The Woodman

[ALIB]

This is one picture i have of the interior and furnishings. (why do i have this stuif ?). Probably around 2009 and taken in the evening on a quiet night.

The interior was mostly a lovely dark aged wood. Absolutely gorgeous.

Who knows what it is now,. . . . .

[Austin77]

I think the exterior on the whole looks fantastic in comparison to how it used to be, a real positive for kirkdale! Would I prefer it as a decent local pub....probably but as lee mentioned of its not viable as one then I'd much prefer a classy looking estate agents than an unsightly boarded up building! I find it so strange why some people want to make things difficult for local businesses, they truly are the life blood of the local community.

As for the kirkdale village initiative; I've been to a few of the meetings and I get the impression it's partly driven by an employee of Wooster and stock that lives in and loves the area and like many of us wants kirkdale to prosper!

Please do try to be a bit more positive people!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[bag lady]

I think the building looks beautiful and wooster and stock have served it well, i'd love it to continue to have been a pub, as i was party to drinking it dry on it's final days i know that's over.

I'm a bit annoyed i can't spy through the windows to see what their up to though.

[Tim Lund]

I think the exterior on the whole looks fantastic in comparison to how it used to be, a real positive for kirkdale! Would I prefer it as a decent local pub....probably but as lee mentioned of its not viable as one then I'd much prefer a classy looking estate agents than an unsightly boarded up building! I find it so strange why some people want to make things difficult for local businesses, they truly are the life blood of the local community.

As for the kirkdale village initiative; I've been to a few of the meetings and I get the impression it's partly driven by an employee of Wooster and stock that lives in and loves the area and like many of us wants kirkdale to prosper!

Please do try to be a bit more positive people!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Welcome to the Forum, Austin77. Hopefully we can meet up at a future Kirkdale Village meeting. I'll PM you with some relevant links.

[ALIB]

As others have stated (including myself), the exterior is a vast improvement.

The issue is not following due process. I bet if W&S had retained that disgusting orange exterior paint, there would be uproar.
If they followed the Planning Process there would be no issue. But we just don't know what they are doing/intending to do with the interior.

Interestingly, there is a plaque on the Halifax St wall of the Woodman proclaiming it is part of a Conservation area

[ALIB]

[biscuitman1978]

If they followed the Planning Process there would be no issue. But we just don't know what they are doing/intending to do with the interior.

Do bear in mind that unless the building is statutorily listed there will be no need for any planning consents for internal modifications.

Sorry Lee, but what it might have cost W&S in terms of money is really beside the point. They didn't have planning permission to do this.

The first application related solely to the signage. There were 7 formal objections. This was Lewisham's verdict ...

Refused
Conditions or Reasons: The proposed signage alterations would have a negative impact on the host building and the Halifax Street Conservation Area as "The Woodman", located on a prominent corner in the Halifax Street Conservation Area acts as a local landmark in the Upper Sydenham area. The proposal fails to preserve or enhance the Halifax Street Conservation Area as required by government, London Plan and Lewisham policies, contrary to Objective 10: Protect & Enhance Lewisham's Character, Policy 15: High Quality Design for Lewisham & Policy 16: Conservation Areas, Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment of the Local Development Framework - Core Strategy (June 2011) and saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 8 Shopfronts, URB 9 Signs and Hoardings & URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004), and Policy 7.4 Local Character, Policy 7.6 Architecture and Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets & Archaeology of The London Plan (July 2011).
Informative notes: The Council would be prepared to consider a further application that preserves the high-level "The Woodman" sign on the Kirkdale elevation, and provides the "Wooster & Stock" name plate at ground floor fascia level on the Kirkdale frontage. The second sign for "The Woodman" on the Halifax Street elevation should also be retained.
Appeal Received Date: This case has no appeals against it

As far as I am aware, no "further application" relating to this was received by Lewisham. Certainly no other planning notice appeared.

The only other application for The Woodman itself (rather than the old stables and garden) was for:

The change of use of the ground floor of the former Woodman Public House, 110 Kirkdale SE26, to an Estate Agency (Use Class A2) with storage in the basement, together with alterations to the elevations including lower window cills and replacement glazing to the existing ground floor arched windows and replacement entrance door on the Kirkdale elevation with a window to match and refurbishment and repainting of the exterior.

There were 10 formal objections from members of the public, plus an objection from the Sydenham Society. Lewisham's decision on that application was:

Refused
Conditions or Reasons: The proposed alterations would have a significant and deleterious impact on the appearance of this historic building, which is an important historic asset on a prominent corner in the Halifax Street Conservation Area and would fail to preserve or enhance the Halifax Street Conservation Area as required by government, London Plan and Lewisham policies, contrary to Objective 10: Protect & Enhance Lewisham's Character, Policy 15: High Quality Design for Lewisham & Policy 16: Conservation Areas, Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment of the Local Development Framework - Core Strategy (June 2011) and saved policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 16 New Development, Changes of Use and Alterations to Buildings in Conservation Areas of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004), and Policy 7.4 Local Character, Policy 7.6 Architecture and Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets & Archaeology of The London Plan (July 2011).
Informative notes: There are no informative notes
Appeal Received Date: This case has no appeals against it

Just to be clear, the first application was for advertising consent, not an application for planning permission. But regardless of the type of application, I am a little surprised that W&S did not submit a new application for the signage which now appears on the building.

As for the second application (in this case for planning permission), does anyone know why an application was even submitted (and why it was registered by the Council)? I ask because:
- Change of use from a pub to an estate agent doesn't require planning permission (unless permitted development rights have been withdrawn)
- Installation of new windows and doors doesn't typically require planning permission
- Painting doesn't require planning permission

I haven't had an opportunity to look at this in great detail, so there may be a good reason why an application was submitted, but it's possible that W&S came to the conclusion that they didn't actually need planning permission.

[owlwise]

MaryMcK, is this the previous Woodman decor you were referring to?

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2326/2265 ... 1aee_z.jpg

[leenewham]

I have to say that the new building FAR looks better than both the previous pictures shown, as does the signage. Infact everyone I've spoken to has said the same.

[marymck]

MaryMcK, is this the previous Woodman decor you were referring to?

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2326/2265 ... 1aee_z.jpg

Yes it is - thanks so much for finding and posting that Owlwise. Do you know how we can get the image itself to appear in the post? I've tried, but it's beyond me.

I have to say that the new building FAR looks better than both the previous pictures shown, as does the signage. Infact everyone I've spoken to has said the same.

Well that is just a matter of opinion Lee. Because everyone I've spoken to likes the older, friendly, warmer and more welcoming look of the building as in the picture Owlwise has kindly posted. I think that style is FAR, FAR more welcoming and therefore better.

How nice too to have the benches outside. I know there's a car in the old picture, but the pavement in front of The Woodman is only used for parking now and is quite a hazard to walk along, especially if it's dark and raining. I think we need some bollards to stop that sort of parking ... and thereby protect the ankles of pedestrians ... the sort of bollards that have been installed at the entrance to Thorpewood would do nicely.

I shall write to the Council with the suggestion.

[marymck]

As for the second application (in this case for planning permission), does anyone know why an application was even submitted (and why it was registered by the Council)? I ask because:
- Change of use from a pub to an estate agent doesn't require planning permission (unless permitted development rights have been withdrawn)
- Installation of new windows and doors doesn't typically require planning permission
- Painting doesn't require planning permission

I haven't had an opportunity to look at this in great detail, so there may be a good reason why an application was submitted, but it's possible that W&S came to the conclusion that they didn't actually need planning permission.

The Woodman is in the Conservation Area and therefore any external changes - including signage - require Planning Permission for external alterations. The other Planning Application also concerned a change to the number of flats on the first floor - again that requires Planning Permission. Quite rightly, W&S submitted planning applications in the first instance.

It is my understanding that,having had their applications refusced, they had told Planners they would submit revised Planning Applications. This they have not done.

Incidentally, I recently attended a workshop run by Lewisham Planning. The loss of public houses in the Borough was a major topic of discussion and was of concern to the officials present, especially - but by no means only - because of the loss of function rooms.

[ALIB]

like this

[marymck]

Thank you Alib!

It looks like a proper pub! I love you picture of the interior as well.

Sadly, the teal colour wasn't very welcoming. Nor in fact was there much of a welcome inside the pub, under its last landlord/lady. I do know that lots of pubs struggle now because they're owned by property companies, rather than breweries, and the landlord/lady usually only gets a very short lease. If they manage to make a success of things in a short period, then the cost of the lease rockets when it comes up for renewal after as little as two years.

But that's a discussion for elsewhere. I accept The Woodman is lost to property developers ... at least for the foreseeable future.

[leenewham]

They have restored the tiles.

The sign is a little different, but it still says the Woodman in a similar style of raised type which is in silver instead of gold. The original letting and signage isn't of great quality, nor is it really old. I guess it's rom the 80's or 70's at the earliest.

The colours it's painted are darker but I think are more fitting.

The naff lights have gone but could be put back if it ever becomes a pub again and these are not original features.

The window are the same but they have a removable film on the back which is reflective.

Infact pretty much everything they have done is reversable.

I'm sure there is someone out there that prefers the way Billings used to look before we designed it.

Why hasn't there been an outcry over the awful signage at the Golden Lion which is far worse than the change here? Was there a similar outcry at the changes to the Dolphin because it no longer looked like an old pub but a smart gastro pub?

My guess is because they weren't changes by an estate agents and the issues are more to do with people not liking Wooster & Stock.

Perhaps we should have a poll, who thinks the woodsman looks better in the latest image or the image where all the tiles are painted cream and it has fake 18th century coach lights from a 1970's bungalow outside it?

I think we should let this lie. If I were a business thinking of setting up in Sydenham and were reading this forum I'd be scared of doing anything to any shop around here. And it has been mentioned to me.

Sorry Mary, I'm not letting go on this one…forgive me

[14BradfordRoad]

The proof will surely be in the drinking.. Hic!!

[biscuitman1978]

As for the second application (in this case for planning permission), does anyone know why an application was even submitted (and why it was registered by the Council)? I ask because:
- Change of use from a pub to an estate agent doesn't require planning permission (unless permitted development rights have been withdrawn)
- Installation of new windows and doors doesn't typically require planning permission
- Painting doesn't require planning permission

I haven't had an opportunity to look at this in great detail, so there may be a good reason why an application was submitted, but it's possible that W&S came to the conclusion that they didn't actually need planning permission.

The Woodman is in the Conservation Area and therefore any external changes - including signage - require Planning Permission for external alterations. The other Planning Application also concerned a change to the number of flats on the first floor - again that requires Planning Permission. Quite rightly, W&S submitted planning applications in the first instance.

It is my understanding that,having had their applications refusced, they had told Planners they would submit revised Planning Applications. This they have not done.

I think the first application (for advertisement consent) was submitted because that consent was required for the proposed signage regardless of the building's location in a conservation area. That said, the fact that a proposed sign is in a conservation area can be taken into account in making a decision on any application for advertisement consent. Like you I'm surprised that no new application was submitted.

Turning to the second application, it’s true that various 'permitted development rights' allowing you to do make a number of minor changes to individual houses, including painting, have been specifically withdrawn in this conservation area (by an 'Article 4 direction').

However, this clearly isn’t a house, and one of the few things you are allowed to do without permission to commercial buildings such as this is paint them. As far as I can see from the Council’s website, no additional direction has been imposed restricting the right to paint this building.

As for change of use from pub to estate agent, I’m not aware of any direction that’s been imposed on this building removing the right to make that change.

In terms of the replacement doors and windows and other changes to the elevations, I find it difficult to see how they are materially different to what was there previously, hence I struggle to see why permission was required. (I accept that I am drawing this conclusion based solely on the photos provided earlier on this thread.)

You also refer to flats, which appear to be new self-contained flats, whereas the previous flat above was ancillary to the pub. Arguably this did require planning permission, although (a) it's not mentioned in the description of development, and (b) I'm not sure what bearing this has on the external appearance (which I think is your key concern).

All that said, given that the Council registered and then refused the previous application, I’m a little surprised that a new application wasn’t submitted.

[marymck]

Sorry Lee, but I'm not letting go either. This is my local patch and if that's nimby so be it. If everyone adopted a so called nimby attitude we'd have a much more attractive environment.

The pubs you cite as just that. Pubs. Whilst I do think W&S are adopting a sort of take over on my street and giving it a pathetically embarrassing name in the process, I don't approve of anyone riding roughshod over the planning process.

The only good thing they've done is restore some of the tiles. Shame the painted over some others.

I'm delighted to hear from your post that the changes to the windows are reversible and hope that will be don't without delay.

Tacky beyond belief is my verdict.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

The window are the same but they have a removable film on the back which is reflective.

Infact pretty much everything they have done is reversable.

The stuff stuck to the windows is called aluminium white gold. It's intended to be permanent, but w&s say they may consider removing it if the council support their future planning applications.

I don't know if it's possible to remove without damaging the old glass.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

I have to admit I"ve never heard of 'aluminium white gold'. I presume it is a form of gold leaf, if so. like vinyl, it's intended to be permanent. It's expensive, which is one reason why I'm surprised that they have used such a thing. I personally don't mind it, but I don't understand why they did it in the first place. It will make it dark inside and surely they want people to be able to see the interior. I'd actually like to know why they wanted to do it in the first place.

If it is like gold leaf or vinyl, it is removable without damaging the glass. Various things will remove it. If they have added another film over the back of it or a laquer, then it's more difficult.

I still think it looks great, more and more every time I see it. I wish more businesses in Sydenham took this lead and made their businesses look as good as The Woodman does today.

[ALIB]

i have to throw my tuppence (for what it's worth) into the fray.

I think Forums like this are useful discussion points for new developments. Sometimes the praising comments get lost in the critiques, but overall are well-intended.

Taking the Woodman as an example, ....would anyone really have been happy with orange tiles on the exterior ? They looked horrendous, and I give Wooster and Stock praise for un-doing those works.

I don't know if STF played any part in the back-lash over the orange paint, and the subsequent restoration of the exterior tiles.

However, i do agree with Lee that what we are left with ATM is a great looking building. Hopefully the interior will match.

Internet Forums have a part to play in gauging opinions