Rather than derail the Favourite Sydenham Business of 2015, 2015 ... thread any more, I thought I'd respond to Lee's unwise little tease on a new thread, which Admin is welcome to shunt off to the pub as soon as tempers start to fray.
leenewham wrote:Anyway, so where will be build these houses Tim?
To which a part answer - and if studies were done, it might even prove a complete answer, can be found in the statement of community interest to the current development on Sydenham Road
Tim Lund wrote: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.
Tim
Before you ask people to own up to crime you have to show a crime was committed .
Why is this not just a matter of people objecting to the height , planners agreeing with a resulting reduction in density, Ie due process ?
Housing is the one area where you seem to lack any perspective and logic - there is a tension between your dream of hi-rise Sydenham and others' of zero development . This came out on your side of the equation and you should be moderately happy .
A very good evening
Nigel
The height was too much before, it's about appropriate development that doesn't block peoples light or be overlooked. It's a pretty dense development Tim anyway.
My earlier post was a tease with a twinkle in my eye, don't take it the wrong way, it was written with a smile (Joanne took it the wrong way too).
I think it all depends on what you are used to. We could easily get used to one storey higher than usual round here, and a few years later most people would wonder what the fuss was about.
Nigel wrote:
Why is this not just a matter of people objecting to the height , planners agreeing with a resulting reduction in density, Ie due process ?
Normal maybe, but crystal clear evidence of the process whereby too few houses are built while demonstrating they could be. May those responsible duly admit it.
I will again get the FT's web site automated warning about the need to pay for good quality journalism by cutting and pasting here from Martin Wolf today. Well, if any one reads this and is encouraged to get an FT on-line subscription, I hope that excuses me.
But the long-run social and economic consequences are dire. These include massive transfers of resources across generations — and, possibly more important, within generations — to people whose parents own properties. They also undermine the ability of young people to afford housing and so form families.
a control system of baroque complexity that has not only constrained supply, but, far worse, has created a set of powerful vested interests in its continuation. Among those interests are local residents, homeowners in general and the banks that finance them. In a genteel British way, this is a corrupt arrangement whose result is to benefit the haves at the expense of have-nots.