E Greenwich Library celebration 22 Feb 2010

We are going to have a small celebration at the library on the 22nd February between 6.pm and 7.30 to celebrate the 105 years of our library in East Greenwich, writes Terry Wheeler and Molly Bartlett.

This library is going to loom large among librray users in Westcombe Park during the temporary closure of Blackheath Library for refurbishment ( opens again in April.)

Terry and Molly continue: "Our group's Chairman, the late Richard Bartlett, tried hard without
success to get the council to celebrate 100 years of of East Greenwich
Library at the centenary 5 years ago. Despite his efforts, nothing was
done, notwithstanding the fact that the 100 year centenary of West
Greenwich Library, another library made possible by a generous gift of
Andrew Carnegie, was celebrated. We are going to rectify that. We
are arranging to have music, poetry and readings at our library as a
celebration of thanks for its 105 years.

As you know, we were successful in persuading the council to put aside
some of their budget for five other libraries, to spend on ours. We
were promied that repairs were due to start in about February of this
year, and hopefully, work would be started by the 22nd February and
John Fahy can give us some more information on what we can expect by
way of improvements,

I hope that the event can be publicised in the Westcombe News and I also hope
that you will be able to find some time to come along and enjoy the
celbration.

Thanking you.

Terry Wheeler & Molly Bartlett

Westcombe Society Response to London Olympic Planning Application for Greenwich Park

The following is the text of a letter sent to Greenwich Council Planning Department by Gordon Baker, Chair of the Westcombe Society in response to the Planning Application submitted by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games for permission to hold a test event in Greenwich Park in 2011 and Olympic Equestrian events in Greenwich Park in 2012. (The only changes to the text are found in brackets and clarify points for readers of this Blog).

Although we are very grateful to you (Greenwich Council Planning Department) for the slight extension in the deadline for responses, we still contend that the time allowed is unreasonably short for small local voluntary societies, let alone private individuals, to assimilate and comment on such a lengthy, complex and important dossier on a topic which has aroused so much local controversy, especially when that time has straddled the Christmas and New Year holidays

I attach for your action the Society's formal response to the application, (attachment in previous post below) This covers the assurances which LOCOG has given and other key points where the Society finds that the application is still unclear or unsatisfactory and to which we believe that effective additional specific conditions should be attached.

Our submission concentrates mainly on access to the Park and transport arrangements which are of the most vital concern to our members and all who live or carry on business in the Westcombe Park area. At an information meeting jointly arranged by this Society, the Blackheath and Greenwich Societies and the Friends of Greenwich Park in September of last year more worry and incredulity was expressed from the floor about the perceived inadequacy of the transport arrangements in the light of local experience than about any other aspect of the Greenwich Park Olympics.

We have also focused on the Arena, where information and consultation has been tardy and less adequate than the extensive information and consultation accorded to the Cross-Country course. Attention has also been drawn to a number of specific concerns about the Park itself to which we believe that conditions should be attached. So far as the Park is concerned, however, we have been guided by and broadly support the observations of the Friends of Greenwich Park, whose expertise we greatly respect. Detailed comments on these points are set out in a separate Annex, which should be appended to and considered together with our response (for Annex see 2nd of previous posts below.)

Finally, we have commented about the inadequacy of information and assurances on the legacy of the Greenwich Park Olympics, about which many of our members remain confused.

Our submission has been drawn up in consultation with the Friends of Greenwich Park and the Greenwich and Blackheath Societies, to whom copies will be sent. I am also sending courtesy copies to Neil Smith and Margaret Harper of LOCOG.

Formal response by Westcombe Society to Olympic Planning Application for Greenwich Park

PLANNING APPLICATIONS REFERENCES: 09/2598/F & 09/2599/L

GREENWICH PARK OLYMPICS (Applicant: LOCOG)

WESTCOMBE SOCIETY RESPONSE

The Westcombe Society acknowledges LOCOG's comprehensive and painstaking approach to the application. We also welcome the extensive consultation by LOCOG which preceded the application, particularly with this and other local amenity societies, and the changes which have been made to the plans as a result.

We note the assurances that LOCOG has given to protect the environmental and historical integrity and character ofGreenwich Park, ensure prompt and complete restoration of the Park after the Olympic events and minimize disturbance to park users, local residents and businesses. We urge the Council to incorporate LOCOG’s assurances as binding conditions if planning permission is given.

We also propose that the Council should consider imposing the following additional conditions to address the concerns summarised which have arisen where the application appears to us to be unclear or otherwise unsatisfactory:

ACCESS

A revised and detailed plan must be produced showing clearly how pedestrians and cyclists may transit the Park during the Test Event, the construction phase, the Olympic events themselves and the subsequent dismantling and restoration phases, with a view to preserving reasonable transit access for as long as possible, especially during the school holidays. Alternative routes should be provided during the events for pedestrians and pedestrians between the Westcombe Park area and Greenwich that avoid Romney Road

See the explanation given in Section A of the attached Annex. (Previous post below)

ARENA

Detailed plans for the Arena, both stands and Arena itself, should be re-submitted with more detail for public consultation and reconsideration by the Planning Board at a later date. A revised design for the Arena should be produced which:

• improves the sight lines from the Queen's House so that the Wolfe Statue and Old Royal Observatory are more clearly visible ;
• shows clearly how the Arena will impact on the view from the Wolfe Statue;
• demonstrates how the visual impact will be minimized during the construction and dismantling phases;
• sets out a firm proposal for the performance area surface of the Arena and demonstrates what impact that surface is likely to have on the ecology and use and enjoyment of the grassland from the run-up to the Test Event to the dismantling of the Arena after the events are over and the restoration period beyond.

The final decision should not be left in the hands of officers.

See the detailed explanation given in Section B of the attached annex. (Previous post below)

Additional Conditions should also be imposed requiring satisfactory explanations and assurances about other points of concern to the Society regarding the Park where the assessment is either inadequate or unclear.

See the detailed explanation given in Section C of the attached annex (Previous post below)

TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

1. Estimates of Demand

A more detailed assessment must be submitted, following re-validation of the statistics and local consultation, showing clearly how public transport will cope, especially on Cross-Country day.

The transport estimates seem to us to be over-optimistic and, in some cases, challenging to local experience. The basis of some of the assumptions is unclear or questionable. No breakdown of demand by mode or route is given.

The detailed assessment should demonstrate (for both arrival and departure) sufficient public transport capacity, in addition to that required for other users. It should include appropriate margins to allow for at least minor incidents, for deviations in modal split from that anticipated, and for variations in the rate of flow. If transport capacity is insufficient, numbers should be strictly capped.

We are particularly concerned about the estimated attendance of 75,000 spectators on Cross-Country day. That estimates takes no account of the unspecified number of members of the Olympic family, support staff, media personnel, security and emergency personnel, vending and catering staff and others who will also be in the Park on that day, of whom a significant proportion may also be expected to be using public transport.

While we are not qualified to comment on the impact that such numbers may have on the Park itself, we share the concerns that the Friends of Greenwich Park and others have expressed about it. But we have very serious doubts whether public transport will be able to handle so many passengers without causing extreme congestion and delay and consequent inconvenience to other travellers.

The assessment suggests that the experience of the London Marathon indicates that such numbers can be safely and conveniently managed. But far fewer passengers are involved on Marathon day, which is always a Sunday when there are direct scheduled train services from Charing Cross on the Greenwich line and when other passenger traffic is usually fairly light

2. Blackwall Tunnel

A comprehensive contingency plan must be submitted for the possible closure of all or part of the Blackwall Tunnel

The tunnel is a notorious bottleneck. Recent experience has shown, not for the first time, just how much traffic disruption is caused throughout the area if it has to be closed. Alternative contingency routes will be needed for the Olympic Family and

due allowance made for the probable impact on local traffic.

3. Rail Services

The assumptions about rail travel must allow for the recommended spectator arrival times of 90 minutes before the Arena events and 2.5 hours before the Cross-Country (8.2.5), as well as the lack of current direct rail services from Charing Cross station to Greenwich and Maze Hill stations and consequent congestion atLondon Bridge station. Special trains must be provided on the Greenwich line.

The recommended arrival times will cause most spectators travelling by rail from Central London to do so in the rush hour. They are likely to want to take trains from Charing Cross station. But, although paragraphs 5.4.8 and 5.4.9 imply that the current SET timetable has been taken into account, there are no longer any direct trains from

Charing Cross on the Greenwich line.

Unless they take direct trains to Blackheath station (at present only 4 between 0730 and 0930) spectators will therefore have to change trains at London Bridge station for the Greenwich line. This would be bound to create congestion, confusion and possible safety hazards as they mingle with numerous other spectators changing from the Underground and commuting rush hour passengers, many of whom also have to change trains at London Bridge. Nor does any allowance appear to have been made for the possible consequences of the major works due to be carried out at London Bridge in the run-up to the Games.

A similar problem may arise on return journeys as there are no direct evening Greenwich line trains to Charing Crossuntil 2135. Alternatively, it may mean that more spectators may choose to travel via Blackheath than has been assumed in the assessments for Arena days. But the obvious solution is to lay on special direct trains between Charing Cross and Greenwich and Maze Hill.

The recommended arrival times are also likely to add to rush hour congestion on incoming Greenwich line commuter trains from the suburbs and Kent.

4. Coach Services

A clear assessment should be given of planned coach service movements.

The present assessment does not give sufficiently detailed estimates of the expected volume, frequency or direction of coach services, including time spent at the main set down and pick-up points on Charlton Way (see Figure 3.1 for modelled junctions).Nor does it say on what average size of coaches the estimates are based. The assessment should show whether Charlton Way offers adequate capacity to avoid a backlog that might block local roads or the A2.

5. Park and Ride Services

The demand for and impact of Park and Ride Services should be re-examined.

Better information is needed on the assumptions made in the assessment. More spectators may choose to use Park and Ride Services than has been estimated.

If so, the impact on local traffic and pedestrians may need to be re-assessed.

6. Shuttle Buses

A similar re-examination should be made of shuttle bus services.

Here again demand may have been under-estimated, especially in bad weather.

The proposed arrival route seems likely to add significantly to local traffic congestion, as well as taking a great deal of time. It is not clear whether the same route will be used for departure. No provision appears to have been made for shuttle bus services serving Blackheath station. Nor is it clear to what extent scheduled bus services may be increased to cater for spectators and relive pressure on other travellers.

8. Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles.

Spectators should be discouraged from using taxis or private hire vehicles.

The taxi rank at Greenwich station has very limited capacity. The mini-cab depot at Blackheath station has rather more capacity, but the entrance/exit can create serious traffic flow problems if extensively used.

9. Disabled Access

More details should be given of the arrangements for disabled access following consultation with appropriate local organisations. Special attention should be given to the inadequate provision for disabled travellers at Blackheath and Maze Hill stations, including the installation of a disabled access on the down platform at Maze Hill (ideally as a permanent legacy).

We welcome the plan to provide designated parking for Blue Badge holders but details of the planned capacity and proposed location are not given. Adequate detailed plans for disabled spectators should be drawn up in consultation with appropriate local organisations, recognising that not all disabled people are Blue Badge holders or wheelchair users. The walk from Blackheath station to the Park would be too far for many people with restricted mobility.

At the moment, the up platform at Blackheath station cannot be used by the wheelchair-borne and access is difficult and potentially dangerous for others with restricted mobility, especially when the station is very busy.

Similar problems arise at Maze Hill station. The only exits from the down platform require alighting passengers either to climb up and down a footbridge or make a long diversion involving walking up the steepest part of Vanbrugh Hill toWestcombe Park Road and beyond. This is impossible for disabled travellers. A disabled access ramp is badly needed there and would make a good permanent legacy of the Games.

9. Parking Restrictions

More information should be given on additional local parking restrictions proposed, following local consultation.

We welcome the statement (paragraph 4.3.28) that people and businesses should not be inconvenienced in going about their normal activities by traffic congestion. That partly depends on traffic flow planning, but this has also to be reconciled with the additional parking restrictions envisaged by paragraph 4.15, the final bullet point in paragraph 5.6.8 and paragraph 7.16. Westcombe Park residents and businesses will be especially vulnerable to overflow traffic and indiscriminate parking unless adequate measures are worked out in consultation with them and adequately enforced. So far local consultation about this has been insufficient.

9. Romney Road

The impact of present plans for use of Romney Road by spectators should be re-evaluated. To reduce pressure rail-borne spectators from both directions should be encouraged to use Maze Hill station.

We foresee considerable difficulties in the present proposals for channelling pedestrians in Romney Road and enabling them to cross it. Everything should be done to minimise the disruption to buses and other essential traffic, but the Romney Road spectator crossing analysis (Section 12) seems to us to be unduly optimistic. It makes relatively little allowance for varying walking speeds and it does not consider the probable consequences of the need to filter into the other stream of pedestrians coming along the bus lane. The proportion of time allocated to pedestrians during each 2-minute signal cycle may have to be increased, thus further restricting traffic flow. Estimates should also be given of return pedestrian flows when the events are over. If possible, the bus lane should be re-opened outside of the arrival and departure times (during the middle of the day as well as early morning and evening).

Channelling more spectators through Maze Hill station would seem an obvious way to relieve pedestrian pressure on Greenwich Town Centre and Romney Road.

10. Public Information

Draft travel information leaflets should be submitted for approval by the Council following local consultation.

It essential that all spectators should be given comprehensive but user-friendly guidance on all aspects of travel to and from the events in good time. After local consultation and approval by the Council, an information leaflet should be issued to all ticket holders and relevant travel agents.

Similarly cleared leaflets tailored to the needs of local residents and businesses should also be issued in good time to all households and business premises in the Borough. These steps should be accompanied by wide publicity.

LEGACY

More adequate information and assurances should be given about legacy proposals.

The four local amenity societies submitted a list of legacy proposals, including co-ordinated improvement of the Blackheath Gate, to LOCOG in January 2009 but have still had no response. Local people are confused as to what may be expected locally from the Olympic legacy and how to bid for it.

Westcombe Society

13 January 2010

Annex to Westcombe Society Response to Olympic Planning Application for Greenwich Park

A. Pedestrian and Cycle Routes across the Park

The Westcombe Society are particularly concerned about pedestrian and cycling routes across the park.Greenwich Park is an important route for pedestrians travelling to Greenwich both as commuters to boats, trains, DLR and buses and also by local people visiting facilities in Greenwich itself. There is also a well used cycle route across the park. The only sensible alternative is via Romney Road which is busy at the best of times and has fairly narrow pavements. A revised and detailed plan must be produced showing clearly how pedestrians and cyclists may transit the Park during the Test Event, the construction phase, the Olympic events themselves and the subsequent dismantling and restoration phases, with a view to preserving reasonable transit access for as long as possible, especially during the school holidays. Alternative routes should be provided during the events for pedestrians and pedestrians between theWestcombe Park area and Greenwich that avoid Romney Road.

More details of our reasons and suggestions are given below:

2011:

Closure of the east side of the park for 3 weeks in 2011 (Drawing POP-A-O-EQ-XX-GRP-SP-00-112) This will in effect deny access to the park for Westcombe Park residents as a walking/cycling route to Greenwich. It will also deny access for recreation to those with dogs and cycles as the plans seem to show no access to the west side of the park other than through the Flower Garden. The only alternative seems to be the long route round via Charlton Way. The extent of this closure seems excessive for the test event and is in excess of what we had been expecting. We feel that it is of great importance that Great Cross Avenue be open on all but the cross country test day so that a cycle and pedestrian route across the park is kept open.

2012:

Closure of the footpath east/west along the herbaceous border from 7 July through to 7 September 2012.(Drawings POP-A-O-EQ-XX-GRP-SP-00-110 Construction Phasing Diagrams 1, POP-A-O-EQ-XX-GRP-SP-00-111 Construction Phasing Diagrams 2 and POP-A-O-EQ-XX-GRP-SP-00-112 Construction Phasing Diagrams 3) We had understood that this path would be kept open except for days when there is complete closure of the park. This period of 2 months covers the whole of the school summer holidays and means that the only practical pedestrian route from West Greenwich to the children’s playground is along Romney Road which has fairly narrow pavements and heavy traffic, which will may be increased during the Olympic period. This route is also the only route that can be used by the many people who walk from the Westcombe Parkarea to Greenwich every day of the year (see previous paragraph). The planning application shows bridges over the wall and haha, perhaps it would be possible to bridge the footpath so that it can be kept open for the majority, if not all of the summer. Alternatively is it possible to provide a route parallel to Romney Roadinside the Museum grounds?

Closure of ‘The Avenue’ from 7^th July to 7^th September 2012 will mean closure of the cycle route throughGreenwich Park for 2 months. The alternative route for cycles is either along the A2 or along Romney Roadneither of which are ideal especially with the additional traffic expected in 2012 and use of the bus lane inRomney Road for Olympic buses. The Westcombe Society would like consideration to be given to the creation of a temporary cycle route from 4^th August to 8^th September from Great Cross Avenue to Crooms Hill Gate to provide a safer alternative once the upper part of the park reopens. This would be along the boundary of the Olympic closure area so could be cordoned off to separate cyclists and pedestrians.

B. The Arena

The Westcombe Society are disappointed that the design of the arena has changed from two stands (East and West) as shown in plans in the October 2008 and Summer 2009 Greenwich Park Venue updates and in the Artist’s impression which appeared in Summer 2009 venue update. We are also concerned that no detail is given of the cladding for the stands and that it is still unclear what is proposed for the base of the arena itself. Detailed plans for the Arena, both stands and arena itself, should be re-submitted with more detail for public consultation and reconsideration by the Planning Board at a later date.

A revised design for the Arena should be produced which:

• improves the sight lines from the Queen's House so that the Wolfe Statue and Old Royal Observatory are more clearly visible ;
• shows clearly how the Arena will impact on the view from the Wolfe Statue;
• demonstrates how the visual impact will be minimized during the construction and dismantling phases;
• sets out a firm proposal for the performance area surface of the Arena and demonstrates what impact that surface is likely to have on the ecology and use and enjoyment of the grassland from the run-up to the Test Event to the dismantling of the Area after the events are over and the restoration period beyond.

The final decision should not be left in the hands of officers.

Consideration should be given to lowering the south stand or dividing it, as with the Artist’s impression given below. Our reasons are as follows:

When the October 2009 Greenwich Park update was published the plan for the arena had changed to three stands (East, West and South) although the Artist’s impression continued to show two stands. Many of us had heaved a sigh of relief on first seeing the artists impression of two stands as we felt that this was sympathetic to the Grand Axis and the view from the General Wolfe statue. We find it regrettable that no drawings of this view are included in the Planning Application and have therefore produced our own impressions

(these impressions are not available on the blog. They show the view from the General Wolfe statue with the ground floor of the Queen's House and collonade blocked out as if obscured by the South stand, a second impression shows the height of the arena below the Queen's house. Copies available from westpes@googlemail.com)

We are particularly concerned that the proposed South stand is so high and blocks out the ground floor of the Queen’s House when viewed from General Wolfe. We feel that ideally there should be a gap between the stands as shown in the Artist’s impression. If there is to be a South stand spanning the full width of the stadium then it is important that it is low enough to allow a full height view of the Queen’s house from General Wolfe.

It should be noted that although the Design and Access statement section 4.4 only talks about the view being key during the games;

‘The view from the General Wolfe Statue down the hill to the Queen’s House is a key view …………….. the statue will be visible from the Queen’s House balcony. Whilst neither of these positions will be major public viewing areas during the period of the Games they are likely to be views which are recorded by television cameras and hence are significant.’

‘The sides and rear of the stands will be visible and their appearance requires careful consideration.’

no mention is made of the view being key at all times. Although television images will be transmitted during the games it should not be forgotten that hundreds of photographic images of this view are taken every day of the year by visitors from all over the world. This probably makes this view one of the best known in the world. During 2012 most of the photographs taken will be during the construction and dismantling periods when the rest of the park is open. Currently the plans show the South stand is to be constructed first and therefore it will have a significant impact on this view from April through to September 2012, the whole summer season. If there is to be a South stand, consideration should be given to erecting it last and dismantling it first so as to minimise disruption to the view.

Our concerns seem to be in line with the letters in Appendices 10 and 11 of the Final Planning Statement.Dr Jane Sidell, Inspector of Ancient Monuments, English Heritage says

‘…the design of the stadium – which will be a major structure within the World Heritage Site. This is particularly relevant for the southern elevation which will be prominent in views from the Royal Observatory and General Wolfe statue viewing point…’ 5 October 2009

and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment says

‘We think the design team should consider whether creating gaps between the three stands is the best approach, or whether continuing the seating around the corners would be more successful.

A lower section in the middle stand might complement the gaps between the three stands, if they continue to be proposed, marking he continuing axis through the site, and improving sight lines from the Wolfe monument.’ 15 October 2009

We note also that section 4.4 of the Design and Access statement also mentions appearance of the facades, this is particularly important at all times for a South stand not just for the actual Olympic period.

The view of the Queen’s House from Romney Road and the river should also not be forgotten, not only is this the view seen by many visitors passing by, it also the first view that many spectators will get when visiting the arena. Drawing POP-A-O-EQ-XX GRP-EL-00-525 Queen’s House Long Elevations has a north Elevation of the Queen’s House showing the South stand towering above the Queen’s House.

There also needs to be careful consideration of the impact on the park of the different proposals being considered for the base of the arena itself. It would seem that there are three options at present which will have very different implications for the park. We would like to propose that that the option chosen be that which minimises disruption to the fabric of the park. It is important that no scar is left on the landscape between the test event in 2011 and the final setup in 2012. It is also important that the park is returned to it’s normal state as soon as possible.

C. Other issues of concern within the park.

Additional conditions should also be imposed requiring satisfactory explanations and assurances about other points of concern to the Society regarding the Park where the assessment is either inadequate or unclear.

The following are causing us particular concern at present:

· Exactly when and where will fences be constructed?

· Which gates will be closed and when?

· Will parking within the park and on Charlton Way (at weekends) be available whenever the park is open.

· Will any areas of the park be fenced off after November 2012? If so which areas?

· The designs of all temporary structures, especially the Arena, must be available for consultation and be decided on by the Planning Board.

· Noise from the stables, other temporary structures and generators must be sufficiently low or far from residential areas as to not disturb residents.

Westcombe Society

13 January 2010

January 2010 Planning Applications

Flats A & B, 55 Westcombe Park Road, SE3 7QY Ref 09/2718/F

Installation of replacement timber windows (Resubmission) APPROVED

Case officer: Louise Allwood tel: 0208 921 5302

Registration date: 4 January 2010

Site Notice Date: 13 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 3 February 2010

44 WESTCOMBE PARK ROAD, SE3 7RA Ref 09/2693/F

Construction of a single storey side extension

Case officer: Jacob Jaarsma Tel: 020 8921 5438

Registration date: 16 December 2009 WITHDRAWN

Site Notice Date: 13 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 3 February 2010

49 DINSDALE ROAD, GREENWICH, SE3 7RJ Ref 09/2761/TC

FELL a Sycamore Tree - nearest to the building REFUSED

Case officer: Ian McFerran Telephone: 020 8921 5098

Registration date: 9 December 2009

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 20 January 2010

Blackheath Library, 17 Old Dover Road, SE3 7BT Ref 09/2771/F

Formation of new entrance APPROVED

Case officer: Alex Smith Tel: 020 8921 5892

Registration date: 8 December 2009

Site Notice Date: 13 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 3 February 2010

Blackheath Library, 17 Old Dover Road, SE3 7BT Ref 09/2772/A

Addition of lettering and frosted film to windows

Consent Not Required

Case officer: Alex Smith Tel: 020 8921 5892

Registration date: 8 December 2009

Site Notice Date: 13 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 3 February 2010

Marnic House, 37 Shooters Hill Road, SE3 7HS Ref 09/2774/SD APPROVED

Submission of details pursuant to Condition 1 of approved Planning Permission dated 29/10/09 (Ref:09/1381/F) and Listed Building Consent dated 29/10/09 (Ref:09/1382/L) (details of new front boundary wall)

Case officer: Jacob Jaarsma Tel: 020 8921 5438

Registration date: 8 December 2009

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 2 February 2010

LLOYDS PHARMACY, 22 OLD DOVER ROAD, SE3 7BT Ref 09/2672/A Installation of internally illuminated fascia sign and 3.3 metre x 2 metre window sign APPROVED

Case officer: Louise Allwood tel: 0208 921 5302

Registration date: 7 December 2009

Site Notice Date: 6 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 1 February 2010

91 MAZE HILL, GREENWICH, LONDON, SE10 8XQ Ref 09/2720/CP

Erection of a rear (uPVC) conservatory Consent Not Required

Case officer: Alex Smith Tel: 020 8921 5892

Registration date: 4 December 2009

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 29 January 2010

172 WESTCOMBE HILL, BLACKHEATH, SE3 7DH Ref 10/0025/F APPROVED Conversion of flat to form two self contained 2-bed flats on first and second floors

Case officer: Alex Smith Tel: 020 8921 5892

Registration date: 22 December 2009

Site Notice Date: 20 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 10 February 2010

70 HUMBER ROAD, BLACKHEATH, SE3 7LU Ref 09/2675/F REFUSED

Erection of a single storey rear extension and formation of a loft conversion with rear dormer window

Case officer: Kemi Erifevieme Tel: 020 8921 5566

Registration date: 21 December 2009

Site Notice Date: 20 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 10 February 2010

3 Hardy Road, Blackheath, London, SE3 7NS Ref 09/2804/CP REFUSED

Erection of a timber out building to rear of garden

Case officer: Louise Allwood tel: 0208 921 5302

Registration date: 21 December 2009

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 10 February 2010

98 WESTCOMBE PARK ROAD, SE3 7QS ref 09/2798/F APPROVED

Demolition of existing garage and boundary fence facing Mycenae Road and construction of timber garden cabin, new boundary fence and access gates

Case officer: Louise Thayre tel: 020 8921 5894

Registration date: 6 January 2010

Site Notice Date: 3 February 2010

Deadline for objection: 24 February 2010

100 Westcombe Park Road, Blackheath, SE3 7RZ Ref 10/0067/CP

Construction of a rear conservatory (resubmission). APPROVED

Case officer: Alex Smith Tel: 020 8921 5892

Registration date: 6 January 2010

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 2 March 2010

22 Dinsdale Road, Greenwich, London, SE3 7RL Ref 09/2747/F REFUSED

Loft conversion comprising dormer window to rear and side elevations, rooflight to front elevation and increase in height of chimney stacks

Case officer: Kemi Erifevieme Tel: 020 8921 5566

Registration date: 23 December 2009

Site Notice Date: 27 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 17 February 2010

90 Mycenae Road, Blackheath, London, SE3 7SE ref 09/1141/F

Erection of a single storey outbuilding for storage purposes (revised)

Case officer: Jacob Jaarsma Tel: 020 8921 5438

Registration date: not stated

Site Notice Date: not stated

Deadline for objection: 1o February 2010

90 Mycenae Road, Blackheath, London, SE3 7SE ref 09/0446/TC

1. Fell apple tree. 2. Horse chestnut - lift crown to 3.5m and remove dead and diseased wood. 3. Horse chestnut - sever ivy lift to 3.5m and thin by 20%. 4. sycamore and Maple - cut back from the building by 20%. 5. Acacia - thin by 15% (see plan for tree numbers) 6. Mixed tree and large ash tree - remove ivy and cut back from parking area, reducing 2 limbs of ash tree by 25%

Case officer: Debi Rogers Telephone: 020 8921 5661/ Jacob Jaarsma Tel: 020 8921 5438

Registration date: not stated

Site Notice Date: not stated

Deadline for objection: 10 February 2010

5 HUMBER ROAD, BLACKHEATH, LONDON, SE3 7LT ref 10/0051/TC

Silver Birch & Walnut Tree - Thin & Reduce by 20%. THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT INVOLVE FELLING APPROVED

Case officer: Ian McFerran Telephone: 020 8921 5098

Registration date: 6 January 2010

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 17 February 2010

57 MYCENAE ROAD, BLACKHEATH, SE3 7SE ref 09/2492/TC

Reduce the height and lateral spread of the canopy of a Eucalyptus tree by 35% APPROVED Case officer: Ian McFerran Telephone: 020 8921 5098

Registration date: 11 November 2009

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 23 December 2009

25 VANBRUGH PARK, BLACKHEATH, SE3 7AF ref 10/0204/TC APPROVED

Fell Horse chestnut tree in rear garden causing damage to adjoining neighbours wall

Case officer: Debi Rogers Telephone: 020 8921 5661

Registration date: 27 January 2010

Site Notice Date: 6 January 2010

Deadline for objection: 17 February 2010

153 WESTCOMBE HILL, BLACKHEATH, SE3 7DP ref 10/0106/TP Reduction of crown to remove rotted growth from 2 lime trees. TPO 194 Case officer: Ian McFerran Telephone: 020 8921 5098 APPROVED

Registration date: 11 anuary 2010

Site Notice Date: No Public Consultation

Deadline for decision: 8 March 2010