Planning Application submitted for 46 Ladywell Road

I'm pleased that the new owners of the former Nightwatch shop at 46 Ladywell Road have wasted no time in submitting a planning application:

"The construction of a two-storey rear extension in connection with the alteration and conversion of the rear part of the basement, ground and upper floors of 46 Ladywell SE13 to provide 2 one-bedroom self-contained maisonettes, together with the installation of a new shop front incorporating a separate entrance to the flats above and roof lights the front roof slope."

I think this will be the first planning application along Ladywell Road since the Ladywell Conservation Area came into affect, so it will be interesting to see whether officers insist on a higher quality shop front than many of those currently visible on the road. From the design and access statement it certainly sounds promising, with a commitment to installing a timber-framed new shop front and slate roof. I'm also pleased that they haven't applied for change of use but are sticking with A1 retail - we really don't want to lose any more units along Ladywell Road to non-retail uses.

I think this offers great potential to improve Ladywell Road and finally get rid of one of our longstanding blights. Having spent 4 years as a local councillor pushing for enforcement action to be bring this property back into use, this is one planning application I'm tempted to write in to support, now I'm not on a committee and can speak my mind!

The planning application number is DC/10/74347/X and you can view the details online here. Any comments should be sent to planning@lewisham.gov.uk.

(Hurrah!)

Three local schools, three planning applications - have your say

Two schools in Ladywell ward, and two just outside it but attended by a lot of Ladywell children, have planning applications due to be submitted soon for refurbs or rebuilds - Gordonbrock Primary, Prendergast Hilly Fields, Lewisham Bridge and Brockley Primary School. Like most residents, I'm keen to see improvements made, and for the work to go ahead before the funding is lost, but am also keen to see good quality, sustainable buildings that will serve the local community for many years to come.

Gordonbrock Primary School
Following the legal action taken by Broc Soc and the consequent delay to the decant of the school, the Council plans to re-submit a planning application for the re-build of the school and is holding a public consultation event on its plans. Officers say that the scheme is based on the last planning application, but amended to reflect some of the comments made during the previous proposals.

The updated drawings along with members of the project team will be available at Gordonbrock school on Wednesday 9th June from 3:15pm to 7:30pm.

I haven't seen the revised plans, but from what officers said a few weeks back, I'm assuming the amendments to the plan include changes to the entrance area, so the Edwardian building isn't hidden behind the new building, and also to the materials proposed for the new building, rather than the white render previously proposed.

Prendergast Hilly Fields
I previously blogged about plans for the rebuild of the lower site of this school, and refurbishment of the listed building in the park. An application has been submitted to have temporary classrooms on Hilly Fields, on the flat patch of grass in between Prendergast School and the top of Eastern Road (see photos). You can view the application here.

I think it makes sense to make use of this space for the decant classrooms given it is there, rather than bussing students, provided the mature trees and the hedges around the edges are preserved, and the site restored to at least current condition (preferably better) after use.

Following a quick site visit with the chair of Friends of Hilly Fields yesterday, there are a few points that need clarifying, which we hope to raise with officers. We also thought that it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for a small S106 commitment towards improvements to Hilly Fields, in exchange for a section of the park being effectively annexed for two years. One suggestion from the chair was for funding to be provided to resurface the section of road from the gate at the top of Eastern Road to the school, particularly given that heavy vehicles are likely to be using the road and exacerbating its already poor condition. She was also keen for a granite sett under the gates, to make the entrance to the park clearer and smarter. It doesn't seem like a big ask, given the likely disturbance to park users while the building work is underway.

Astonishingly, and despite me specifically asking officers to do so several months back, Friends of Hilly Fields have still not be formally consulted on these plans, either by the planning department or the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) team. I think the planning department's list of local groups to consult needs updating to include park users' groups and other more recently established groups.

Anyway, comments on the application should be sent to planning@lewisham.gov.uk, with the planning application number (DC/10/74021/X) clearly marked.

Lewisham Bridge School
There was an initial, pre-planning consultation event a few weeks back, with new designs for the school, which incorporate the listed building, on show. I wasn't able to attend and can't find any online links to the plans. Has anyone seen them? What did you think? I'm particularly keen to see how much outside space is left with the revised plans. It would be really useful if the BSF team made these plans available online.

Prendergast Hilly Fields Plans - what did you think?

I popped in to look at the proposals for Prendergast Hilly Fields at the drop in session this evening. I was quite favourably impressed, but would be keen to hear what others who saw the plans thought.

I suspect the two potentially most contentious aspects of the plans will be where to place the temporary classrooms while the lower site is decanted and rebuilt, and the extra height of the lower site buildings. The two options proposed for the decant classrooms are either to put them on two of the tennis courts for the year while the work takes place, or to put them on the land adjacent to the upper site school, near the basketball courts. With the first option, the community would lose the use of the tennis courts for a year, but potentially at the end of it, get brand new, resurfaced tennis courts. The second option would involve temporary loss of green space adjacent to the school but not, I'm told, involve needing to remove any mature trees. I need to go and take a look at the site to get a clear picture of it in my mind, and would be keen to hear the community's views on this, and the thoughts of Friends of Hilly Fields.

I like the idea of having one, high quality building on the lower site rather than the mish mash that is currently there. The proposals involve keeping the existing sports hall, but building around and above it. The new buildings would be 4 storeys in the middle and 3 storeys at the sides adjacent to the neighbouring houses. The extra height would enable the sixth form to grow, while the plans also include more landscaped outside space in the middle, with a sightline from Hilly Fields through to the cemeteries, 'connecting the two green spaces'.

The boundary treatment would be a combination of brick wall and quality railings, rather than the rather tatty chainlink fence currently there. There haven't decided on the exact materials they plan to use the the building itself, but are looking at brick, rather than a rendered finish, which should age better. The architect seemed keen to go for a brick colour that contrasted with the neighbouring red brick buildings on Adelaide Avenue rather than trying to match it.

I was keen to see how they envisaged the new building relating to Ivy Road, which has been problematic in the past. The windows of the exam hall that face onto Ivy Road have been boarded up almost since it was built, due to vandalism problems. Ivy Road is looking better these days, with less graffiti and flytipping, but there is still limited footfall along there and security is an issue. They seemed to be planning a delivery entrance on the Ivy Road side, and a bit more landscaping, rather than just the back wall of buildings, but it's a tricky issue to resolve.

The flat roofs on the new building incorporate both brown and green living roofs, which if done properly could look good from Hilly Fields, and while they were uncertain how they would attain the 20% renewables target, were looking at using air source heat pumps and solar thermal on the roof. Previous BSF schools in Lewisham have tended to go for biomass boilers, as they proved the most cost-effective way to meet the 20% target, but now there are concerns over the impact these may have on air quality and they are looking at other options. Solar thermal is not normally a viable option at schools, as there isn't a huge demand for hot water, but if the kitchens and sports facilities are all on the lower site, this may be more viable.

The changes to the top site building are fairly minor and, as far as I can tell involve adding a lift inside the main building, moving the kitchens down to the lower site to create more space next to the main hall, demolishing the rather tatty white toilet block and replacing it with outside space, and, rearranging some of the classrooms to create extra space.

The project team are looking to submit the planning application in April with a view to getting planning permission over the summer and starting the rebuild/refurb in the Autumn term. I would be keen to hear your views on the plans, if you saw them. I've asked if they can also be made available online for those who were unable to attend the drop-in session.

Ladywell to get its own conservation area

Back in December I posted about the consultation Lewisham's Planning Department were running to find out residents' views on establishing a conservation area in Ladywell. The report on this, went to Mayor & Cabinet on Wednesday and the Mayor agreed the recommendation to create a conservation area in Ladywell and approve the making of article 4 directions to the residential streets .

The area includes Algiers Road, Gillian Street and sections of Embleton Road, Ermine Road, Algernon Road, Ladywell Road and Vicar's Hill. You can see a (not very clear) map of the proposed area here, the report for Mayor & Cabinet here, and the report on the consultation responses here.

A bit of background from the report on the reasons behind establishing the conservation area:

"When the review of the nearby St. Mary’s Conservation Area was considered by Mayor & Cabinet on 29 November 2006, members of the public asked for the boundary to be extended to include the Ladywell area. Officers’ advice was not to include Ladywell into the St. Mary’s Conservation Area, but to consider it as a conservation area in its own right. Subsequent to this, this year’s conservation area review programme included the survey of Ladywell to assess the architectural and historic interest of the area and the drafting of a conservation area appraisal. The proposed Ladywell Conservation Area comprises a late Victorian residential suburban development which was built by Lewisham local developer Samuel J. Jerrard through the 1880s and 1890s. Jerrard built up long stretches of Vicars Hill and the newly laid out streets Algernon Road, Algiers Road, Ermine and Embleton Road, taking advantage of the topography and the good transport links to London. His houses are generously sized and stylistically highly distinctive as a group. The proposed conservation area also includes the infill development of the late 19th and early 20th century that completed the Jerrard streets as well as the commercial core of Ladywell, known as Ladywell Village, along Ladywell Road between the railway bridge and Slagrove Place. This area contains some of the oldest houses and pubs of Ladywell and Edwardian commercial properties that were constructed around 1900 in response to the rapidly increasing community around them."

The report states that the Article 4 direction will "withdraw permitted development rights currently allowed under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 where visible from any public viewpoint. This means that planning permission will be required for alterations such as the replacement of windows or doors, retiling of roofs, rooflights, alterations to chimneys, demolition of garden walls, pebbledashing or painting of elevations and other minor alterations. The effect is not that those developments can not be carried out, but simply that they are no longer automatically permitted. This enables the planning service to retain some control over the design and detailing of proposed alterations".

The report explains that making an Article 4 Direction "usually involves formally serving a notice upon owner and occupiers and inviting representations. The notice will be accompanied by a guidance sheet explaining what an Article 4 Direction is, and why one has been served in this particular case. The need to apply for planning permission comes into force with serving the notice, but the Council will have to confirm the direction within six months, or it lapses."

Gordonbrock Decant - delayed

I found out today that the decant and rebuilding programme for Gordonbrock School has been delayed by six months due to a legal challenge by Brockley Society. I heard from Council officers on Tuesday evening that a delay was likely, and letters were sent home to parents yesterday confirming this. I understand that Council officers and Brockley Society representatives will be meeting next week to discuss the legal challenge, and hopefully more will become clear after that. There will also be a meeting for parents at the school soon, date tbc.

I don't know the details, but my understanding is that the challenge is to do with whether or not the Council carried out an environmental impact assessment as part of the planning process.

At this stage I've got a lot more questions than I have answers, and am keen to get more information from officers as soon as possible, particularly about what the financial implications of this latest delay will be. While I've been quite vocal in my criticism of aspects of the planning application, in particular the appearance of the new building, I worked constructively with officers to secure some (modest) improvements to it, and was clear that the latest application was an improvement on the 2005 application in a number of ways. I am concerned that this latest delay may jeopardise the funding, and while I think the current plans are far from perfect, they are far better than no improvements at all. It would be awful for the school to once again lose the funding, as happened 5 years ago.

In addition to the legal challenge, Brockley Society have published a feasibility study suggesting an alternative way of refurbishing the existing buildings, without demolishing any of them, but still increasing capacity to three form entry, creating larger classrooms, a large assembly hall etc. The document, looks professionally produced and clearly the society have put a lot of time and effort into it, but comes very late in the day, just a few weeks before the decant was scheduled to start. I've asked officers for their views on the viability of what is proposed in it, and what the financial implications would be.

I hope to be able to be able to post more information soon, when I have it. In the meantime I've set up a straw poll on the site to gauge readers' opinions. If the options I've given don't cover your view, please use the comments section of this post to share them.

Consultation on Lewisham's Planning Policy

A Council consultation is currently underway on the Local Development Framework (LDF). This is the proposed new overarching planning policy, which if approved will replace the existing Urban Development Plan (UDP). It is these policies, along with the London Plan, that planning officers and planning committees have to use when reaching decisions on planning applications.

This is the third attempt Lewisham's Planning Department has had at consulting on this document after the two previous version of the LDF had to be scrapped when government guidelines changed. Lewisham Green Party councillors submitted detailed comments on the previous version and we will do so again on this version. A few of our points from previous consultations were taken on board and incorporated into the new framework, but most were not.

I would encourage local residents to respond to this consultation and make their views known. Concerns over the major developments planned for Lewisham town centre have been far and away the biggest issue on the doorstep when we've been speaking to Ladywell residents recently, particularly those living near to Loampit Vale. This document enshrines in policy the 'growth corridor' vision for Lewisham, Deptford and Catford town centres and it's important that residents views on this are taken on board.

That said, however far this planning framework is from what I'd like to see, it is a considerable improvement on the existing UDP. It's been incredibly frustrating over the past 4 years to sit on a planning committee with local planning policy that is not fit for purpose and leaves you all too often powerless to turn down inappropriate developments.

You can see and respond to the consulation online here. The deadline for comments is Tuesday 6th April.

Should Ladywell have a conservation area?

Lewisham Planning Department is consulting residents in Ladywell about whether or not a Ladywell Conservation Area should be introduced. The area between the leisure centre and the railway bridge is already part of St Mary's Conservation area, and the area from halfway up Adelaide Avenue comes under Brockley Conservation area, but the main streets in Ladywell, such as Algernon Road, Algiers Road, Veda Road, Embleton Road, Ermine Road and Ladywell Road are not currently in a conservation area. It is this area that is currently being consulted.

One of the main differences between living in a conservation area or not is that planning regulations for conservation areas are stricter, and you need permission for certain changes to your home that you might not need outside it, such as replacing windows and the intention behind this is to preserve the aesthetic and architectural character of the area.

I've included below a bit more information from officers about the proposals and you can also find the documents on the Council's website.

The proposals are supported by a conservation area appraisal that sets out the special interest of the area and explains why it may warrant designation, including recommendations for the future management of the area. These proposals are out to public consultation from now until 27 January 2010. Residents, businesses and stakeholders in the area should all have been sent an explanatory leaflet and a questionnaire asking for their views.

Officers will be available to explain the proposals on Saturday, 9th January between 12.00noon and 3pm at the Foyer of the Lewisham Library, 199-201 Lewisham High Street, Lewisham.

Background to the conservation area review:
Local Planning Authorities are required to identify from time to time which parts of their areas are of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.

Unitary development plan policy URB 15 says that the Council will periodically review its conservation areas programme, designate new Conservation Areas and extend existing ones as appropriate, and formulate and publish special guidance for their preservation, protection or enhancement.

The new Ladywell Conservation Area:
The core of the proposed Ladywell Conservation Area contains a late Victorian residential suburb which was developed by the local builder Samuel J. Jerrard. Through the 1880s and 1890s he built up long stretches of Vicars Hill and the newly laid out streets Algernon Road, Algiers Road, Ermine and Embleton Road. His houses are highly distinctive as a group and his development survives nearly complete. The conservation area also encompasses some good later infill development of the late 19th and early 20th century and the commercial core of Ladywell along Ladywell Road, which contains some of the oldest houses and pubs of the area.

Much of the special character of the proposed Ladywell Conservation Area lies in the historic detail of its buildings. The survey of the area has identified the incremental loss of architectural details and inappropriate alterations as a cause of the area’s loss of historic character. If designation as a Conservation Area is considered it is recommended to make an Article 4(2) direction at the same time to cover all the residential properties. This will mean that planning permission will be required before changes are made to features such as windows, doors, porches, rooflights, brickwork, front gardens and boundary walls.

We would be interested to hear local residents views on these proposals. To make sure your views count, do remember to return the form you get through your door, or you can complete the online version here.

Planning Applications: Foxborough Gardens, Algernon Road, Kneller Road

3 new planning applications in the ward that I thought worth flagging up.

1) DC/09/71852/X: The provision of children's play equipment on the communal open space at 105-151 and 153-199 Foxborough Gardens SE4.

2) DC/09/72886/X: The continued use of land adjacent to 48 Kneller Road SE4, as storage land, for the parking of motorhome vehicles thereon as a security measure.

3) DC/09/72782/X: Redevelopment of land to the rear of 6-24 Algernon Road SE13, involving the demolition of existing buildings; the erection of 3 buildings between 2 and 4 storeys in height and accommodating 34 residential units; the provision of access and car parking, landscaping, amenity space and play space; and the erection of retaining walls.

The first is an application to build a new play area on the green in front of the tower blocks in Foxborough Gardens. This is one of the projects which was awarded funding as part of the Playbuilder scheme and which I blogged on back in February.

The second application for Kneller Road is something that was flagged up to me by Kneller Road residents concerned about on street parking and noise disturbance.

The third application is probably the largest housing development to come up in the ward in recent years, and is for housing on the mews to the rear of Algernon Road, where Mersh Brothers MOT Centre is currently.

If you click on the links above, it should take you to the application details online. Any comments should be sent to Lewisham Planning, 5th Floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, London, SE6 4SW, or they can be e-mailed to planning@lewisham.gov.uk. Don't forget to include the address and application number with your comments.

Local meeting on Gordonbrock Planning Application

A meeting has been arranged by planning officers to give local residents a chance to discuss the planning application for Gordonbrock Primary School with officers and the applicants. The meeting will take place this Thursday, 26th November, 7pm, at the school.

These meetings are normally held if there are more than 10 objections to an application, which is the case in this instance. I have been asked to chair the meeting so will be remaining neutral. Officers have indicated that a living roof and rainwater harvesting have been added to the plans since the consultation event at the school. I have also asked them to provide further information about the building footprint and the size and design of the outside play areas, as this is one of the aspects of the application that seems to have caused most concern to those who commented on my previous post on this.

Do come along if you want to discuss the proposals in more detail with officers. I look forward to seeing you on Thursday.

Application to turn former off-licence on Algernon Road into a hot food take away

We've just been notified of the following planning application for change of use from A1 retail to A5 (hot food take away).

DC/09/72751: 222 ALGERNON ROAD, LONDON, SE13 7AG
Proposal: The change of use of the ground floor unit at the front of 222 Algernon Road SE13, from retail (Class Use A1) to Hot food Takeaway (Use Class A5), together with the installation of an extract flue on the rear elevation.

This is the former off-licence, next to the tattoo parlour. You can view the application online here.
If you wish to comment on this application, you should do so in writing by 26th November. You can e-mail planning@lewisham.gov.uk, or write to them at Planning, 5th Floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, Catford, London, SE6 4RU.

New blog poll: Should solar panels be permited on conservation area properties?

I've set up a poll to gauge readers' views on whether solar panels should be permitted on conservation area properties. Please do vote - you can find it in the right-hand column of the blog.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not claiming any particular scientific validity for the poll, self-selecting as readers of this blog inevitably will be, and it's not in any way an official council consultation, it's just a straw poll.

The poll has come about as a result of an ongoing discussion on an earlier post with a blog reader. My own view is that action to reduce carbon emissions and prevent climate change is a bigger priority than preserving the aesthetic qualities of a conservation area, but that most of the time the two need not be incompatible anyway. I would generally support solar panels on roofs in conservation areas, as long as they were positioned and designed as unobtrusively as possible, and the owners had already taken all reasonable measures to insulate and improve the energy efficiency of the property. ie I'm not into solar panels purely as fashion statements - insulation, an energy efficient boiler etc come first. That said, I don't see preserving the character of the conservation area and doing our bit to reduce our carbon footprints as mutually exclusive, and think St Peter's Church on Wickham Road is a good example of how this can be done sensitively.

Anyway, I would be interested to know what my readers think, so please do participate in the poll, which will run until 20th September.

Response to Loampit Vale Planning Application

The application for the major redevelopment of part of Loampit Vale, adjacent to Cornmill Gardens, is going to strategic planning committee for decision in a couple of weeks.

I have submitted the following comments from Ute, Mike and me, which we hope reflect some of the concerns local residents have expressed to us about the impact this development will have on neighbouring roads and local facilities, as well as our own thoughts.

I should stress that these comments are just from the three of us and are not a formal Green group position, as our councillor who sits on strategic planning needs to be free to make his decision based on valid planning grounds and without pre-determination.

Planning Application DC/09/71246/X: Land South Side of Loampit Vale, London, SE13 - submission by Ladywell ward councillors

While in principle we welcome the building of a new leisure centre, new retail and housing units on this site, we have grave concerns about some aspects of the proposals.

We formally object to the height of the buildings proposed. 24 storeys is too high and will tower over Cornmill Gardens and the surrounding area. The fact that there is a very ugly tower (Citibank) adjacent to the site should not act as a precedent to build more. We are supportive of high-density developments in areas with such good public transport links, but would argue that this is overdevelopment.

In addition we would like to flag up other concerns about the proposed scheme, which we would like to see addressed:

1. The impact on existing services, in particular GP services: residents in our ward are concerned that the existing facilities at St John’s Medical Centre are insufficient to cope with an additional 2,000 patients. What work has been done on the impact this development will have on local health services, as well as school places?

2. The impact on neighbouring streets from increased traffic as a result of the development: a controlled parking zone is already in place in part of the surrounding area and a consultation on extending this to further parts of Ladywell is due to commence shortly. Would the stated principle that residents of the new flats will not be eligible to apply for permits for CPZs be confirmed in writing by the Council if the application was successful? What measures will be taken to prevent neighbouring streets such as Algernon Road, Ellerdale Street, Marsala Road, Sandrock Road and Undercliff Road becoming rat-runs and through routes to and from the development?

3. Low level of social housing: while we welcome the fact that a reasonable percentage of the social housing proposed comprises larger, family units, we are concerned that the overall level of homes for social rent in the development is only 19%, and affordable housing overalls is only 24% including intermediate housing. This is below the borough’s stated threshold for developments of this size and does not sufficiently contribute to addressing the dire shortage of affordable housing in the borough.

4. If the committee is minded to pass the application, we would request that S106 contributions for improvements to the railway bridges and the footpath on Loampit Vale are added as a condition. We are concerned that with the new development, the existing businesses further up Loampit Vale and Loampit Hill, which are already struggling, will become even more marginalised.

We would welcome efforts to improve the streetscape along the lower part of Loampit Vale, but urge that these improvements are carried out further up as well, as far as the junction with Tyrwhitt Road, to help connect the two parts of Loampit more successfully than is currently the case. We would suggest that this should include the planting of street trees, installation of cycle racks outside shops and funds for a community artwork project under the railway bridge arches, which are currently an eyesore.

5. We welcome the fact that the leisure centre will reach BREEAM excellent. We acknowledge that code for sustainable homes level 4 is better than many developments in the borough are currently reaching, but given this is such a landmark development and considering the lifetime of the building, we would like to have seen it reach level 5.

6. We welcome the CHP and the potential for this to be used in the future by the neighbouring school, but 11% on site energy generation is lower than the London Plan specifies and leaves future residents exposed to high levels of energy insecurity in a future with dwindling oil supplies and high energy prices.

7. Is there any provision for on site composting of food waste? The volume of waste generated on site will create considerable extra vehicle movements and carbon footprints if it is all to be processed remotely.

8. In the travel plan it mentions the provision of 8 spaces for car club cars – this is to be welcomed, but we would urge that at least some of these are in publicly accessible areas so the wider community can benefit, as suggested, not just in the private car park.

Planning Application: 8b Hilly Fields Crescent

I've received notification of a new planning application for 8b Hilly Fields Crescent. In February last year, the owners were given permission to add an extension to the side of the existing property and to convert it into 5 flats. Now they have come back with a new proposal which involves demolishing the whole building and rebuilding it in a pastiche style, to again provide 5 flats, but a complete new build rather than keeping the existing building:

"The demolition of 8b Hilly fields Crescent SE4 and the construction of a two storey building plus roof space to provide 1 one bedroom, 1 three bedroom and 3 two bedroom self-contained flats with refuse store, communal cycle storage shed and a car parking space in the front garden. "

They have also applied for conservation area permission to demolish the existing building.

Details of both applications can be found online on the Council's Planning Portal. The application and drawings can as always be inspected at Lewisham Library or the planning information office. Any comments should be sent to Planning by 17th April. You can either e-mail planning@lewisham.gov.uk or write to Planning Service, Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, London, SE6 4RU.

Planning Application for New School at Lewisham Bridge

The planning application for the proposed new 3-16 school at the site of the current Lewisham Bridge Primary School has now been submitted and can be found on the Council's planning portal.

The application is for full planning permission for "The redevelopment of Lewisham Bridge Primary School, Elmira Street SE13, to provide a part three/part four storey all-age school (ages 3 -16 years) and a two-storey sports hall, together with landscaping including play areas, provision of 96 cycle spaces and 16 parking spaces."

If you would like to comment on this application please send an email to planning@lewisham.gov.uk including the Application Number (DC/09/70671/X ), your name, address, comment and reason for interest, before 17th February.

Some artist impressions from the developer's application are shown here (as always with artist impressions, they should be treated with caution. The one picture at the bottom makes it look like there will be a grassy path with landscaping leading up to the school, but of course that is the existing Cornmill Gardens and the school itself is in the background.)

I think it will probably go to a strategic planning committee, but just in case it comes to my planning committee, I need to be careful what I say and to keep an open mind at this point about the specifics of the planning application. However a few general thoughts on the proposals:

• It's not an ideal site, but we need a new secondary school and there is no other obvious, well-located site available to the Council within the timescale it needs to deliver a new secondary school (ie a few years ago). In my opinion it is a much better site for a secondary school than the Ladywell Leisure Centre site previously proposed (not on a busy main road, slightly closer to the north of the borough where the need for secondary school places is greatest, very close to public transport hubs).
• It is a small site for a secondary school, but this is inner-city London and unfortunately, we don't have sites with rolling playing fields around here to choose from. Other schools, such as Northbrook and Addey & Stanhope are on similarly constrained sites (I think this site is actually bigger than these two). The current site is arguably under-used, ie the school is big enough for a 3-form entry primary but it has for a number of years only had 1 and a half-form entry.
• Greens, along with the Socialists and other parties, called for a community school, ie one run by the local authority, but this was blocked by education minister Ed Balls, and Mayor Steve Bullock backed down on this rather than put up a fight and further delay the new school. We could argue about the pros and cons of this for ages, but given that there is unfortunately little imminent prospect of a Green or Socialist government, only a neo-liberal government (be it Tory or Labour) which supports acadamies etc, we may just have to accept that as a battle we can't currently win. Prendergast has an established and generally good reputation in the borough and is now conforming to the borough's admissions policy.
  
• Like all the other schools being built under the BSF (Building Schools for the Future) programme, it will be built using PFI (private finance initiative) money, ie on tick and we'll be paying it back over the next 25 years. Not something Greens support, but again, the funding of choice of the current government.
  
• There have been and will be local concerns about the extra pressure on surrounding roads due to the increase in pupil numbers, and the cumulative effect of this, alongside the proposed developments at Loampit Vale, Lewisham Gateway and Thurston Road. This is an issue that the highways officers will have to address when making their recommendations to the planning committee, and the school will need to demonstrate that it has a robust school travel plan which will do everything it can to encourage pupils and staff to walk, cycle or take public transport to school. It is a well-located site, near to cycle routes, buses, the DLR and the train station.
  
• There will be inconvenience to existing pupils, staff and parents while the current school is decanted to the Mornington Centre, but I think the impact of the decant will be considerably less than trying to build the new school in phases with the existing school still on site. A limited number of families and staff will be inconvenienced for a limited amount of time. The constraints that would have been placed on design and construction by trying to build a new school with the existing school on site would, I believe, have resulted in a far inferior design and much greater inconvenience to many. That said, much of my own primary education was spent in portakabin classrooms and between several different sites as the school was being changed, and to be honest, we adapted.
• Not building a new school would mean that many Lewisham children would have to commute outside the borough or to the other end of the borough to get to school, as many already do.
  
• The flipside of this of course if that in reducing a primary school down from 1 and a half-form entry to one-form entry, while at the same time there are plans for hundreds of new homes to be built next door, is that there may well in the future be a shortage of primary school places in central Lewisham.
  
• A number of people have expressed concern about how an all-through school will work, eg if there will be an increase in bullying etc. I'm no expert on this, but it seems to work with public schools, many schools elsewhere in Europe and the site is being designed in 3 distinct zones, with separate play areas and entrances for the nursery, primary and secondary school pupils. I taught at a 6-19 school in Minsk, Belarus, for a year, and it simply wasn't an issue - the younger children had separate play times to the older children, and each would look out for the other in corridors etc.
  
• I went along to the exhibition at Lewisham Bridge School before Christmas, to see the designs for the new school. I went with some trepidation and to be honest was pleasantly surprised with what was being proposed. I thought the designs made good use of the space available. I think we are now on something like the third version of the plans that have been to the design panel, the previous versions having been heavily criticised. I'm told that once the decision to decant rather than build in phases had been made, this freed the architects up to look at the whole site. Whereas earlier incarnations of the plans had considered having air-conditioned classrooms with windows that wouldn't open alongside the railway line, the current plans propose having the sports hall and dining area next to the railway, in a separate building (with covered walkways), which can be opened up for community access out of school hours.
• Off the top of my head I can't remember exactly what percentage of the site the footprint of the buildings comprise, but I did ask at the exhibition and if I recall correctly it was around 50%, ie a fair chunk of the site is ear-marked for outdoor play areas. Not as much as many of us would like, I'm sure, but not as bad as I feared it might be, given the site constraints. There is also the potential for the school to make use of the new leisure centre next door, when it is finally built.
  
• Sustainability issues: from what I have seen of the plans for the school so far, they seem to address sustainability issues much more comprehensively than the schools that have already been built/are being built under the BSF scheme. The applicants seem to be aiming for a BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) excellent rating, which, if achieved, will be no mean feat. You can read the full preliminary BREEAM report here. It's disappointing that grey water recycling doesn't appear to have been incorporated into the plans, but designers seem confident that a substantial percentage of the school's energy needs will be met on site with a combination of solar panels and a biomass boiler.
  
• The Sustainable Development Committee, which I chair, is undertaking an ongoing review of the extent to which the BSF programme is addressing sustainability issues - not just looking at solar panels etc, but also wider issues around how the building meets the needs of the local community etc. We will be looking at the proposals for the new school at our meeting this Wednesday.
• Ladywell Society briefly discussed the new school plans at its meeting last Tuesday, and both Lewisham Central councillor Andrew Milton and I were there. A number of concerns were expressed, but members decided to go away and look at the proposals again in more detail before reaching a firm view either way.
• Biodiversity: efforts will need to be made to relocate the frogs, newts and other wildlife, which my ward colleague, Mike, who built the wildlife garden a few years back, assures me are still living in the wildlife garden. The time to do this is very soon, ie before they lay spawn this Spring.
  

Apologies for the rather long post; I've been mulling this over for a while as I realise it's quite a controversial issue and not everyone in the ward (or within my own party) will agree with the comments I've made here.

Ladywell Lodge Saved from UPVC Attack!

The picture above is of Ladywell Lodge, Dressington Avenue, one of the remaining buildings from the Ladywell Infirmary, part of the Bermondsey Workhouse which occupied a large swathe of land in Ladywell at the beginning of the last century ( the whole area where Dressington Avenue, Slagrove Place etc are now). It's Council-owned and comes under the Brockley PFI housing area (part of it is residential and the rest is Abbey Manor College).

It's not in a conservation area and so, in accordance with the terms of their contract, Regenter B3 applied to replace the existing wooden sash windows with UPVC ones. Residents, Ladywell Society and Ute and I all objected on the grounds that it was a historically and architecturally important local building and that the UPVC windows would be out of keeping.

I'm delighted to have learnt today that Lewisham Planning agreed with us and have turned the application down on the following grounds:

"the windows proposed, by reason of their material, would be inappropriate to the appearance of the building and would fail to respect the period and architectural characteristics of the building, contrary to Policies URB 3 Urban Design and URB 6 Alterations and Extensions in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)".

Personally, I think the building may be a candidate for listing by English Heritage, though I imagine it has been altered quite significantly inside.

So another small victory in the ongoing battle led by Ladywell Society and leaseholders against UPVCisation of Ladywell by Lewisham Council. The leaseholders I've had contact with in the building are delighted. The downside is that the work that will now be carried out to these properties as part of the Brockley PFI Decent Homes programme will not achieve as high standards of thermal efficiency as other properties in the PFI area.

This isn't because it is impossible, or against planning law etc, but because it costs more and the limitations of the PFI contract as agreed between Lewisham and Regenter B3 mean that residents in Victorian properties in the conservation area and properties such as this are only getting their windows over-hauled and draught-proofed, not wooden framed double glazing as they could get. As in most cases they are solid brick walls, not cavity, they are also not getting wall insulation, so besides loft insulation, the improvements the Council is making to the thermal efficiency of these homes, is pretty minimal compared to others in the PFI programme.

It is shocking that in the 1500-page PFI contract, so little attention was paid to how to improve the thermal efficiency of the conservation area and Victorian properties, which form a significant part of the PFI area. I think the Council needs to look again at this, and consider whether it could installing wooden-framed double glazing or at the very least secondary glazing for these homes over the next few years, and, when homes are redecorated or relet, installing internal wall insulation to bring them up to reasonable standards of energy efficiency.

Better still, these issues need to be taken on board at a regional level, by the Mayor of London, and at a national level, by the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Energy. By all means start with a programme to roll out free cavity wall and loft insulation to all those homes that can have it - it would achieve the biggest bang for your buck in the short term (Green Party policy, not yet government policy), but we also need to start thinking about the 40% or so of London homes that are solid wall Victorian properties - more of a challenge, but key to reducing London's carbon emissions. So if you happen to be reading this, Ed Milliband, I suspect the conservation area tenants in Brockley PFI would love to be in a pilot scheme for improving the thermal efficiency of Victorian Conservation Area Council housing . . .

Paving over front gardens now needs planning permission

Been meaning to flag this up for a couple of weeks:

Thanks to the work of Brockley councillor and London Assembly member Darren Johnson and other members of the London Assembly Environment committee, as of 1st October, planning permission is now needed for paving front gardens. The new planning laws respond to calls in the Crazy Paving report for legislation to control the number of concrete-covered gardens in London.

Paving over front gardens can cause drainage problems and flooding problems, has a detrimental impact on the environment and very often looks hideous. The report estimated that green space equivalent to the size of 22 Hyde Parks had been lost as a result of people paving over their front gardens, so it's great that the government responded to these concerns and passed this legislation.

Loampit Vale Planning Application

The application for Loampit Vale has now been submitted to Planning. This is a major application adjacent to Ladywell ward and likely therefore to have a significant impact on residents in nearby streets, so I thought I would flag it up so you can find out more and send any comments you wish on this to planning. You can see the application here. The developers also have a website.

It is for "The comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the land on the South Side of Loampit Vale, SE13 7DJ between the two railway bridges, either side of Elmira Street and north of Vian Street and Cornmill Gardens as follows: Eight buildings ranging in height from 5 to 22 storeys 819 residential flats A leisure centre (including a swimming pool) (D2) Replacement facilities for the existing London City Mission (D1) Shops, Financial/Professional Services and Business space (A1, A2 and B1) (approx. 1,670m², including Business space for 'Creative Industries' of approx. 620m²) Public and private open space 201 car parking spaces, 893 cycle spaces and 20 motorcycle spaces An energy centre Associated highway works."

Previous posts on this.

Sustainable Communities Act - making it work for us

The Sustainable Communities Act is the result of a determined 5-year campaign by a wide number of organisations, ranging from Friends of the Earth, trade unions, the Women’s Institute, Shelter and the Black Environment Network to the Countryside Alliance. Together they made up the Local Works Campaign.

Significantly, it’s the first piece of legislation that is specifically designed to be bottom up rather than top down. ie local communities can use it to tell Councils what they want, Councils tell the Local Government Association (LGA) and the government then has an obligation to work with the LGA to try and reach consensus. So this most definitely isn’t another piece of legislation imposed on us from the government, but a tool for us to use to make the government act on our concerns. But we do of course need to use it.

Theoretically, we can use this new law to find ways to halt the decline of some of our smaller shopping parades, to save post offices and pubs or prevent yet more betting shops, take aways and supermarkets from opening and draining money from the local economy. It could be used to make sure any new developments help to make our community more sustainable and better equipped to cope with the challenges of a transition towards a zero-carbon society, not ever more at the mercy of a globalised economy.

The challenge of course, is to make sure that local people are aware that this legislation exists and how to use it. Councils are also required to opt in to it. Tonight I am proposing a motion at Full Council calling on the Mayor to instruct officers to take the necessary action for the council to opt in to the Act, and to set out how he will convene the citizens' panels with which the Council must agree which proposals to present to government. I imagine this panel will somehow fit in with (and maybe give some teeth to) the existing ward assemblies. Given that the bill received cross-party support during its passage through parliament, I'm not anticipating much opposition to the motion, but am keen to use it to highlight locally the new legislation and the powers it brings.

I am also organising a public meeting in the town hall on Wednesday 29th October, with Steve Shaw from the Local Works campaign, to talk about how communities can use the act to protect their community from unwanted developments or to push to make it more sustainable in some way. The Deputy Mayor has also kindly agreed to come along and talk about how Lewisham Council plans to use the new legislation. The meeting is in the Council Chamber at 7.30pm. All are welcome. If you wish, you can also sign up to the Facebook Event which will help us to get an idea of numbers.

Loampit Vale Development

Nicked this from Lewisham Central councillor Andrew Milton's blog: a website has been set up by the developers behind the Loampit Vale development (new leisure centre and housing on the corner of Elmira Street/Loampit Vale. They are asking for your views, prior to the planning application being submitted (which is much better than asking after the planning application has been submitted) and they are also organising a public exhibition in mid-May, details to be confirmed. This development will potentially have a significant impact on parts of Ladywell ward (particularly Ellerdale Road, Marsala Road and I am keen to see what they are proposing in terms of highways and parking, as well as affordable housing provision, the sustainability aspect and of course the pool itself.

4 Somerset Gardens: Planning application and Listed Building Consent

Applications have been submitted for the conversion of 4 Somerset Gardens into flats and also for listed building consent for the work. I can't picture which house that is and didn't know it was a listed building, so will pop and take a look at some point. Anyway, details below for those interested:

DC 08/68485
The alteration and conversion of 4 Somerset Gardens SE13, together with the construction of a single storey extension to the rear at basement level and the provision of new window openings at basement level on the front and side elevations and a lightwell at the front to provide 1, two bedroom self-contained flat and 1, three bedroom self-contained maisonette" and also .

DC 08/68663
Listed Building Consent for the alteration and conversion of 4 Somerset Gardens SE13, together with the construction of a single storey extension to the rear at basement level and the provision of new window openings at basement level on the front and side elevations of the building and a lightwell at the front, to provide 1 two bedroom self-contained flat and 1 three bedroom self-contained maisonette.