62 Sunderland Road / Gaynesford Road housing development

FullSizeRender(4).jpg2217×1255 792 KB

FullSizeRender(5).jpg2448×1400 716 KB

FullSizeRender(2).jpg750×538 107 KB

Crikey.

Crikey indeed… not really in keeping with the character of the rest of the properties in the surroundings? Although, I am surprised that the existing property has survived thus long with all that “unused” green space around it…

I didn’t realise it was one of his… I thought they were the ones on the other side of Gaynesford Road? Surely if it was a Christmas House, they would not get approval to tear it down?

Could not look more ‘gated’ and fortified if it tried.

I’ll be gobsmacked if they are allowed to pull down a Christmas house…

I can’t seem to find the application for this on the Lewisham Planning Portal… perhaps I am being thick but I can’t seem top search by map (like I can do on the lambeth one) and putting in Sunderland Road and/or Gaynesford Road doesn’t show this up either… maybe it hasn’t actually been submitted yet?

That’s one for Private Eye’s Pseuds’ Corner.

Is this a current application? If so can you please post the reference number.

The site is not within a Conservation Area and I’m not sure whether it is listed.

The proposed scheme is out of keeping with the area - just the materials.

Christmas Houses in Perry Vale Ward are not in Conservation Area and are not Locally Listed, so a developer is entitled to demolish and build something else.

Whether this is in keeping with the character of the area is certainly something that will need to be considered. But by the look of it the building isn’t in keeping with itself, let alone it’s surroundings.

There have been quite a few examples in the area of houses “not in keeping” getting approval, though, no?

Sorry, you’re right - what I really meant was “I’d be gobsmacked if they could pull down a Christmas house here, on Gaynesford road, to replace it with this”. Needless to say, I am no planning expert!

Where did you find this, @anon88204203?

Funny that this new proposal should remind you of a building that’s already been knocked down.

The artists impression is a little off in terms of the scale really.

Even the architect felt the need to try to cover it up with ivy…

Looks hideous. Is there a particular reason this isn’t a conservation area? Looks like a well preserved street.

To me it looks like a 60’s design gone wrong with thoughts of - lets just cover it up with greenery type of approach.

I might be very wrong though as I’m not up on architecture.

I don’t hate it. I don’t love it. I like the combination of what looks to be wood shingling combined with terraced greenery. Though architects efforts to incorporate green spaces often don’t work out.

Frankly, I don’t see why new buildings need to match old architecture. Yes, the Christmas Houses are quaint, but they are by no means representative of a fundamental shift in architectural style. While materials used may have been good, these homes are notorious bad performers and hardly deliver a good indoor environment for occupants. We should embrace the new as much as we cherish the old. Its not as if they are tearing down the neighbourhood.

Bravo I say.

At least height-wise it doesn’t tower over the existing buildings. The buildings covered by greenery and roof-lawns etc is interesting, but I imagine it will need a lot of maintenance otherwise it will be a mess and deteriorate quickly. No gardens per se, a couple of terraces, but I think in the coming decades new developments will have fewer gardens. Even new build houses that look similar to existing stock (e.g. round back of Honor Oak Park / Grierson Rd / Ballina St) have tiny gardens. Which is probably inevitable given property shortage

Simple answer is that the residents don’t want it. If there was a desire for it to be a conservation area I’m sure that it would be possible to persuade Lewisham that it should be a conservation area, but Lewisham do not have the resources to pro-actively create conservation areas, so we would need to write the character assessment for them (not a particularly difficult piece of work). But I have no intension of pushing ahead with a conservation area here if that is not what residents desire.

But since it isn’t a conservation area, there is little protection for existing buildings, and people are relatively free to do what they want to their properties.

Two aspects that look particularly bad from the drawings:

1. Ground floor windows with vertical railings less than a metre in front. Perfect for prisoner storage.
2. Round the corner windows which appear to face directly onto the pavement, ensuring that everybody can see what is going on, or curtains closed throughout the day.

It looks like poorly designed over-development of the site.

“Frankly, I don’t see why new buildings need to match old architecture.”

I agree and certainly don’t think there should be some ersatz copy of the Christmas houses, which would look awful (and ersatz copies are all too common in this country and to some extent in this area). But this proposal in particular looks nasty, over bulky with dreary facades, not relating at all well to the street. I’m not sure what the style is supposed to be but it looks all too reminiscent of some of the bricky rubbish that was built around London in the 1980s.

Awful. Stick a child in front of some basic design software and ask them to come up with a space age house and they would come up with something as good as that. No symmetry with random sized windows dotted here and there. Looks like a 70s new town municipal library. If I lived in that road I’d be objecting strongly.

In terms of “in character with the local area”, the houses on both Gaynesford Road and Sunderland Road have a wide diversity of architecture.

Looking at the pictures of the proposed building with all the odd angles etc, it reminds me of a “stealth” bomber or navy ship, designed so that it won’t show up on radar. Can’t help wondering who will be keeping the ivy and the grass roofs nice and trimmed; the happy residents?

There is nothing sadder than a dead ‘living wall’

From the application:

Through our site strategy sketches we strongly feel that the existing building does not form a strong relationship with the site, street scene and wider context.

and

In our earlier building description we highlight that the existing building
on the development site is not in keeping with the heritage assets of the
surrounding Christmas houses. The existing building forms a loose end to
the north side of Gaynesford Road, rather than creating a strong building
line and built environment to a the corner plot situation.

Instead the proposed building strongly references the existing building
context, creating a strong edge to Gaynesford Road and Sunderland Road.
The contemporary design draws upon references to its context, whilst
presenting a new building with a strong connection to the Gaynesford
Road and Sunderland Road sense of space.

I disagree with both of these statements. Does anybody feel there is any truth to them?

I am not sure how the existing building could form a stronger relationship with the site, street scene and wider context. The photo from street view in 62 Sunderland Road / Gaynesford Road housing development makes this very clear.

I don’t see how the new building makes any reference to the existing build context - I see no similarities of colour, structure or anything else.

Technically I believe the building would be defined as Fugly!

Instead the proposed building strongly references the existing building
context, creating a strong edge to Gaynesford Road and Sunderland Road.
The contemporary design draws upon references to its context, whilst
presenting a new building with a strong connection to the Gaynesford
Road and Sunderland Road sense of space.

I have read the above statement several times and cannot decide if the writer has tongue firmly in cheek or is a script writer for Kim Jong Un…let’s be honest it’s the largest density/profit model with token green, bike storage etc to satisfy the planners, surprised there is no mention of rain water storage or solar panels. I know I am just an old cynic🤔

62 Sunderland Road 2 jpg.jpg3407×1438 1.01 MB

Hopefully it wont get built. When buildings have been demolished on Church Rise they have been replaced by something with an almost identical frontage, though I dont know whether this was the good sense of the developer or a planning requirement. But the proposed building has plenty of planning reasons for not going forward, it doesnt use materials appropriate to its context, projects forward of the other properties either side on Sunderland Road, doesnt provide adequate parking, and must be an overdevelopment of the space as it fills most of the plot.

I have snipped a picture from google maps which illustrates the uniformity of the street. If you want to object the closing date is Wednesday 1 February so not much time left.

It does not affect me directly, it is an ill conceived design and whilst trying to copy the existing housing stock is not to be recommended the artists impression adds nothing to the street scene.
Objections are difficult because they have ticked a lot of boxes green roof bike storage etc. My experience with planners in the past suggests the only way to challenge would be by another architect who can produce a report using the double speak that planners understand. The site as it stands does not impinge on neighbouring houses save the incongruity.
So unless a petition from all residents can be raised and the local mp engaged I am afraid it will be built as part of LBC 500 homes target.

Just come across this site/thread. The planning application is DC/16/099620 and the deadline is supposedly 1st Feb.
It was snuck in on 23rd Dec when no-one was looking and even immediate neighbours were not formally notified apart from a much belated notice on a nearby tree.!
Nevertheless, feel free to send comments late as I can’t see it not having to be put to Planning Committee at a much later date…
The pitchforks are coming out locally over this one…!
Just want to nail the thought that residents weren’t in favour of a Conservation Area for the Christmas Houses. It was surveyed and was being prepared for consultation back in 2014 but it never actually happened, presumably due to the budget/staffing cuts. Most residents I know are certainly in favour, and its a shame that this isn’t already the case. Most of the other Christmas houses locally are protected in some way and the Perry Vale/Gaynesford/Sunderland houses were certainly his ‘signature’ development.
If anyone is unsure why they are special to our heritage, please feel free to ask.

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.

Edit: found this: http://sydenhamforesthillhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/spirit-of-christmas.html

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.

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/BBF4AA209FB58A9FD9DF76DB42B9E186/pdf/DC_16_099620-Decision_Notice-561175.pdf

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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).

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_91797

Interesting looking building at first glance.

Wow. That’s a change.

image849×446 118 KB

Indeed!
But a good use of space? Helps with the housing crisis?
Or causes one of its own?

image862×533 102 KB

Found out too late about this sadly, but will be useful to hear what was discussed, if any SE23.lifers attended?

image1125×959 359 KB

Discussion continues here: Planning meeting for replacement of Christmas House, 62 Sunderland Road with flats