I have put a short report of last Saturday's residents meeting to discuss the new planning application here:
http://sydenham.org.uk/the-haven-rookst ... velopment/
Please feel free to add the stuff I missed out and/or got wrong.
Admin
The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment
Re: The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment
Today I received this picture to illustrate the issue of building height. The proposed heights are significantly higher than the surrounding properties in order to maximise the the number of flats in the social housing block (to fulfil the 35% quota) and four bedroom detached houses to maximise the price without increasing the footprint.
Finally the dates for submitting any objections to the new (second) application is 16th December. Objection to the original higher density application now going to appeal is 23rd December.
Here is an example objection already submitted:
Dear Bromley Planning
As a resident of Cobden Mews, and therefore living next door to the The Haven and Rookstone site, I have several strong objections to the planning application DC/14/03991/FULL1 (and reserve my right to make further objections later).
Some of my concerns are ones I raised against the original planning application made for the Haven and Rookstone site (DC/14/00452/FULL1) as I believe these are still valid, while other objections are new. For your convenience, I have combined these into this one email.
Direct effects on Cobden Mews
The tree screening between the end of Cobden Mews and the site is already extremely thin: the sheer mass of development being proposed would destroy the privacy and leafy view of a currently peaceful cul de sac.
Much of the development would face Cobden Mews – meaning that Cobden Mews would be forever overlooked, overshadowed during the day, at risk of light pollution at night, and at constant risk of unwanted noise.
Part of the crumbling brick Victorian sewage system collapsed right in front of our house (4 Cobden Mews), shortly after several mature trees were felled on the Haven and Rookstone site. I strongly suspect that this collapse was caused by subsidence and shrinkage of the clay soil caused by the tree felling.
The sewer collapse was both dangerous and a health hazard, including rat infestations that we believe were triggered by the sewer collapsing. The proposed development would put a colossal strain on a system ill-equipped to deal with hundreds more residents and their visitors.
Scale and massing, and incompatibility with nature of area
The size, depth, width, height and massing of the proposed development threaten properties adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy, a visually overbearing impact, overshadowing, and light and noise pollution.
The size and height of the block of terraced houses proposed for the footprint of the Rookstone building is in even more massive than in the original application: 54.6 metres long and 11.4 metres high, compared to 10.6 metres.
Therefore, these houses breach Policy BE1 of the UDP, Policy H7, and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan, in that they detract from existing buildings and the street layout, and fail to consider the form and structure of the area.
Bromley Planning (in your letter of 2 September 2013) recognised similar concerns regarding the original planning application, in your statement that, "heights of three and four storeys may be considered acceptable subject to careful consideration of the relationship between the proposed building and the nearest adjacent buildings."
The development would result in the loss of several mature trees – and this in addition to several trees that were cut down in 2012 to clear the site, before tree protection orders could be applied.
For example, most of the trees on the Crystal Palace Park Road side of the development, currently providing screening and foraging, would be replaced by a car park – and these lost trees are in addition to what the tree report says will go.
Also, a mature tree at the entrance to the site, believed to be 138 years old, would be sacrificed.
The artist’s impressions provided by Kitewood do not accurately represent the visual harm imposed by the buildings – for example, they give a misleading impression concerning the visibility of buildings from Crystal Palace Park Road at street level.
The sheer scale and density of the proposed development have no precedent in a currently quiet, low-density residential area.
The proposed development is a gated community which, again, is uncharacteristic of the area.
Safety concerns
The new exits on Springfield Drive and Crystal Palace Park Road threaten the safety of motorists and pedestrians – Crystal Palace Park Road is already a busy and dangerous road, with at least one fatality in recent years.
I believe that Kitewood are proposing to divert the crumbling Victorian sewage system to the railway tunnel running under the Haven site – a potentially risky move that could have catastrophic effects should there be further collapses following the one we suffered in Cobden Mews.
The bulk and sheer weight of all of the buildings being proposed risk putting a colossal strain on the enfeebled sewage system and railway tunnel. The engineering document states that the new buildings will be "lighter", but provides no details.
The surface area of the development could greatly increase the risk of flooding by affecting the water table in an area of clay soil. Springfield Road has already suffered flooding. In addition to the dangers of flooding for residents, Bromley Council would be at risk of being burdened with run-off, road resurfacing and drainage problems.
The site is contaminated with arsenic, lead, and benzene derivatives, meaning that the soil would need to be removed or covered. I have not been able to establish whether Kitewood's new application has taken toxicity issues into account.
Incompatibility with planning policies
I argue that in addition to its detrimental impact, the new application contravenes the same supplementary planning guidance I mentioned in my objections to the original planning application, namely:
SPG2 1.2 Amenity: The provision of adequate space and light between buildings and impact on the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties are important factors that require careful consideration.
SPG2 1.1 Local distinctiveness: The starting point for all new development should be a respect for the character and appearance of the site, its immediate neighbours and the wider street scene.
SPG2 3 3.1 Layout: Local context is of particular importance when adding new buildings to established areas. Building lines, space between buildings, means of enclosure and the use and location of garden or amenity space should all respect the character of the locality.
SPG1 3.6 Victorian & Edwardian suburbs: New development should respect the rhythm and scale of existing buildings. The footprint of new buildings is of particular concern as there is a tendency to fill the entire width of the site leading to a loss of separation and a disruption of scale. There is also a need to retain the mature garden setting, especially fronting the highway.
SPG 1.1 Character: New development should have a character and quality of its own whilst at the same time respecting the character of its locality.
SPG2 4.4 Gardens: Increasingly, new developments propose front gardens that are very small and dominated by parking hard standings. In some instances, where space is limited, it may be more advantageous to consolidate the limited space into a central communal square or green and allow the houses to front directly onto the pavement. Such approaches are at their most successful when parking is integrated into the layout in a sympathetic manner, avoiding a dominance of parked cars. In schemes where there are elements of communal landscaping the long-term maintenance and management of the scheme should be provided for.
SPG2 1.3 Setting and landscaping: Every attempt should also be made to retain important elements on the site such as trees, established landscape and features of biodiversity interest. Of equal importance is the role gardens play in providing a setting in front of and around a building.
Finally the dates for submitting any objections to the new (second) application is 16th December. Objection to the original higher density application now going to appeal is 23rd December.
Here is an example objection already submitted:
Dear Bromley Planning
As a resident of Cobden Mews, and therefore living next door to the The Haven and Rookstone site, I have several strong objections to the planning application DC/14/03991/FULL1 (and reserve my right to make further objections later).
Some of my concerns are ones I raised against the original planning application made for the Haven and Rookstone site (DC/14/00452/FULL1) as I believe these are still valid, while other objections are new. For your convenience, I have combined these into this one email.
Direct effects on Cobden Mews
The tree screening between the end of Cobden Mews and the site is already extremely thin: the sheer mass of development being proposed would destroy the privacy and leafy view of a currently peaceful cul de sac.
Much of the development would face Cobden Mews – meaning that Cobden Mews would be forever overlooked, overshadowed during the day, at risk of light pollution at night, and at constant risk of unwanted noise.
Part of the crumbling brick Victorian sewage system collapsed right in front of our house (4 Cobden Mews), shortly after several mature trees were felled on the Haven and Rookstone site. I strongly suspect that this collapse was caused by subsidence and shrinkage of the clay soil caused by the tree felling.
The sewer collapse was both dangerous and a health hazard, including rat infestations that we believe were triggered by the sewer collapsing. The proposed development would put a colossal strain on a system ill-equipped to deal with hundreds more residents and their visitors.
Scale and massing, and incompatibility with nature of area
The size, depth, width, height and massing of the proposed development threaten properties adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy, a visually overbearing impact, overshadowing, and light and noise pollution.
The size and height of the block of terraced houses proposed for the footprint of the Rookstone building is in even more massive than in the original application: 54.6 metres long and 11.4 metres high, compared to 10.6 metres.
Therefore, these houses breach Policy BE1 of the UDP, Policy H7, and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan, in that they detract from existing buildings and the street layout, and fail to consider the form and structure of the area.
Bromley Planning (in your letter of 2 September 2013) recognised similar concerns regarding the original planning application, in your statement that, "heights of three and four storeys may be considered acceptable subject to careful consideration of the relationship between the proposed building and the nearest adjacent buildings."
The development would result in the loss of several mature trees – and this in addition to several trees that were cut down in 2012 to clear the site, before tree protection orders could be applied.
For example, most of the trees on the Crystal Palace Park Road side of the development, currently providing screening and foraging, would be replaced by a car park – and these lost trees are in addition to what the tree report says will go.
Also, a mature tree at the entrance to the site, believed to be 138 years old, would be sacrificed.
The artist’s impressions provided by Kitewood do not accurately represent the visual harm imposed by the buildings – for example, they give a misleading impression concerning the visibility of buildings from Crystal Palace Park Road at street level.
The sheer scale and density of the proposed development have no precedent in a currently quiet, low-density residential area.
The proposed development is a gated community which, again, is uncharacteristic of the area.
Safety concerns
The new exits on Springfield Drive and Crystal Palace Park Road threaten the safety of motorists and pedestrians – Crystal Palace Park Road is already a busy and dangerous road, with at least one fatality in recent years.
I believe that Kitewood are proposing to divert the crumbling Victorian sewage system to the railway tunnel running under the Haven site – a potentially risky move that could have catastrophic effects should there be further collapses following the one we suffered in Cobden Mews.
The bulk and sheer weight of all of the buildings being proposed risk putting a colossal strain on the enfeebled sewage system and railway tunnel. The engineering document states that the new buildings will be "lighter", but provides no details.
The surface area of the development could greatly increase the risk of flooding by affecting the water table in an area of clay soil. Springfield Road has already suffered flooding. In addition to the dangers of flooding for residents, Bromley Council would be at risk of being burdened with run-off, road resurfacing and drainage problems.
The site is contaminated with arsenic, lead, and benzene derivatives, meaning that the soil would need to be removed or covered. I have not been able to establish whether Kitewood's new application has taken toxicity issues into account.
Incompatibility with planning policies
I argue that in addition to its detrimental impact, the new application contravenes the same supplementary planning guidance I mentioned in my objections to the original planning application, namely:
SPG2 1.2 Amenity: The provision of adequate space and light between buildings and impact on the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties are important factors that require careful consideration.
SPG2 1.1 Local distinctiveness: The starting point for all new development should be a respect for the character and appearance of the site, its immediate neighbours and the wider street scene.
SPG2 3 3.1 Layout: Local context is of particular importance when adding new buildings to established areas. Building lines, space between buildings, means of enclosure and the use and location of garden or amenity space should all respect the character of the locality.
SPG1 3.6 Victorian & Edwardian suburbs: New development should respect the rhythm and scale of existing buildings. The footprint of new buildings is of particular concern as there is a tendency to fill the entire width of the site leading to a loss of separation and a disruption of scale. There is also a need to retain the mature garden setting, especially fronting the highway.
SPG 1.1 Character: New development should have a character and quality of its own whilst at the same time respecting the character of its locality.
SPG2 4.4 Gardens: Increasingly, new developments propose front gardens that are very small and dominated by parking hard standings. In some instances, where space is limited, it may be more advantageous to consolidate the limited space into a central communal square or green and allow the houses to front directly onto the pavement. Such approaches are at their most successful when parking is integrated into the layout in a sympathetic manner, avoiding a dominance of parked cars. In schemes where there are elements of communal landscaping the long-term maintenance and management of the scheme should be provided for.
SPG2 1.3 Setting and landscaping: Every attempt should also be made to retain important elements on the site such as trees, established landscape and features of biodiversity interest. Of equal importance is the role gardens play in providing a setting in front of and around a building.
Re: The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment
An opportunity to view the plans has arranged with the Ward Councillors Angela Wilkins and Richard Williams for anyone who would like to, to view the plans at their offices in the Town Hall.
Meet in Main Reception at 2.00pm on Wednesday 10th December. Andrew Brenson will be there.
Admin
Meet in Main Reception at 2.00pm on Wednesday 10th December. Andrew Brenson will be there.
Admin
Re: The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment
Just a reminder that that date for submitting any comments on this new planning proposal for 46 dwellings is Tuesday 16th December. There is concern that although there are fewer dwellings overall, all the new buildings and the blocks in particular (in Lawrie Park Crescent and CP Park Road) will be much taller and bulkier than anything in the area. This is not clear from the applicant's drawings! Nearby neighbours all will be overshadowed to some extent with increased possibility for overlooking.
If you are familiar with the area or have visited for the Hospice or Tennis club then you will know that the parking in the streets nearby is also an issue. Where there is a new road planned, near the junction of Springfield Road, parking will be reduced. This will also make for a busy junction at rush hours and possible safety issues for the many children who frequent the club.
Please take a few moments and fill out the comments box on the Bromley Planning Website before the consultation runs out.
If there are any questions then please ask and I will try to assist.
Many thanks,
LPC
If you are familiar with the area or have visited for the Hospice or Tennis club then you will know that the parking in the streets nearby is also an issue. Where there is a new road planned, near the junction of Springfield Road, parking will be reduced. This will also make for a busy junction at rush hours and possible safety issues for the many children who frequent the club.
Please take a few moments and fill out the comments box on the Bromley Planning Website before the consultation runs out.
If there are any questions then please ask and I will try to assist.
Many thanks,
LPC
-
DerBrenster
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 25 Oct 2008 23:17
- Location: SE26 6XX
Re: The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment
The deadline for comments on Kitewood's second proposal is tomorrow and although I'm aware of there being well over 25 objections logged already (with one neutral and one in favour), every little helps.
It's very easy to give your views on these proposals through Bromley's Planning Portal which can be found here:
https://searchapplications.bromley.gov. ... T66BTJX000
The sheer volume of documentation is overwhelming, but those who have had the opportunity to study these plans are convinced that they're completely inappropriate, hugely overscaled and threaten to change the character of the Lawrie Park area irrevocably. The only justification being maximisation of developer profit, since greed is their ethos.
We've all seen how disreputable developers behave in relation to the Greyhound site. This is an opportunity to give one of them a bloody nose for a second time.
It's very easy to give your views on these proposals through Bromley's Planning Portal which can be found here:
https://searchapplications.bromley.gov. ... T66BTJX000
The sheer volume of documentation is overwhelming, but those who have had the opportunity to study these plans are convinced that they're completely inappropriate, hugely overscaled and threaten to change the character of the Lawrie Park area irrevocably. The only justification being maximisation of developer profit, since greed is their ethos.
We've all seen how disreputable developers behave in relation to the Greyhound site. This is an opportunity to give one of them a bloody nose for a second time.