New Proposed Development at Phoebes

2/8/2016

Many of you will know by now of the proposed development at Phoebes. Mike Jordan the present owner of Phoebes is finding the retail part of the business is no longer viable. The proposal is to develop the site to a 3 storey block of flats with a mixture of 1,2,and3 bedroom flats. CGRA has concerns over the design and density, safety and privacy. The impact it will have on the immediate vicinity and the parking issues that will follow such a development. As yet the formal application has yet to go in. Please watch out for developing news on this mattter

5 Comments

eliza tyrrell

3/8/2016 06:35:22 am

hi there - I have an update for you on this.

There is still time to object to this development. Have just spoken to the planning department today 08/03/16 at Lewisham Council (020 8314 7400)

The planning docs posted online are a little misleading in that there is no clear published deadline for when our local objections need to be received, or indeed what is the next step in the process.

I was told we can still lodge objections by email [email protected]

quoting this case number: Application DC/16/095415.

If you have any worries over this development I encourage you to contact the council as information given doesn't seem particularly clear or obvious as to how we can input. Upon trying to contact the responsible officer Luke Mannix I was told they can't give out his number to me.

I have left a message and await further information.

Owning a property on Penerley Road that directly borders Phoebe's I'm really concerned as a possible loss of privacy, noise, the effect on the skyline / light and also on local birdllife. As well as the obvious parking problems where currently it seems the allocation only covers a third of the potential occupants. Yes we need housing but why should someone else profit by the loss of everyone else surrounding it?

Does anyone know if there is any affordable housing planned as part of the development?

Ahmet Tahir

3/8/2016 04:36:15 pm

Hi.., My property is in Bargery Road backing on to the proposal site and I share your concerns so will be objecting, The requirement for providing affordable housing applies to all sites capable of providing 10 or more homes, so this will be definitely be the case. The Council will target 50% of the development to be such, but only the planning officer will be able to clarify exactly what level will be applied. Hope this helps.

Ahmet Tahir

3/9/2016 03:22:08 am

Pheobe’s Garden Centre Development
Having given this application some further thought, the following are my reasons as to why I think there is a need to object to the proposals. Inevitably, some form of development may take place in future, however, whatever is done should be both sympathetic to the Conservation Area, and address the concerns of the local residents. I have submitted the following objections on-line today:-
“Much as I appreciate that there is a need for additional and affordable housing in the LB of Lewisham, I wish to object to the proposed development as this fails to meet appropriate standards commensurate with the location based on the following reasons:
1. There are 11 parking spaces proposed for 29 units. The surrounding roads are already over intensively used for parking by both residents, visitors and commuters, and are unable to cope with additional demand. The Council will not be able to prevent occupiers of the new development from owning cars regardless of whether they have a designated parking space on the site. In particularly, where there are 9 x 3 bedroom family units are proposed, households may well have more than one car in future. This will result in conflict between local residents competing for parking spaces in the surrounding roads. Car ownership has been on the rise for many years and continues to increase. The Council has no control over this, and therefore it cannot be assumed or predicted that 11 spaces will ever be sufficient for 29 units.
2. The presence of parking on the site is likely to be a cause of both noise and light pollution in a location. This may well be exacerbated when youngsters who cannot afford cars opt to run scooters. The site is encircled by houses built 110 years ago predominantly with bedrooms located to the rear, so this could be a serious issue for existing residents.
3. The drawings indicate that the proposal is to comprise 3 storey terraced buildings that are more than double the height of the glazed existing nursery building. As such, this would be overbearing in its location, and would neither respect nor reflect the type of development that exists in the area, which is predominantly 2 storey semi-detached Edwardian properties. The development would therefore be an overly intensified use of the site, whilst being incongruous with the locality and the surrounding area.
4. The drawings as presented fail to give a clear impression of how the proposal would sit and impact upon an established area of housing. As the scale of the proposal is considerably larger than the nursery buildings it is intended to replace, in order to get a more realistic impression of how this might affect the surrounding homes and gardens, more suitable drawings and a model of the proposal should be requested by the Council, detailing both the existing houses and the proposal. This will give both the Council and residents a much clearer picture of the scale of the proposal within the context of the site, and more importantly, the impact that the proposal would have on the surrounding area. This would be invaluable tool for all concerned, including the Applicant.
5. Being a “backlands” site surrounded on all sides by private gardens and long established housing, any proposal here should adhere to recognised planning principles. As such, proposals should be both subservient and respectful to the surrounding existing properties in terms of both scale and design, and on this basis, the proposal fails. The height and spacing of the proposal is such that if consented, the massing and scale will prove to be overbearing. A 2 storey development in this location would be more appropriate and should be the absolute limit for any proposal. Even so, the height limit should be restricted to the height of the existing Nursery building, which may require a degree of excavation of the site to achieve this.
6. The Councils objectives in establishing the Culverley Green Conservation Area, (in which the proposed development is located) and designating this of special historic and architectural interest should not be overlooked due to the ever increasing demand for social housing in LB Lewisham. Any proposal for the Phoebe’s site should therefore adhere to the principles on which the Conservation Area was established rather than pandering to the ever increasing demands for Social Housing.”

Bob & Mary Metcalf

3/10/2016 07:01:32 pm

We live at No 4 Penerley and will therefore be affected most by this proposed development. We object strongly to the proposed redevelopment of Phoebe’s Garden Centre as we believe the plans and proposals are completely unacceptable for many reasons including the following.
Cramming so many residents into such a small space with one narrow lane in and out will make it an awful place to live almost like a prison block! I don’t know anyone who would choose to live there. The area is just not big enough for the number of homes proposed and certainly not for a three story building. The very maximum should be two stories and a dozen residences.
The whole layout is very bad. Health and safety has not been considered at all. How would a fire appliance (or two or three) get up the narrow alleyway and how would they deal with a serious fire in the east end of the three story block of flats. Indeed how would they perform a rescue in the back of any of the buildings? It would also be impossible for an ambulance to get to either of the two small open spaces.
TFL tell us 54% of homes in London have at least one car. The census shows 58% and the RAC statistics seem to show 77%. Also taking into account trade and delivery vehicles as well as friends and family visitors, twenty nine homes would need between sixteen and twenty two parking places at least. There is not enough parking spaces. The plans only provide for twelve! The rest would have to take their chances in Penerley Road which already has major parking problems. A long school no parking zone has recently been put in place. Penerley Road is used by many of the workers employed in Catford including the Town Hall and Laurence House. Many parents drive their children into Penerley Road for Rushey green School and at 3pm onwards they park two abreast and more, waiting for school to end. Penerley Road is impassable. Police have been called. If Penerley Road takes the overflow, as well as making it very hard for residents to park, many workers, including Council staff will not find parking when they come to work!
The single alleyway into the site is entirely inadequate for the amount of traffic the redevelopment will produce and for the access of safety and emergency vehicles. Deliveries from internet shopping would be very difficult and the stores may even refuse to enter the alleyway.
It will cause a loss of amenities and a terrible impact on the neighbours especially Nos 4 to 16 Penerley Road. Any flats, let alone three stories built so close to the end of those gardens would deprive those gardens and to a certain degree the homes, of light and sunshine, especially in the low sun of winter. (I notice the flats will not back on to No 2 Penerley Road which is the house owned by Phoebe’s themselves!) These homes would also completely loose their privacy and suffer noise pollution.
We at No 4 Penerley would suffer even more! Being the first and nearest home (other than the house owned by Phoebes themselves) to the one alleyway feeding the development. We are extremely close to it and we would suffer the noise and pollution of traffic and people coming in and out twenty four hours a day. (At the moment that only happens during opening times.)
A three story building would be completely out of place in a conservation area of traditional two story buildings built by Mr Corbett.
Generally the whole of the Catford area is becoming too densely populated. Numerous blocks of flats have been built in Bromley Road and elsewhere. A massive estate has been built where the old dog track was. A nineteen story block of flats is proposed to be built between the two stations and many of the old houses built for one family have been split into two and sometimes three flats, The infrastructure is just not there to support all this. Schools, hospital, transport, roads, railways are at breaking point. It can take over twenty minutes to drive into Catford from along Stanstead Road and/or Catford Hill and the morning que along Bromley Road is almost as bad! A complete stop should be put on the building of new residences including those proposed for Phoebes Garden Centre until these problems are solved.

Phoebes Place resident

9/24/2021 11:56:50 am

Hello,
Resident of Phoebes Place, I can see some of the reservations regarding property development in the area. I want to say, that we are grateful to the Culverley Gardens Residents Association for rejecting the original facade of the property. Instead we have a home that reflects something of the streetscape. Those who objected will be relieved to know that we have:
One car park space for the three bedroom properties- it’s impossible to own more than two cars and we are not assigned the space for this. Also, some of us are conscious and socio-economically minded. We are nurses, teacher and other professionals who had to go down the route of this type of housing because we couldn’t buy on the open market. About 85% of us, already lived in Catford and Lewisham.
As a nurse working in London for the last 20 years it’s been extremely hard to afford to buy a three bed house. Ideally, I would’ve preferred the open market but that wasn’t just possible.

I like many others contribute to the infrastructure of London. It sounds like the developers and council were able to show that this was to be considered. I’m glad to say, the rigorous process, meant that people like me could be here.

New Proposed Development at Phoebes

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories