Building site on Sydenham High Street

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 23 Jul 2014 15:36

Broadly speaking Tim I would agree with you. A good site to build on.

The drawings to not show the height of the buildings proposed to the rear. Hopefully not too close together.

I was walking past this morning and noticed a notice on one of the other shops implying the retail space is being turned into living quarters.

Makes one wonder whether the new retail space will be required.

More clients for Kente anyway.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 23 Jul 2014 16:59

Sydenham Syd wrote:Sorry, I think my repost, and the very good images provided by Lee, crossed in the ether somewhere so I hadn't seen them.

I suppose I am all in favour of maintaining the uniformity of the High St architecturally, so I am probably pretty happy with that in many ways. Part of me wanted to have something dynamic and original, however, one has to be careful what one wishes for.

No probs on the thread - I have often wondered who actually 'owns' the high street. I know the rents are scandalously high, coupled with the services provided by Lewisham, (I am told they are higher than on Lordship Lane for e.g.), but it is always interesting to know who is in charge.

Why the scare quotes round 'owns'? For most properties, it's not to hard to find out how owns them - you just have to pay £3 to the Land Registry, and recognise that the information might be out of date. But usually it is not. But I'm interested to know where you get that information about rents.

Sydenham Syd wrote:Do we have a time scale for construction?

Don't know, but it does sound as if things are moving.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 23 Jul 2014 17:10

Eagle wrote:Broadly speaking Tim I would agree with you. A good site to build on.

The drawings to not show the height of the buildings proposed to the rear. Hopefully not too close together.

I was walking past this morning and noticed a notice on one of the other shops implying the retail space is being turned into living quarters.

Really? I find it hard to believe any ground floor premises would be either commercially attractive for residential, or allowed. Above the shops is another matter.

Eagle wrote:Makes one wonder whether the new retail space will be required.

New retail space in this location can be designed to modern requirements, and attract higher rents. Of course there will be a demand for it.

Eagle wrote:More clients for Kente anyway.

Indeed - mixed residential makes enormous sense, allowing housing densities to increase, especially in locations such as this where the occupants will be largely users of public transport, so helping High Street footfall.

My further question about this sort of development is whether the increased density which it will allow, if repeated in similar developments across London, will be enough to get rents in general down to something affordable. That's the bigger question which I feel planners should be looking at - as indeed some are. But will they be able to make the case for higher than currently envisaged densities, if called for, should they require changes to current planning guidelines? That is the difficult question.

Sydenham Syd · Post by **Sydenham Syd** » 23 Jul 2014 17:49

The rents point came from a conversation with the greengrocer who mentioned the rent levels and the rates prices.
Re the ownership thing it would be interesting to know who owns the most properties as that might explain the high rents. No accusation of racketeering or anything ; )

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 23 Jul 2014 18:01

Sydenham Syd wrote:The rents point came from a conversation with the greengrocer who mentioned the rent levels and the rates prices.
Re the ownership thing it would be interesting to know who owns the most properties as that might explain the high rents. No accusation of racketeering or anything ; )

If only our current High Street freeholders were able to act coherently enough to engage in some racketeering. Not that I'd want them to, but it would mean they could also get together to develop an overall vision for investing in Sydenham Road. Of such things are dreams made.

More likely, if rents really are higher than in Lordship Land, they increase rents because they can see Sydenham Road, with the London Overground and the recent improvements, will eventually improve, without them having to do too much to make it happen. Lucky them!

Rachael · Post by **Rachael** » 23 Jul 2014 18:05

Tim Lund wrote:
Eagle wrote:Broadly speaking Tim I would agree with you. A good site to build on.

The drawings to not show the height of the buildings proposed to the rear. Hopefully not too close together.

I was walking past this morning and noticed a notice on one of the other shops implying the retail space is being turned into living quarters.
Really? I find it hard to believe any ground floor premises would be either commercially attractive for residential, or allowed. Above the shops is another matter.

I lived in just such a place when I was a student. Former shop, the window was painted on the lower half to preserve our privacy. It was noisy, especially when people congregated at the bus stop just outside the window. But it was cheap. I also know a few people who live in Victorian houses that had been converted to retail and converted back to dwellings with the minimum of alterations, so the ground floors are still pretty much open plan and with huge shop windows at the front.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 23 Jul 2014 19:58

Rachael - of course it's technically possible, and elsewhere I'd not want to stop it - I just think ground level Sydenham Road so close to the station should be able to generate a higher rent as retail than residential.

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 16 Nov 2014 18:10

A new planning application has been submitted for this site, which you can view at http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_76226

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 16 Nov 2014 18:54

Thanks Biscuitman1978.

I'm sure there's going to be lots of comment on this, but I can't see why this should not be generally welcomed.

michael · Post by **michael** » 17 Nov 2014 08:45

The Number of Affordable Units
3.4 As agreed with LB Lewisham, a viability appraisal, justifying and demonstrating the maximum, reasonable type and quantum of affordable housing provision has been submitted confidentially for review by an independent consultant appointed by the Council.

3.5 The assessment concludes that the proposed development is capable of providing two intermediate units (identified on the plan at Appendix 2) on-site as part of the development. This equates to 11% affordable housing delivery and is the maximum reasonable contribution that can be supported by the scheme.

That falls well below the borough and regional targets for affordable housing in new developments. What makes this scheme so special that such policies should not apply?

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 18 Nov 2014 10:34

I'm looking at this now, although I'm not sure if I'll manage all 48 documents

One thing which does interest me this from the Transport statement, though - that "new residents will be given contact details to obtain a free 10-year membership (one per household) for the local car club scheme."

Source here

I assume this means Zipcar (it does - just found explicit mention of it)

of which I'm a member. Seems like a pretty good idea.

Sydenham Syd · Post by **Sydenham Syd** » 18 Nov 2014 11:16

I have no real objections to this - not entirely sure on the point of the balconies, and ideally one wouldn't want them to be used to dry clothes for example...amusing - I mean balconies on the fronts....

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 18 Nov 2014 11:52

In response to Michael - who I think may be being a bit facetious here - I don't see any reason to question the judgement which planning officers have made on the amount of "affordable" housing and this scheme's overall viability. Of course they may have got it wrong, and should have held out for more, but if they were wrong, the site would have stayed empty all the longer.

That I think it more important to look at overall supply than so called affordable supply, since it's overall supply which can contain the overall unaffordability of housing, is not strictly a planning matter, but if we look at total affordable housing completions,

Table 2.8, London Plan Annual Monitoring Report

we see that LB Lewisham is managing to build more affordable houses than any other borough bar Southwark.

I noted from the statement of community involvement that the original proposals were for 24 flats rather than 18, and up to two additional storeys. However, following consultation with planning officers, "The overall storey heights (facing the courtyard) have reduced from 6 storey to 4 storeys at the front, and from 4 storeys to 3 storeys at the rear".

The effect of this change, on overall density, was to bring the number of habitable rooms per hectare down from 590 to 465 - either of which come within the requirements of the London Plan for an urban site with this level of public transport accessibility. As an advocate of higher densities, I'd have been interested to see attempts to make them work here, and if it had been possible, then a higher percentage of "affordable" homes would have been possible.

No one will get exactly what they want, but this isn't the place for a discussion of what planning policies and other matters could be otherwise. I can't see any reasonable objections to this from what I have seen, so I continue to feel it should be welcomed. I hope that doesn't sound in any way grudging compared with the Sydenham Society's wholehearted endorsement

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 18 Nov 2014 12:13

What does 'affordable' mean?

I like the latest design, it looks far better than the original proposal, on paper at least!

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 18 Nov 2014 12:20

Lee - I think "affordable" means to be managed by a housing association, and let at rents no more than 80% of market rents.

I'm not questioning your judgement on the design improvement - higher housing densities would need to be planned at a larger scale than this one site - see earlier comments in this thread about the desirability of getting landowners to work together.

michael · Post by **michael** » 18 Nov 2014 12:23

Tim Lund wrote:In response to Michael - who I think may be being a bit facetious here - I don't see any reason to question the judgement which planning officers have made on the amount of "affordable" housing and this scheme's overall viability. Of course they may have got it wrong, and should have held out for more, but if they were wrong, the site would have stayed empty all the longer.

Not being facetious. I believe that in schemes with more than 10 units developers should feel compelled to delivery a minimum of 25% social housing (with guidelines that suggest higher where possible). I don't really feel there should be massive exceptions to this rule otherwise all that happens is that the council have to pay more to place families into B&B accommodation and hostels.

It is tempting to accept the 'some housing is better than none' argument, but I believe it should not be impossible to build profitable developments in town centres and provide affordable housing according to the guidelines specified. Once we start making excuses for developments like this, then we might as well do away with the guidelines and any expectation of "affordable" housing in London.

I would also urge those responding to the planning application to ask for a planning condition that prevents occupation of the housing unit until the retail units are appropriate for immediate occupation (i.e. with a window and plumbing) rather than a shell that will remain empty for years. This should be a standard planning condition to prevent the situation that arose for the Greyhound and other recent developments.

Sydenham Syd · Post by **Sydenham Syd** » 18 Nov 2014 13:46

Looks like a real bargain for someone if the earlier price quoted for the land is right.

One question for anyone that might know the answer - the plans look like there will be a degree of separation between the new build and the existing terrace - I take it that means there will be a 'rat run' either side of the building? I guess there must be access to the rear off the street?, but an alley way either side, might be a bit weird...

I dunno, and probably don't have the energy or inclination to point this out to the planners however!

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 18 Nov 2014 18:55

leenewham wrote:What does 'affordable' mean?

Tim Lund wrote:Lee - I think "affordable" means to be managed by a housing association, and let at rents no more than 80% of market rents.

The glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) explains that 'affordable housing' is housing provided to 'eligible households whose needs are not met by the market'. There are three main types of affordable housing product: social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing. These are defined at Annex 2 of the NPPF at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 116950.pdf

michael wrote:I believe that in schemes with more than 10 units developers should feel compelled to delivery a minimum of 25% social housing (with guidelines that suggest higher where possible). I don't really feel there should be massive exceptions to this rule otherwise all that happens is that the council have to pay more to place families into B&B accommodation and hostels.

It is tempting to accept the 'some housing is better than none' argument, but I believe it should not be impossible to build profitable developments in town centres and provide affordable housing according to the guidelines specified. Once we start making excuses for developments like this, then we might as well do away with the guidelines and any expectation of "affordable" housing in London.

The viability appraisal submitted with the planning application will have demonstrated that, having allowed for a reasonable developer’s profit, the maximum affordable housing the scheme can bear is 11%. Beyond that level, assuming the viability appraisal is robust, the development simply won’t be worth implementing. If, however, Lewisham Council don’t accept the assumptions in the viability appraisal and conclude that the scheme could bear more affordable housing then it need not grant permission.

Sydenham Syd wrote:One question for anyone that might know the answer - the plans look like there will be a degree of separation between the new build and the existing terrace - I take it that means there will be a 'rat run' either side of the building? I guess there must be access to the rear off the street?, but an alley way either side, might be a bit weird...

The residential units will be accessed via a door on the Sydenham Road frontage (the first set of double doors on the new development, as you read from right to left, in the image at http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... 317185.pdf). As far as I can see there will be no 'alleyways' open to non-residents.

nasaroc · Post by **nasaroc** » 10 Dec 2014 12:33

You'll see a digger currently working behind the blue hoarding. The site owner has agreed to "tidy up" the site before Christmas - no building work will take place before the application is considered by LBL Planning in January.

If the application is passed (and I am confident that it will be, since it's an excellent plan) the developer is keen to start work ASAP. This is a large project - building will take around 18 months.

Barry Milton

Sydenham Syd · Post by **Sydenham Syd** » 12 Dec 2014 13:16

nasaroc wrote:You'll see a digger currently working behind the blue hoarding. The site owner has agreed to "tidy up" the site before Christmas - no building work will take place before the application is considered by LBL Planning in January.

If the application is passed (and I am confident that it will be, since it's an excellent plan) the developer is keen to start work ASAP. This is a large project - building will take around 18 months.

Barry Milton

Very good news indeed
It looks dreadful in its current state

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004