St Philip Neri school redevelopment

[JRW]

Planning permission refused, announced today on planning website. This is for Ref. No: DC/18/108169 application made July 2018 for the exterior finish of the hall block, the second phase of building.

[JRW]

R E A S O N (S) F O R R E F U S A L
1. The submitted details are not adequate to fulfill the requirements of Condition 8(a),
failing to provide samples of the timber cladding to demonstrate the high standard and
detailing of materials required by Condition 8, and therefore contrary to Policies 15
High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and Development
Management Local Plan (November 2014) DM Policy 30 Urban design and local
character.
I N F O R M A T I V E S
A. The applicant is advised that the following conditions are still to be discharged:
(4) Site Contamination
(6) BREEAM
(8) External Materials
(14) Travel Plan
Yours sincerely
Vivian Evans
Head of Planning

[JRW]

OLSPN Boundary Treatment application refused today

Decision notice states:

Development: The construction of boundary treatment with a maximum height of
3m at Our Lady and St Philip Neri RC Primary School, 208
Sydenham Road, SE26, together with the construction of boundary
treatment to the MUGA

RE A S O N (S) F O R R E F U S A L
1. The proposed boundary treatments on the southern and south-western boundaries of
the site, would by reason by of their height and appearance, result in an overly
dominant and unneighbourly addition when viewed from the residential properties on
Fairlawn Park and Fairlawn Close, contrary to Policies 15 High quality design for
Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and Development Management Local
Plan (November 2014) DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character.

[JRW]

Public Consultation / Revised Design Proposals at Our Lady & St Philip Neri School
Posted on 27. Jan, 2019 by Syd Soc in Community, Conservation, events, Local history

Following meetings with the school governors and Lewisham Council, the proposed external design of the school has been further developed and improved. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark wish to invite the school’s neighbours and the public to view and comment on these designs at a meeting in the school hall from 5pm to 7.30pm on Thursday 31 January 2019. To be held at Our Lady and St Philip Neri Catholic Primary School, 208 Sydenham Road SE26 5SE. 0208 778 4386.

Large scale drawings will be on display showing these designs along with samples to show the finish and texture of the proposed external materials. Comments and observations are invited and these will be considered in the final design before it is submitted to Lewisham’s planning department.

Representatives from the diocese and the school will be present along with those from the architect, contractor and project manager who can answer questions on the design and also on the remaining works and programme to complete the construction. There will be an opportunity for an internal tour to see the nursery, classrooms, music room and other facilities in the new school.

[stuart]

Thanks JRW,

I'll try and get down there - but if not can you take some photos so everyone can share and comment on the plan?
PM me if you need help posting them

Stuart

[JRW]

Hi Stuart,

The point of the meeting is to give the developers feedback directly and ask questions before plans are formally submitted. Discussing it here will mean your points aren't recorded or considered, so please try and make it.

I will ask them to leave large-scale plans at the library, which would allow for everyone to check them out and fill in a form. No idea if they will say yes, but I will certainly try. For me, the larger scale hard copies make plans far easier to understand, rather than shuffling it around a screen.

[JRW]

Just a reminder that the St Philip Neri school consultation meeting is today, 5pm to 7.30pm.

[stuart]

For those who couldn't get down there tonuight here is an artist's impression of the existing v proposed. Existing is on the left in case you are confused. The main changes are:

1) Grey cladding is replace with grey cladding (textured)
2) Window bars are black not white
3) Black recesses between the three roofs to break it up a bit
4) From the side the roofline is broken to break it up a bit.

That's about it folks. If planning swallow this it could be done done summer hols.



Lipstick on pigs comes to mind. Compare the above with the realtively new build opposite. It is also three storey has about the same frontage and is 'right on the road'. But just using brick it folds back into the streetscape. Bland but not offensive. I like non-bland but they have to be iconic to succeed.

[JGD]

Lipstick on pigs comes to mind. Compare the above with the realtively new build opposite. It is also three storey has about the same frontage and is 'right on the road'. But just using brick it folds back into the streetscape.

Good summary Stuart.

Are these images an accurate reflection of what is being proposed for approval by the council ?

How are the black bars and black recesses to be achieved - a coat of black paint perhaps ?

And what brand of invisible paint is to be applied to mask the circa 1 metre over height issue ?

So many unanswered questions.

And a presentation of a picture of wholesale inadequacy in what remains a major planning breach.

[stuart]

How are the black bars and black recesses to be achieved - a coat of black paint perhaps ?

The guy said the windows would receive an electrostatic coating. Good for 30+ years or your money back. The black recesses would have the current cladding removed to reveal a deeper recess which would have black casellated effect. I didn't think of taking a picture of that. I believe JRW was going to ask if the displays might be moved to the Library. That would be good. I guess she will passing by soon.

The real problem is that the original design was unbuildable. The developers then cut corners. Indigo appear to be more interested in gaining planning permission by reducing the deviances from the original which are feasible, many are not. So that's going to be a bit of a dog's breakfast.

Rather than forgetting the plan that didn't work - it may have been better for the community taking what they have and try and make it more attractive by other means. 'You know like going for 'Green' walls. There is a green roof but that's strictly for the birds.

I'm not optimistic.

Stuart

[JGD]

Rather than forgetting the plan that didn't work - it may have been better for the community taking what they have and try and make it more attractive by other means. 'You know like going for 'Green' walls. There is a green roof but that's strictly for the birds.

I'm not optimistic.

I recall asking Viv Evans at the library meeting in 2018 about his views on whether he could recall any occasion in the UK where a school or public building, found to be in breach, had been subject to a demolition order or a substantive partial rebuild. i believe he said he could recall none.

So compromise will almost certainly be the precedent.

It will be the degree of compromise that his department will find acceptable that will determine which way this goes. I believe JRW has published decision notices where the council has rejected the most recent applications - which may or may not reflect the departments mind-set on this issue.

It would be interesting to know who decreed the original design was unbuildable - and which of the parties concurred with that view = builder and/or architect ?

[JRW]

The designs have not been left at the library, despite my having asked for them to be made available. I want to look over them all carefully before giving my feedback, and no handouts were available, either at the meeting or online. I will chase this on Monday.

[Growsydenham]

Whoever decided it would be a good idea to further this campaign by tweeting at the Pope (!) from the Sydenham Gasworks twitter account (@sgasworks) needs to think again. It's quite inappropriate to try and make this into some sort of religious matter.

[Jollylolly]

Yes that’s not cool and really just verging on the ridiculous.

[JGD]

Whoever decided it would be a good idea to further this campaign by tweeting at the Pope (!) from the Sydenham Gasworks twitter account (@sgasworks) needs to think again. It's quite inappropriate to try and make this into some sort of religious matter.

Agreed.

If one takes the time to look at the content and style of the tweets, they are comparable to those of a frequent contributor on this forum.

An on-line blog has also been created by what looks like the same style and content and thereby may be that same person:

https://sydenhamgasworks.home.blog/

Its contents are not entirely accurate and some are significantly out of date.

Furthermore any body or authority with whom the author does not agree, attracts some very personalised opprobrium and condemnation for perceived failures. And the measure of failure can sometimes be to not fully concur with the author's expressed views whether they be accurate or not. This is an example of both an out-of-date comment and unwarranted criticism. The Mayor is subject of more direct criticism in other musings for his perceived failures across many subject matters. Given the short duration of his tenure and the lengthy time his predecessor sat in office, it seems disproportionate to heap all the blame on the current incumbent.

Failure to enforce
Since the 1990s, Lewisham Council has failed to enforce planning conditions at Bell Green, and the failure is compounded by the Council’s own reluctance to account for Section 106 money received. Until we have a proper audit of this fiasco of a redevelopment, we can only assume that Damien Egan, elected Mayor and holder of the Lewisham regeneration and planning briefs, doesn’t have a clue where our money has gone.

[stuart]

If one takes the time to look at the content and style of the tweets, they are comparable to those of a frequent contributor on this forum.
An on-line blog has also been created by what looks like the same style and content and thereby may be that same person:
https://sydenhamgasworks.home.blog/

I'm sure you must be wrong JGD. Reading the blog - It implies it is the Sydenham Society "The Sydenham Society .... we" etc (not an individual). It might help if SydSoc could confirm it so putting your mind at rest that it could not be a sockpuppet or similar.

Bit odd the sgasworks twitter account coupling the Pontiff with Boris Johnson's erection, oops!

Stuart

[JGD]

Bit odd the sgasworks twitter account coupling the Pontiff with Boris Johnson's erection, oops!

Gently Stuart

"Coupling" in any context with BoJo included may lead towards an exposure to his lawyers being in touch.

He really should exercise a modicum of abstinence if not celibacy and try to keep it in his trousers.

[admin]

Please keep on subject, posters. I'd rather not move this to the Pub.

admin

[milton]

I knew that site when it was just a huge hole in the ground after bomb clearance, I got into that hole at the age of 4 and had to be rescued by a passer by.

Make of that bit of trivia what you will, kids playing in the street these days, far more dangerous than a bombsite.

Bombsite were always covered with purple Buddliea bushes for some reason, innit funny the wierd random stuff that comes into an elderly head.

Just had to share that with you all.

[GLOBAL THINKER]

Any news on when the proposed changes to the exterior will commence?