisham council regarding a 7 storey building with 66 hotel rooms, a replacement public house and a restaurant… but no parking for any of these guests. Details below. I think it is unwise considering how difficult I find it to park nearby without adding 6 guests. Plus the traffic on Perry Vale gets gridlocked as it is.

I do also feel sorry for those living on Hindsley place in the 2 storey victorian houses as they are being overshadowed on all sides.

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_96809

What do you think?

So disappointing. The All Inn One is a lovely period building too.
It is completely unfair on local residents especially due to the lack of parking.
I will be objecting. I am in Citywalk but feel especially sorry for those living in the houses on Hindsley place it will be a complete invasion of privacy and they will overshadowed on all 3 sides now.

I don’t get the parking argument at all, there is a huge and often under utilised car park almost immediately across the road…Surely this will be the place the vast majority of hotel guests would park - it is certainly where I would park if I were to stay there rather than spending additional time searching nearby streets in the vain hope of a free alternative, and then having to traipse back to the hotel with my luggage just to save a couple of quid…

I can certainly understand the concerns regarding the height of this proposed development, it
may well appear out of place with the surrounding area.

Well my children pointed to me quite a few Tesla and Maserati cars parked on the streets near us.

I do think we could do with some decent hotels in the area. My business struggles to find decent places near us.

I will agree that the second picture looks much more sympathetic to the neighbours.

I agree this does not look at all reasonable. Worth repeating what the proposal says here I think. It seems very poorly written, but perhaps meant to disguise a weak argument?
‘Thus, on balance, it could be possible to consider in respect of the effect of this development upon neighbouring daylight, that retained levels of daylight are in the main reasonable / commensurate to some other urban localities, and any adversity could be considered equitable in recognition of ‘mirror development’; the proposal only seeks an equitable share of the respective daylight following the fairly recent development of City Walk Apartments.’

The hotel on the Co-Op site allowed for no car parking only drop off point, 1 disabled bay and 2 bay taxi rank. There was a meeting held in August where to start with I was the only local resident to show up but was later joined by another.

I gained a lot of traction as a disabled person pointing out it was hard enough to park in the existing disabled bay due to non disabled using it and to be fair the other lady who turned up was is disbelief over the 1 bay proposal.

In principle I do not object to a hotel but having heard the reasoning for it, I think the proposal is barking mad. The only sensible part of this proposal is that there is a car park opposite and not a 1/4 of a mile away.

The idea is people will stay at the hotel and travel into London to places like Canary Wharf for meetings etc. I will also repeat what I said at that meeting, I fail to see why people would want to stay in Forest Hill pay for a hotel and car parking when within a 2 minute walk of Canary Wharf there is a very pleasant Novotel with a roof terrace. The plan and idea needs reworking, people will not travel from West, North or East to stay there when the is better access for them already.

Just to say that the expenses policy of many companies drives behaviour that you wouldn’t expect. For example, the large, corporate company that I work for has offices all over the UK and centrally within London, but thinks nothing of parking colleagues in Zone 6 when they need to stay in London on business, purely for saving money reasons…

I live in the flats on Church Vale next to the All in One and have major concerns about a large 7 storey development outside my home. I feel it will certainly affect the amount of natural light coming into my home and also be a huge invasion of privacy as the rooms on the left side will be able to see directly into my living room. As a night worker I am also extremely concerned about the noise levels as it was awful when City Walk was being built but this will now be happening outside my bedroom and will last at least a year which is a long time to work a night shift with very little sleep in the day time. Also I agree it’s ridiculous to have 2 hotels being built within a few minutes walk of each other.

Also while the design is said to mirror City Walk and be sympathetic to the design it is certainly not going to complement the block on the right hand side, we are just going to lose light, privacy and have a lot of extra noise to contend with.

I am a resident on Perry Vale in the Victorian cottage style houses. My primary concern is living through the construction and who will operate the hotel. This will have an impact on value and the audience who use the hotel. We have only been here for 18months and fell in love with the AIO immediately. Gutted it is going and being replaced by something that will inevitably struggle to retain the warmth and charm of a real ‘local’.

I haven’t been through a process like this before so wondered if there how a collective of residents with concerns can impact such a development? Is this a forgone conclusion at this point?

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.

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?).

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_96809

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.

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 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).

I don’t think that is the desire for any hotel chain or for any council, but it does happen. It is probably more likely for homeless families rather than single homeless people. And I think Hamilton Lodge has demonstrated little adverse impact of housing local homeless families in our community.

I agree - the additional storeys I think makes the proposal less appealing. I also prefer the brickwork rather than the cladding. I’m all for investment, but it seems to me that the revised proposal is less attractive.

When I saw the first image with fewer stories, I presumed that they are expecting to ask for a lot (second image), but will accept a building according to the first image.

I support a hotel, even at the larger scale, but I don’t support either with a lack of parking provisioning as it would be highly unpleasant for the local residents. You don’t build a hotel on the south circular and expect people to all arrive by train .

Also, expecting guests to pay for parking rather than park on local roads is almost intentionally ignorant. You may as well suggest that local residents just park in the local car park if they can’t find a space near their house - it’s not that expensive for overnight parking, right?

I very rarely stay in hotels with car park provision, so don’t know what the big surprise is.

And what is the big objection to just two extra stories above the neighbouring block of flats? I think it’s a bit rich to buy into a new-build block of flats which are significantly higher than 95% of the buildings in Forest Hill, and then complain as soon as another slightly higher rise building is put up next to you…

The handover date is 7th June or July next year, can’t remember which, so I expect it to be up and running sometime in 2020.

I’ll be sad to see Julia and Richard go, little Josh too. They always (especially Julia) got involved in community goings on, as @AllInnOne

I wish them all the best in the future

I have not bought into the new block of flats, I bought my flat in 1996 when the new flats were just shack shops with finches removal firm on the corner. I live in the flats on Church Vale and my objection is as well as blocking our light, balcony’s on that side will look directly into my living room.

I as a night worker have endured a lot of noise with new developments but this will literally be outside my bedroom window not allowing me to sleep enough to do my job even adequately and then the end result being less privacy.

The development across the tracks on Dartmouth Road at number 53 is six storey on higher ground so will probably be higher than seven storeys on that site. I think we should be putting forward a general rule for the height of developments in Forest Hill rather than individual rules.

The lack of parking provision is standard now but Hindsley Place has controlled parking so are probably more able to park near their houses than most of us.

I think these days, it’s been decided that you don’t allow car parking in new developments, because it encourages car use.

Looking at rental listings for City Walk apartments, it also seems that only a few of them have allocated parking too.

Proximity to the station would seem to justify this I guess, but the overground is already over capacity at peak times and Canada Water rammed.

Yes, CW is big. Probably too big. But this is bigger, closer to its neighbouring buildings, thus a bigger threat to residual daylight for flats and houses alike, under-provided for in terms of parking schemes, and a better site exists for a structure of its size elsewhere. So I still think it’s worth pressing to get closer to the original plan.

It’s probably an excuse rather than what triggered the decision to not provide parking being made. However, I do think that hotel guests for security reasons tend to prefer more official car parks even if they’re paid than roadside, especially as they’re unlikely to know the local area well and might see it as possibly risky southeast London. Those who don’t, will find space in nearby roads as will residents. There is enough of it assuming that an up to five minute walk to your destinantion is acceptable.

I’m only speculating, but I suspect the developer may have added an extra storey that he is prepared to take off in the spirit of listening to neighbour’s concerns.

Equally, I think that the original proposal is unlikely to stack up financially and would also be lower than most other new developments in central Forest Hill so it might be rightly seen as a bit of a waste of floor space.

Personally, I find the architectural quality much more important than the exact number of floors but then I’m not an immediate neighbour.

If this goes ahead there needs to be some consideration again on pedestrian crossings near the station.

Yes @Paul_R - but let’s hope some S.106 contribution from this developer doesn’t somehow skew things in favour of the crossing being up that end instead of it being nearer the subway.

I especially like the mockup which implies we’re all driving Porsches and Astons around the area. Personally I’d be happy to have a decent hotel in the area as currently when we have visitors, there’s nowhere for them to stay nearby. Sorry it’s in your backyard!

@Anotherjohn - s106 monies have now been replaced by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Existing traffic and patron congestion during functions on Perry Vale at the JK Banquet Hall are severe (some may say unacceptably so). The narrowness of the pavement on that same side of the road may be being potentially worsened by potential new patrons of the 89 bedroom hotel who may be being steered to make use of the Perry Vale public car park.

There may be a case to be made to demand an increase in CIL payments from all three of the new developments to address a proper reconfiguration scheme that addresses all of the issues raised for that entire area.

Nearly forgot - here is a useful link to an explanation of CIL:

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/70/community_infrastructure_levy

Might another candidate for CIL be the provision of a lift to access Forest Hill station from that side? I’m sure this would be in the strong interest of any hotel business on the proposed site and would be of major benefit to the local area.

Thank you @anon51837532 (again!)

S106 hasn’t been replaced. CIL and S106 work together now. The council could request s106 monies to be put towards mitigating the impact of the development on items such as traffic calming or pedestrian crossings. But they can’t increase CIL payments on a development by development basis. CIL is charged at a flat rate per type of floorspace.

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 -

3d%20pic944×1244 271 KB

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:

IMG_20181008_0817292592×4608 3.46 MB

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.

image958×854 664 KB

image848×599 296 KB

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 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.

I don’t think you can assume hotel guests who use the car park will follow commuter patterns of usage. Why would they all be coming out at the same time? They’ll be going different places, to arrive at different times. Some will be tourists using FH as a cheap base and mostly using public transport into central London and only exiting the car park at the end of their stay. Some business users will be doing the same.

Inclined to agree- although I think most people would come by public transport. Business users driving in would still have to make an arduous journey though one part of London or another. Those driving seem to stay further out in places with good connections in my (limited) experience- near City airport for example.

Hi everyone,

My name’s Sam Hancock - I’m a reporter for EastLondonLines. I’m writing a piece about this application to build a hotel; I was wondering if anyone would like to give me a comment for my piece?

Please let me know on shanc002@gold.ac.uk

Thanks,
Sam

After considerable discussion, the Forest Hill Society planning committee have written an objection to the planning application for the demolition of the All Inn One and replacement with a 6 storey hotel.

Do we know what the consequences of this objection will have to the current owner’s sale prospects? Presumably if the objection is considered it would delay their selling and have personal implications?

My understanding is that the sale of the building has already been agreed and it is not subject to planning permission being given.

However, let’s consider the possibility that this is not the case. It is right that the council properly weigh up the appropriate use of the building subject to planning regulations. I would hate to be accused of supporting or objecting to a proposal to financial benefit an individual - especially somebody I have known for many years and regard as a friend. The view of the Forest Hill Society is based on what we think is right in terms of planning rules and in the context of this building, the amenity it provides, and its relationship with its neighbours - these are our concerns - not the financial well-being of the current owner/operators of the pub, the new owner/developer, or any individual in the community.

All that having been said, there is a bad scenario which is possible - that the pub closes and nothing happens for months or years. I hope that if the planning application is rejected that the developer quickly submits a new proposal that takes account of some of the criticism and concerns in the objections. We have seen many cases where this has happened thanks to the intervention of the Forest Hill Society or others (including a development on Wood Vale by the same developer).

Thanks for the response, that makes a lot of sense
I do love that pub and those who run it, I hope what comes in its place does the space and neighbourhood justice as before.
Thumbs up to the Forest Hill Society for your considered objection.

The land registry tells me it is currently owned by Richard and Julia, who paid £600k on 30 July 2009 and Lloyds are the lenders.

They’d be coming out at the same time because all hotels have a time in the morning that the room has to be vacated by plus a parking ticket has to be purchased at 8am to continue leaving your car there. And we are talking about potentially 66 rooms - not a B&B.

As people who use that stretch of Perry Vale in the morning will know, it doesn’t take much of a blockage for the road to be quickly queued back past the primary school which then spreads to Westbourne Drive as drivers U-turn and cut through Church Vale

Not everyone stays one night only and not everyone drives, in fact the proportion of hotel guests in London arriving in their own car should be relatively low, though possibly higher in Zone 3 than in Central London.

You’ve mentioned how busy Perry Bale gets, and because of this it seems very unlikely that a few hotel guests leaving by car, let’s say 20, will be even noticable. I don’t know the latest vehicle counts for that stretch of road but having done such counts before 2000 in both directions combined would seem like a realistic number to me, so 20 of that which I think is probably too high anyway would equate 1%.

Hope that helps to diffuse any fears about road traffic impact.

Latest revised plans include a pretty poor layout for a pub, but it will have a beer garden:
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_97445

Thanks for the update

Edit: correct diagrams added, thanks @Michael:

image1959×971 590 KB

Still not much of a beer garden left - but it is there.

Looks more like a hotel reception with a small bar.

Was there any mention of what brand would take this hotel on?

I’m holding our for Four Seasons. Or Fairmont.

If the AIO wasn’t regularly banged-out then I guess this is a fair offer.
There’s nothing worse than going into big empty bar.
This looks like a nice cosy layout and it would appeal to me.

I still think this is the bare minimum necessary to replace a community asset. What’s the Forest Hill Society’s position on the new plans?

The Forest Hill Society lodged a formal objection which can be read in full at:

Seems sad to knock down these old buildings and replace them with something that seems more suited to a city area. I am sure the building on the left of this pic is the All in One Pub. Having seen the new block of flats on Dacres Road it is good to question current Planning decisions to be sensitive to permit builds that compliment surrounding buildings - why put a glass and grey block in a predominantly red brick area?. The new extension on the Primary School on Perry Vale complemented the area well, why cant this proposed redevelopment if it has to be redeveloped?

I was in there last Friday and was told it is staying open until June now.

Only for drinks, I believe- not food.
Does anyone know the situation regarding the planning application?
Michael: I am useless at studying plans, so please correct me if I’m wrong- do the plans show restaurant on one floorand bar on another floor and disabled toilets only on one floor, so either bar or restaurant inaccessible to disabled?

I wonder if they could allow take away from the other local businesses around the corner? That might be a win-win for the local businesses.

Yes, when I spoke to Richard, he said takeaway food would be allowed, provided it was not smelly food e.g. curry.

Anyone know their “Last orders” date?

End of the month I believe.

Announced today they will be staying open till January!

When I spoke to Julia a couple of weeks ago they were waiting on dates for the planning objections.
Does that mean there is a date set?

Anyway can I encourage local residents to go and have a pint or two in there - especially those who object to the development!

Yes I think June 6 th was the proposed date for the planning hearing but it did not happen then. AIO announced the January date on Twitter. No idea why. But looks as if we will have a Christmas after all!

I think the expiry date of the application was 7 June, so perhaps the developer has to wait another 6 months? I really don’t know, though - perhaps someone can shed some light?
Pity there have been no Sunday roasts during this time though - kitchen went far too soon!
Haven’t found anywhere else that serves rare roast beef, vegetables and gravy on the side and roast lamb.
And roasts as good as Richard’s.

Think that the building has now been locally listed

Not sure about that but I do know the buyer pulled out…

councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s675

Sorry forgot to add the link