Redevelopment of Mais House, Sydenham Hill

[Liliput]

A FB group has been set up to campaign against the over-developed plans by the City of London to built up to 150 flats, and 12 houses on the Mais House site in Sydenham Hill. This would result in the area having an extra 550 residents and the loss of Otto Closes' community green space.

As a group we understand the need for social housing and support a redevelopment. What we disagree with is the size of this proposal. We feel our reasonable objections to scale down this development are not being taken into consideration.

The current proposal is for the delivery of 80% homes for Social Rent and 20% homes for private sale, according to the City of London the development will be built on so called underused open-space, garages, parking areas and a play space. The Otto Close community green space would be built on with the loss of up to 20 trees. This loss of would affect the rich diverse habitats used by the wildlife. This new development on this quiet residential space would not be in keeping with the surrounding areas and would tower over existing properties on Otto Close, Lammas Green, Kirkdale, Castle Bar and Rose Court. There would be a complete loss of usable green space. Parking would also be an issue on the surrounding roads.

If you wish to join in the campaign or receive information please see our fb page https://www.facebook.com/groups/Maishousefriends/

[Growsydenham]

Aren't Lammas House and Otto Close also part of the City of London estate -- originally built for the benefit of people needful of social housing?

I like the designs, and I certainly like the provision of new homes for 550 people.

[AME73]

We all understand the need for social housing. However building a large scale project without thought for the local services is madness. The local schools and GP services are already bursting at the seams. There will also be a major impact on traffic within the area, not to mention the impact on the local wildlife.
We know homes are needed for people but they need to work out a larger plan with regards to the availability of services to cater for those families.
I live in social housing, was on the waiting list for so many years so totally understand that homes are needed. So, however is a bit of thought!

[Cal]

I’ve seen the plans and think it looks a hideous building! It’s not in keeping with the area. It looks like they are cramming far too many people in a small space. Why build so high ? What about the privacy of others? Why can’t they renovate what’s already there ? Are they going to build a new GP practice?
I for one will be protesting about this!

[Growsydenham]

We keep hearing how Sydenham folk want more social housing. I'm sure this is true. It just happens that whenever there's a proposal to actually get on and do it, people protest on traffic/privacy/aesthetics/in keeping/something or other grounds.

Every single time.

[JRW]

I am totally determined to get more social housing. However, my friend at Hillcrest, the nearby estate, can't get a GP and commutes to one miles away. Very few services, one small shop, community centres all closed, etc etc etc. Young families and the elderly are marooned, unable to access services. Even with the current housing stock, this needs improving pronto, before adding another large number of homes in an area crossed with underground streams. Bound to be an engineering crisis when they start digging. Oh yes, and from a personal note, it is on the highest point of the ridge, and will be very dominant on the skyline.

There are excellent sites not far away, better serviced and ready for social housing. Why aren't they being pursued?

[JGD]

There are excellent sites not far away, better serviced and ready for social housing. Why aren't they being pursued?

Are you willing to share your views on what and where these sites are and just as importantly why you believe they are not being pursued or progressed ?

i am certain you must be aware that CIL and s106 monies contributed by the developer are intended to address shortfalls that exist in GP and community services.

[Growsydenham]

Refusing to alleviate the housing crisis doesn’t lessen the GP shortage. Those people still live in the borough, and still need health care. They just have to live in temporary or unsuitable accommodation.

Instead of trading off the housing shortage against the GP shortage, demand we fix both. Starting with the homes we need.

[JGD]

Instead of trading off the housing shortage against the GP shortage, demand we fix both. Starting with the homes we need.

Agreed.

I am intrigued though. Why can't s106 and CIL monies be used to improve or increase GP service provision. Is there legislation that prevents it or is it the case that no-one has been creative enough to examine how it can be done ?

Late amendment

One quick search and one set of potential answers and it would seem the proposal to improve or increase GP service provision is feasible.

https://www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs ... or-health/

[Growsydenham]

And it's true that GP provision is rubbish - a month's wait for an appointment is the norm, as everyone knows.
A campaign on this, using the considerable organizational power of our local neighbourhood groups, would certainly unite the community and unlock support for the homes we need.

[marymck]

Mais House sits within Forest Hill electoral ward, although this is for politics only. There is no GP surgery within Forest Hill electoral ward. The 2011 census gave a figure of 14,854 people living within the Forest Hill electoral ward. I imagine most people from the new development will try to sign on at hideously over-subscribed Wells Park Practice, which is in Sydenham Ward.

I tried to insert an image of LBL's most recently published CIL Accounts, but the STF set up won't allow me to do so. But if the link below works, you should find the figures at Appendix 6.

https://lewisham.gov.uk/-/media/files/i ... 17-18.ashx

If Lewisham Council do decide to spend any of the CIL money, they can do so anywhere in the Borough. I believe there is also a large chunk that leaves the Borough to pay for things like Cross Rail. There are certainly figures that seem to imply that on LBL's website.

[Growsydenham]

Except, like I say, the people living in the development will either a) already live locally, so they already have access to a GP; or b) be moving from elsewhere in the area, freeing up more GP spaces there.

More than that, it's likely that some of those living in the new houses will work in the health service. One of them may even treat me.

So let's stop using the NHS as a stick to block new homes.

[stuart]

Meanwhile some good if small news on new homes approval: https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/com ... 59.article

Stuart

[Growsydenham]

Really disappointed at the hostile and unbalanced stance taken in the Sydenham Society news letter. (Page 4, top link: https://sydenhamsociety.com/documents/p ... -archives/)

Why does it fail to mention that this is 100% social housing? Or the housing crisis? The language - “devastate the lives of neighbours”, “sardine can towers” - is unfair and hyperbolic. The claim that there is a risk of land slip is not substantiated. Nor are these buildings “high rise”. It’s discouraging to see a local society engage in this UKIP-style campaigning.