Alfred Pub

[TredownMan]

A baffling decision. Lewisham Council has rejected a proposal to build five, two-bedroom flats above and around the Alfred Pub.

The plan proposed a three-story side-infill and a mansard roof.

The rejection - http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... 637222.pdf - says the proposed mansard would be an "congruous, unsympathetic and visually intrusive addition".

The original designs are here [url]file:///Users/user/Desktop/DC_17_103676-PROPOSED_ELEVATIONS-632314.pdf[/url].

Increasing density by building above shops and increasing the height of buildings is one of the most effective, low-impact ways of increasing the housing stock. But clearly the aesthetics of an unremarkable pub on a main road in south London are more important than homes.

[stuart]

Both links are not working for me. Is it possible to post an elevation or artist's impression so we can grasp the impact or not of the proposal. Also is it likely to go to appeal and what, if any, is the the view of SydSoc?

Stuart

[Pat Trembath]

The Sydenham Society did not make any comments to Lewisham about this application, although it was discussed. However our feeling was that it was over-development and we have no problem with the decision to refuse for the reasons given - see below:

R E A S O N (S) F O R R E F U S A L
1. The proposed mansard roof extension, by reason of its siting, scale, design and
appearance, would be an incongruous, unsympathetic and visually intrusive addition
harmful to the appearance and character of the host property, existing terrace row on
Kent House Road and the wider streetscene, contrary to Policies 7.4 Local character
and 7.6 Architecture of the London Plan (March 2016), Policy 15 High quality design for
Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and DM Policies 30 Urban design
and local character, 31 Alterations/extensions to existing buildings and 33
Development on infill sites, backland sites, back gardens and amenity areas of the
Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) and paragraph 6.7 of the
Residential Standards SPD (2006 updated May 2012).

I N F O R M A T I V E S
A. The Council engages with all applicants in a positive and proactive way through
specific pre-application enquiries and the detailed advice available on the Council’s
website. On this particular application, pre-application advice was sought and advice
was given regarding the mansard roof extension being unacceptable. Concerns were
also raised regarding the impact on Highways during the course of the application, but
no additional information was submitted by the applicant in response to this.

It would appear that the developer sought planning advice, was given it, but chose not to take notice

[Mayowthorpe]

The Sydenham Society did not make any comments to Lewisham about this application, although it was discussed. However our feeling was that it was over-development and we have no problem with the decision to refuse for the reasons given - see below:

R E A S O N (S) F O R R E F U S A L
1. The proposed mansard roof extension, by reason of its siting, scale, design and
appearance, would be an incongruous, unsympathetic and visually intrusive addition
harmful to the appearance and character of the host property, existing terrace row on
Kent House Road and the wider streetscene, contrary to Policies 7.4 Local character
and 7.6 Architecture of the London Plan (March 2016), Policy 15 High quality design for
Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and DM Policies 30 Urban design
and local character, 31 Alterations/extensions to existing buildings and 33
Development on infill sites, backland sites, back gardens and amenity areas of the
Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) and paragraph 6.7 of the
Residential Standards SPD (2006 updated May 2012).

I N F O R M A T I V E S
A. The Council engages with all applicants in a positive and proactive way through
specific pre-application enquiries and the detailed advice available on the Council’s
website. On this particular application, pre-application advice was sought and advice
was given regarding the mansard roof extension being unacceptable. Concerns were
also raised regarding the impact on Highways during the course of the application, but
no additional information was submitted by the applicant in response to this.

It would appear that the developer sought planning advice, was given it, but chose not to take notice

Thats unusual for The Society not to make an objection. Were you and Chris away or sick at the time?

[stuart]

Thats unusual for The Society not to make an objection. Were you and Chris away or sick at the time?

A bit harsh. T'is the season of goodwill. Even possibly to Town Planners.

Stuart

[TredownMan]

Madness. Sydenham needs more flats and houses!

[TredownMan]

...indeed - sky-high prices and over-occupation is precisely what you get when you don’t build enough houses for Sydenham’s population (good news for those who bought big houses decades ago)

[TredownMan]

.

[prince]

A baffling decision. Lewisham Council has rejected a proposal to build five, two-bedroom flats above and around the Alfred Pub.

The plan proposed a three-story side-infill and a mansard roof.

The rejection - http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... 637222.pdf - says the proposed mansard would be an "congruous, unsympathetic and visually intrusive addition".

The original designs are here [url]file:///Users/user/Desktop/DC_17_103676-PROPOSED_ELEVATIONS-632314.pdf[/url].

Increasing density by building above shops and increasing the height of buildings is one of the most effective, low-impact ways of increasing the housing stock. But clearly the aesthetics of an unremarkable pub on a main road in south London are more important than homes.

Hi,

I expect that they will revert to their earlier planning consent which was granted in June last year.

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_87843