“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.
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?
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.
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🤔
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.
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
