Welcome to the  Brockley Society

Planning

General Planning Guidance

 

Before you start making decisions on any changes you would like to make to your property, we strongly advise that you look at the Council's guidelines for preserving the Brockley Conservation Area.  These will give you a good idea of what is and isn't acceptable development.

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Environment/Planning/ConservationAndUrbanDesign/
ConservationAreas/Brockley/AlteringBuidlingsBrockley.htm  

 

If you would like to object to plans for unsympathetic or inappropriate development,  please let us know. The more objections the council receives, the more likely the development is to be questioned.

 

Every other week, the Brockley Society joins the other local conservation societies at the Council's  Amenity Panel Meeting. Here we raise formal objections, ask questions and give our input on local development.  These meetings help to determine whether planning applications are approved or go on to be raised at the public planning meetings.  The public meetings give applicants and objectors a chance to have their say to enable the Council to reach a decision. 

 

For further guidance on planning issues, including making an application, raising an objection, or the processes involved, contact Danny on 07904 508 678
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

 

Gordonbrock School

 

Brockley Society would like to thank the parents and residents who joined us on 4th May at our Open Public Meeting about Gordonbrock School rebuilding proposals. We were keen to have the opportunity to talk about our feasibility proposals that demonstrate a realistic alternative route forward for the school.

 

It was clear that a number of attendees were expecting something else from the meeting, and had turned up in some numbers specifically to demonstrate their frustration towards us. We intended to answer some of the important questions raised at the meeting, but were prevented from doing so. We would like to answer them here:

 

Q. Is it the intention of the Brockley Society to hold up the build in order to jeopardise the future funding of the project?

A. Absolutely not. We are committed to the redevelopment of the school in order to improve facilities for children and staff, enable the school to increase student numbers, and provide a sound base for its future as a strong community school.

 

Q. Why weren't Lewisham's Officers overseeing the project invited to this meeting to defend their planning proposals for the school?

A. Although not done formally in writing, we asked Lewisham's Officers if they would like to attend when we met them last week. They declined. A parent asked if he and another parent could speak on behalf of Lewisham's Planning proposals. We were happy to accommodate this.

 

Q. Will a planning proposal for a revised scheme based on Brockley Society's feasibility proposals be granted consent?

A. All planning proposals are reviewed by Lewisham's planning officers under strict criteria. It will be the job of their design team, and Lewisham's project managers to ensure that a future application meets these criteria. There may be objections to these proposals, but despite many objections to the last planning application, including a petition with over 50 names, it was still passed by Committee.

 

Q. As your proposals are at an early stage, and have yet to be costed - how can you be sure that they will be viable and affordable?

A. We have been very careful to develop our proposals to make them realistically achievable given existing constraints, requiring some compromises on our initial solution – which involved retaining all of the Edwardian teaching blocks. We have incorporated as much of Lewisham's original planning scheme into our proposal as possible, without significantly jeopardising design quality and the integrity of the original buildings. The proposed option includes demolition of one Edwardian block, for the sole purpose of making the scheme a realistic, viable and affordable option. If Lewisham decide to investigate this route, their own appointed design team will develop the feasibility proposals to a point where they can be more accurately costed.

 

Q. Why did you make the legal challenge, and will you now withdraw you challenge?

A. We made a legal challenge on the lawfulness of December's Planning Consent. No screening decision had been obtained on the requirement to fulfil an Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposals. This was a serious error. Without our challenge, the buildings at Gordonbrock would be undergoing demolition and we would not be in the position to put forward realistic alternatives. Lewisham consented to our legal action; we have agreed to their consent; the action should be signed off in the courts within the next few weeks. Lewisham will then have to make a revised Planning Application. We hope to persuade the council to adopt significant changes to the design for this new application.

 

Q. Is your action likely to result in loss of funding for the project?

A. We have been given assurances by Lewisham Council that the money to develop the school, £11.7m, has been secured and is in this year's council budget. Therefore, if works can commence on site before the end of this financial year (March 2011), the funding will be safe. It is also feasible that funding can be moved from this year's budget to next - though this would have to be put forward in next year's local budget proposals, though this a risk that we would prefer to avoid. We understand that contracts have been signed with development partners, Bougyes (UK). This gives some level of protection to the funding. Even the Conservative's have stated that they will not cut funding to public projects if contracts have been agreed.

 

Q. Why should children be expected to learn in outdated buildings? Shouldn't we be building learning environments fit for the future?

A. We agree entirely. But we strongly disagree that creating a good quality, contemporary working environment for adults or children necessitates the destruction of historic building stock, especially those that are valued and loved by the community. Conservation is not the enemy of progress, but an essential ingredient of it. Without fully understanding what is of value, and learning how to adapt and reuse it - we are destined to live in a future built environment of diminishing aesthetic value. Not every contemporary architectural intervention results in a positive and progressive step forward. We strongly believe that Lewisham's current proposals for the redevelopment of Gordonbrock School are particularly misjudged. It is never appropriate to spend so much public money on destroying something beautiful, and replacing it with something that is far less so. The end result should be a school building that is still standing in 50 years time, that the conservation groups of the future will still be motivated to champion.

 

After the meeting we asked people to complete a consultation form. The results of this consultation are as follows:

 

PART 1

We presented four options for the school.

 

Option 1: Lewisham's Planning Proposal:

- 75% of those present preferred this option. 78% of those present found it to be an acceptable option, and 22% found it to be unacceptable.

 

Option 2: Brockley Society's first feasibility proposal retaining all Edwardian buildings:

- 8% of those present preferred this option. 27% of those present found it to be an acceptable option, and 54% found it to be unacceptable.

 

Option 3: Brockley Society's second feasibility proposal retaining three of four Edwardian buildings:

- 17% of those present preferred this option. 41% found it to be an acceptable option, and 45% found it to be unacceptable.

 

Option 4: No redevelopment, just refurbishment of existing buildings:

- 3% of those present preferred this option. 18% found it to be an acceptable option, and 63% found it to be unacceptable.

 

PART 2

We asked the question "Do you support Brockley Society's continued involvement in the re-development of Gordonbrock School?

- 33% of those present said YES.

- 67% of those present said NO.

 

Option 1: Feasibility Report March 2010

Option 2: Revised Proposal