- Where a building is statutorily listed, listed building consent is required for the demolition, alteration or extension of that building.
- Where a building is locally listed, Listed Building Consent is not required for the demolition, alteration or extension of that building. However, if planning permission is required for those works, the local planning authority will as far as possible seek to protect the character and setting of the building in making its decision on the planning application.
- Regardless of whether a building is listed, if it is located within a conservation area, conservation area consent is required to demolish it if it has a volume of more than 115 cubic metres. In addition, the location of a building in a conservation area may be taken into account in making a decision on any application for planning permission to which it is subject.
NB The above is only a brief summary and advice should always be sought from the local planning authority and/or a chartered town planner (member of the Royal Town Planning Institute) or conservation specialist (member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation) before undertaking any works on listed buildings or buildings in conservation areas.
Urgent site visit required and enforcement action required, too, if planning regs are found to have been ignored
But does Lewisham have enough enforcement officers? In an earlier thread "Ban Estate Agents Boards from the High Street" I suggested that we suffered this plague because the Council didn't see enforcement as a priority. There are, after all, many other claims on its budget - schools, care of the elderly, housing, etc.
And should those enforcement officers that Lewisham do still have be prioritising this possible infringement of Conservation Area planning regs, or banning Estate Agents Boards from the High Street?
Surely a letter telling Estate Agents telling them the rule of 14 days is set in stone should suffice? How long does a letter take? I E.Mailed one Estate Agent as I said in an earlier post,and it was removed within 24 hours as they promised,so perhaps we all could help with this problem by E.Mailing the Estate Agents direct.
My personal opnion is that the current exterior decor is an improvement.
My main concern is the way Wooster and Stock (a supposedly reputable Estate Agent, and joint founder of The Kirkdale Village initiative) has totally ignored local feeling regarding the building, and more importantly, seems to have ignored Planning Procedure. For an Estate Agent that is very bad PR, to put it mildly. And extremely bad practice......
And don't get me started about their Planning Application to put a house in what was the (small) beer garden to the rear
Agree the appearance of the building overall is a great improvement on the original.
It could have looked different to this. Bear in mind that W&S took note of the outcry when they tried to paint the glazed tiling corporate orange and Lewisham's Conservation officers were alerted. The mirrored windows detract from what could be a beautifully restored building (albeit no longer a pub) - and we still await to see what treatment is being given to the door...
the windows, and frames and metalwork seem to be the original, just with some silver backing. When you look up close you can see it's not really a professional job at all. In fact it looks exceedingly poor when up close.
Then again, it could be just a temporary measure to deter break-ins
Last edited by ALIB on 10 Jun 2012 12:50, edited 1 time in total.
I regret that W&S have painted over the tiles below the arched windows.
Most of all I regret their blatant disregard of public opinion and of the rulings of the Lewisham Planning Authority.
I think the mirrored windows are tacky and tasteless and completely out of keeping with the importance of this building both as part of the Conservation Area and on a prominent position at the entrance to Sydenham. What happened to the old glass? Have they just covered it over & can it be restored? What happened to the lanterns? Albeit not original, they were full of character? What happened to the pub sign?
No point in asking W&S. They said The Woodman would be used as a gallery space. They also told me they had no intention of changing the exterior and appreciated the importance of the original leaded windows. Then in January, when I reported that one of the windows had been vandalised, they said they would board them over to protect them. They failed to do so.
I'm afraid they neither value nor care about our heritage. And this from someone that wants to run an antique shop?
This does not bode well for Wooster and Stock's other planning applications for our corner of Kirkdale - i.e. the demolishing of the Woodman's old stables, so that they can squeeze a house into the tiny space this will provide, and the building of two blocks of flats and demolishing of one of the few remaining bits of old Kirkdale (109-111).
If I could work out how to post pictures on here I would post an image (which was previously on this site, but which I can't now find) showing the Woodman before the previous landlord painted it the horrible teal green. The current facade is a travesty of what we had then.
I thought it was Alib. It actually look like little squares of silver leaf which can go like that. If so they spent a lot of money on it. I have to admit, I quite liked the effect, although it will always look better from a distance. I just don't know why they don't want people to look inside!
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
It would be fantastic if the level of scruteny placed on this building were applied to all businesses in Sydenham, if so we sould have a fantastic looking high street!
Absolutely agree Lee. It would be great if more people would get involved in conservation matters locally. I for one do all I can in the time that the need to earn a living permits and I know other members of Syd Soc's Conservation Committee devote much, much more time than I do. I wish I could do more.
The changes to The Woodman and Kirkdale are hugely upsetting to a lot of people in this, rather fogotten, upper reach of Sydenham, so it was heartening that so many local people got involved in this one.
Thing is Mary, I objected to the council about the Woodman pub and the plans they originally had for it purely because I hate losing original features or history of a building,but I only knew about it because it had been flagged up by you.I don,t often go past or through Kirkdale.
So if people who check out any developements on the council planning could also flag it up on here maybe more could be done to keep an eye on what the council are allowing.
I'll try to start a Planning thread and put some links on, as soon as time permits. (I'm supposed to be working today - but being very undisciplined and keeping the STF tab open as well as my work ones!)
I did do this once before, but then had a break from posting on STF due to some unpleasantness, happily dealt with.
Scaffolding has been removed and has exposed original leaded windows at gound floor level have been replaced by mirror reflected glass. Was this in any application for refurbishment? I dont recall objections to such an application, which would have been made certainly by Sydsoc, if this had been intimated at any stage.
Urgent site visit required and enforcement action required, too, if planning regs are found to have been ignored
Personally I think what has been done has changed the Conservation Area status of the area/PH tremendously. If an application for such changes and LBL Planning are happy with the changes proposed (and carried out without consultation) then Ok. But, if not, questions need to be asked about the design and consultation process.
I await a reply
ALIB wrote:the windows, and frames and metalwork seem to be the original, just with some silver backing. When you look up close you can see it's not really a professional job at all. In fact it looks exceedingly poor when up close.
Then again, it could be just a temporary measure to deter break-ins
Does this mean that W&S have not actually broken any planning rules in this instance?
Can what enforcement resources Lewisham does have available now be directed to getting offending Estate Agents boards taken down?
The thing is, in it's current form W&S have seemingly complied.
They haven't changed the windows (they have added a film to them, possibly silver leaf, the physical windows are the same with what appears to be the same glass).
It still says The Woodsman at the top of the building (Ok the sign is slightly different, but in my opinion it's actually better and to my knowledge they are allowed to do that unless it is part of the building). There was nothing great or unique about the previous sign.
They have restored the tiles.
Like Pat and AliB I think the changes are positive and it looks better than it did. Like many, I'd prefer it to remain a pub, but if it's not viable then it's not viable and we have to be realistic about changes.
But I hope people get so worked up about the design of other businesses in the high street because they are letting the area down.
Just to clarify. Pat thinks that the current refurb looks better than the Gastropub refurb, which, at the least, is positive. I do not think adding a mirrored film is any improvement.
Sloppy wording in the posting from me should not indicate that I think the current refurb is an improvement to that of the original building prior to any previous alteration. Apologies for any misconception.
Let us not forget the main principles behind this:
Wooster and Stock with their 'Kirkdale Village' initiative have put themselves in the public domain as benefitting the local community
The vast majority of works to date have been conducted without Planning Permission and without being audited by Lewisham.
The horrendous orange paintwork was only removed after they feared a public backlash.
The Planning Application still exists to build a house in the rear garden, and we still have no idea what activity has taken place inside. (presumably, that's what the silver windows were for)
Whether the current exterior decor is deemed an improvement or not, is not the issue here.
What is the issue is that works are being conducted in a clandestine and 'ad-hoc' manner, and not adherring to the Planning Procedure. We have no idea what W&S are doing to the interior, and apparently, neither do Lewisham.
It's a total shambles
I am soooo very glad I didn't sell my flat through Wooster and Stock. I do retain some moral values.....
