No Bensonby - they don't need cars but they want them nonetheless. I try to use public transport where I can but I would not want to be without my car. Making car ownership less attractive is not going to stop people owning cars.bensonby wrote:but most people really don't need cars living in London do they? The more restricted and less attractive car-ownership is the better to be perfectly honest...parker wrote:Im thinking that Lewisham's idea of much improved public transport will mean people dont need cars as it would seem that they are expecting roughly about 25% of the residents to own a car, oh lordy! ...This is Lewisham Council for you, remember!
They said something about having ample motorcycle parking and a whopping 56 cycle rackssuppose who needs a car when you have a bicycle and several young children
How loud would it be for residents living on top of Sydenham Station?! Something like 16 trains an hour! The area should be used for retail and maybe a smaller amount of housing, and how lush would a trendy Pizza Express be at the Greyhound with lovely outdoor seating with nice luxury housing at the back with another 'pocket square' to give the area nice landscaping.
Greyhound Pub
Hi Gilly - thanks for the response.
Yeah, I got confused between the roads behind the Greyhound. I actually meant the Peak Hill Garden houses on that side would be severely affected by the height and any intrusion from views into their windows.
As for car-parking, I can see both sides. I know that people who move in would probably at some point want to own a car; however, what is the current experience of people who live in the flats above the shops along the High Street - there must surely be a really low level of car ownership amongst these?
My overall concern on the planning is the height and bland look of the proposals; my other concern is that we lose the Greyhound forever or that this site just stays derelict.
Is there an online petition posted? I'm not quite ready to sign just yet - guess I need to be convinced what the alternatives are!
Yeah, I got confused between the roads behind the Greyhound. I actually meant the Peak Hill Garden houses on that side would be severely affected by the height and any intrusion from views into their windows.
As for car-parking, I can see both sides. I know that people who move in would probably at some point want to own a car; however, what is the current experience of people who live in the flats above the shops along the High Street - there must surely be a really low level of car ownership amongst these?
My overall concern on the planning is the height and bland look of the proposals; my other concern is that we lose the Greyhound forever or that this site just stays derelict.
Is there an online petition posted? I'm not quite ready to sign just yet - guess I need to be convinced what the alternatives are!
I have started an on line petition against this monstrous carbunkle!
If you would like to sign please follow the link below or paste the address into your browser.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/greyhound-pub.html
If you would like to sign please follow the link below or paste the address into your browser.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/greyhound-pub.html
I understand where you are coming from in what you say Parker. However, that is what the developers are relying on to a certain degree. They think they can ride rough shod and the fear factor that the locals obviously don't want the site remaining derelict for years.
However, as an immediate resident to the site - yes we have the dubious pleasure of overlookng it every day - I would rather the locals have a real say in what gets built there, rather than have someone else's ideas imposed on us. As I have said, the developers don't have to live with it - we do. Lets make sure that it is a development that is worthy of its place in our town - even if it takes a little longer to get it right for Sydenham.
Once the building is complete, the developers will be long gone with their little pile of profit and we will be left to cope as best we can.
I hope you can find it in your heart to sign Parker, but of course I realise that it is your decision alone.
However, as an immediate resident to the site - yes we have the dubious pleasure of overlookng it every day - I would rather the locals have a real say in what gets built there, rather than have someone else's ideas imposed on us. As I have said, the developers don't have to live with it - we do. Lets make sure that it is a development that is worthy of its place in our town - even if it takes a little longer to get it right for Sydenham.
Once the building is complete, the developers will be long gone with their little pile of profit and we will be left to cope as best we can.
I hope you can find it in your heart to sign Parker, but of course I realise that it is your decision alone.
I believe that this is a very high quality development. The core of the Greyhound Pub is refurbished with the original tiles and matching ones commissioned. The original plan was for 75 flats – this is now 42 flats with most 2, 3 and even one 4 bedroom flats. The flats are roomy and high quality with windows back and front. The provision of a public square and planting of new trees will be a great amenity for the locality. The plan has imaginative roof gardens and even an internal garden for residents. Heating and recycling plans are highly sustainable and the building materials are timber and brick. The new retail units offer possibilities for new shops in the town centre. This is a plan that easily passes the test of suitability for inclusion in a conservation area. Certainly, the council’s design panel (made up of local architects) think so.
Whether we like it or not, national policy on parking is very restrictive, especially in town centres. Broadly there is an ever diminishing requirement for local authorities to provide parking spaces, particularly when the site is close to transport links and this is laid down in planning law. Please read the developer’s Transport Statement.
Planning Applications are not like the X Factor – reject one and another “better” one comes along in its place. The alternative, as Parker suggests, is certain to be a boarded up site with an already deteriorating Greyhound building rapidly becoming completely irreparable. The next developer will then pull it down and return to a more intensive 75 unit proposal with minimum commercial space.
Whether we like it or not, national policy on parking is very restrictive, especially in town centres. Broadly there is an ever diminishing requirement for local authorities to provide parking spaces, particularly when the site is close to transport links and this is laid down in planning law. Please read the developer’s Transport Statement.
Planning Applications are not like the X Factor – reject one and another “better” one comes along in its place. The alternative, as Parker suggests, is certain to be a boarded up site with an already deteriorating Greyhound building rapidly becoming completely irreparable. The next developer will then pull it down and return to a more intensive 75 unit proposal with minimum commercial space.
Sorry Big Ben, but I have to make a few comments.
1) Though the number of flats may have been reduced, the overall volume of the building seems to remain largely unchanged.
2) Though the (proposed) flats have windows, it does not diminish the effect on neighbouring buildings sunlight
3) Are the proposed trees enshrined in the Planning Conditions, or are these just an 'add on' by the developer? (e.g. an option)
4) If timber is used on the exterior of the building, it is likely to rapidly degrade without regular maintenance. (i have photographic evidence of similar properties)
5) Parking restrictions will reduce the desirability (sp?) of the domestic flats.....and thus reduce the asking price of the properties. Ypu cannot un-reinvent the car. This is not our concern, but will have an effect on the developers approach.
6) the proposals do look bland.
Let's wait for the detail, perhaps some imaginative designs can be added.
Ali B
1) Though the number of flats may have been reduced, the overall volume of the building seems to remain largely unchanged.
2) Though the (proposed) flats have windows, it does not diminish the effect on neighbouring buildings sunlight
3) Are the proposed trees enshrined in the Planning Conditions, or are these just an 'add on' by the developer? (e.g. an option)
4) If timber is used on the exterior of the building, it is likely to rapidly degrade without regular maintenance. (i have photographic evidence of similar properties)
5) Parking restrictions will reduce the desirability (sp?) of the domestic flats.....and thus reduce the asking price of the properties. Ypu cannot un-reinvent the car. This is not our concern, but will have an effect on the developers approach.
6) the proposals do look bland.
Let's wait for the detail, perhaps some imaginative designs can be added.
Ali B
I have to agree with Big Ben on this.
While I'd prefer the development to be a little lower, it's landscaped roofing, high quality materials, square, elegant refurbishment of the Greyhound (which will still be a commercial venture and NOT flats) will help to soften the buildlings.
Other buildings in the area are taller such as Cobbs corner and the development is the same height as the current victorian buldings opposite Kirkdale.
There is a statement in the planning regarding overlooking other building and blocking views. Before having a knee jerk reaction I advise everyone read it, it's been thought through.
As for using wood on the development, this has been thought through and if you actually look at the pictures you will notice that there isn't any!
If we want Sydenham to be up and coming, attract new business and opportunities here then this development may just be what we need.
I find it a lot less offensive than the sorry state of the high street.
While I'd prefer the development to be a little lower, it's landscaped roofing, high quality materials, square, elegant refurbishment of the Greyhound (which will still be a commercial venture and NOT flats) will help to soften the buildlings.
Other buildings in the area are taller such as Cobbs corner and the development is the same height as the current victorian buldings opposite Kirkdale.
There is a statement in the planning regarding overlooking other building and blocking views. Before having a knee jerk reaction I advise everyone read it, it's been thought through.
As for using wood on the development, this has been thought through and if you actually look at the pictures you will notice that there isn't any!
If we want Sydenham to be up and coming, attract new business and opportunities here then this development may just be what we need.
I find it a lot less offensive than the sorry state of the high street.
I also agree with Ben, the greyhound has been derilect for too long something has to be done. The plans for it aren't that great but they're sufficient. If you look at high street as it is now, it's full of grotty pound shops and empty units, something has to be done to give the high street area a new impeteus, this could achieve it, otherwise we might be in the duldrums for a while.
Hopefully by the time the East London line is open and sydenham is finally on a tube map, we'll have the greyhound area and high street scrubbed up, prospective busineses might think that opening something decent in Sydenham is great opportunity.
Hopefully by the time the East London line is open and sydenham is finally on a tube map, we'll have the greyhound area and high street scrubbed up, prospective busineses might think that opening something decent in Sydenham is great opportunity.
Surely this proposed devolpment is a monsterous carbuncle. Please send the designs to The Prince of Wales.
If this is the best we can do then I despair. There has never been housing on this site as long as I can recall. Should be for commercial use.
Gardens would be best but I guess too expensive and the lager louts would soon destroy them
If this is the best we can do then I despair. There has never been housing on this site as long as I can recall. Should be for commercial use.
Gardens would be best but I guess too expensive and the lager louts would soon destroy them
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
A copy of the Planning Statement and supporting documents has been provided by the Planning Consultants and has just arrived in the Gallery at the Kirkdale Bookshop.
This means that full sized documents and copies of reports are available to view locally and local residents do not have to either view on-line or try to get to the Town Hall within office hours.
This means that full sized documents and copies of reports are available to view locally and local residents do not have to either view on-line or try to get to the Town Hall within office hours.
Think i need a trip to the bookshop then!! We seem to be very worried about the lack of commercial space with this new development and we should be, but what businesses are going to open up here? ..have we got any idea what kinds of businesses are going to use the commercial vacancies on the site? What exactly would the Greyhound be??? Do we know?
Leenewham would you know at all??
Also the main issue seems to be that the buildings are too tall, yes they are. But is that a good enough reason to sign away and dismiss this big chance to regenerate a prestigious part of Sydenham??
Eagle i am completely with you on this, however if we had suitable alternatives then we may be able to say, look ok, were not too keen on the proposals, we want it to be all retail units and so i believe it should be, but we have no alternative and i for sure would be embarrased come the East London Line and the Greyhound site still looked the way it does now.
Ultimately i have to agree with Big Ben, this is not the XFactor where we can pick and choose, if we dont carry on with this proposal we could lose the much loved Greyhound altogether.
Leenewham would you know at all??
Also the main issue seems to be that the buildings are too tall, yes they are. But is that a good enough reason to sign away and dismiss this big chance to regenerate a prestigious part of Sydenham??
Eagle i am completely with you on this, however if we had suitable alternatives then we may be able to say, look ok, were not too keen on the proposals, we want it to be all retail units and so i believe it should be, but we have no alternative and i for sure would be embarrased come the East London Line and the Greyhound site still looked the way it does now.
Ultimately i have to agree with Big Ben, this is not the XFactor where we can pick and choose, if we dont carry on with this proposal we could lose the much loved Greyhound altogether.
While I am pleased that developers still appear to be keen on developing the site and keeping the pub, my main worry is the sheer size of the apartment blocks, they just look too big to me. Of course it could be that 42 flats are needed to make the numbers add up for the developers, but originally they wanted 75. Perhaps if they knocked off another 10, they could go one story lower?
As for the business/retail units they will have to be very keenly priced in the current environment with an increasing number of shops appearing empty on the High Street.
As for the business/retail units they will have to be very keenly priced in the current environment with an increasing number of shops appearing empty on the High Street.
I've just had a really good look through all the online documents (they weren't there when I looked the other day) and I've got to say that I'm actually quite excited by the scope and vision shown.
Far from being bland, the details for the square (and the aim to visually link the square across the street) with trees, tiles and 'brickwork' looks good IMO. Therefore, I'm going to retract my concerns over the look and feel of the public square.
I think the height of the buildings is still a worry, esp to those living in PHG. However, the Lighting studies in the application show that these are acceptable by planning standards - not much comfort to those affected mind.
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=55460
Finally, it appears that dp9 are the architects (working for Wealdfrost). I took a gander at their website and they've got some really exciting projects on there. So exciting in fact that I hope they'd incorporate some more quirks into the design (although leaving the original Greyhound entrance floor tiles in the ground of the square for the public to see and planting trees on the roofs is a bit special I guess). This is the 'blandest' project they've got going on:
http://www.dp9.co.uk/projects/offices/2 ... e_row.html
Far from being bland, the details for the square (and the aim to visually link the square across the street) with trees, tiles and 'brickwork' looks good IMO. Therefore, I'm going to retract my concerns over the look and feel of the public square.
I think the height of the buildings is still a worry, esp to those living in PHG. However, the Lighting studies in the application show that these are acceptable by planning standards - not much comfort to those affected mind.
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=55460
Finally, it appears that dp9 are the architects (working for Wealdfrost). I took a gander at their website and they've got some really exciting projects on there. So exciting in fact that I hope they'd incorporate some more quirks into the design (although leaving the original Greyhound entrance floor tiles in the ground of the square for the public to see and planting trees on the roofs is a bit special I guess). This is the 'blandest' project they've got going on:
http://www.dp9.co.uk/projects/offices/2 ... e_row.html
There are a number of points I need to make here and I speak as someone with experience of both sumitting planning applications and in the deep past as the Chair of a planning committee in dealing with them. Planning applications are never a take it or leave it matter. Frequently planning applications are refused by local councils and rather than run to appeal, developers listen to the views of local people and the Council and resubmit more acceptable plans. It is simply not true that the site will be left empty if this plan is rejected. Rather a responsible developer will seek to reach an agreement on what is acceptable for the site.
Let me also say that as someone who lives in one of the properties that will be worst affected I am desperate for the site to be developed hopefully with really high quality buildings of a modern design. However I do not accpet Big Ben's point that just because a group of architects say someting is good then it is. I have lived on and managed estates that won numerous awards when they were built from those very same architects, and strangley those buildings are now being demolished.
This scheme is not inovative. Green roofs, high standards of thermal efficiency and recycling have been around for years and indeed all developers should be striving for a carbon neutral solution. (I have just done a scheme for a travellers site with at least as many green credentials). Also in relation to the light loss diagrammes these are not the standard I would expect. What time of year or time of day do they represent. When being part of a building design team three years ago we procuded shadow maps showing the effect of the building at various times of year and day showing the affect on the neighbouring properties. I would ask you to come to my house and imagine what consequences this building will have on me and my neighbours.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are higher buildings around. But what do they overlook? In any case the Cobbs building is hardly the monolithic structure you will see here. And even if the Greyhound building is retained you will hardly notice it under the oppresive weight of these flats.
So don't be frightened into thinking this is take it or leave it time. That is not true. Rather it is a time to hold our nerve, think of everyone involved and get a development we can truely be proud of in Sydenham.
Let me also say that as someone who lives in one of the properties that will be worst affected I am desperate for the site to be developed hopefully with really high quality buildings of a modern design. However I do not accpet Big Ben's point that just because a group of architects say someting is good then it is. I have lived on and managed estates that won numerous awards when they were built from those very same architects, and strangley those buildings are now being demolished.
This scheme is not inovative. Green roofs, high standards of thermal efficiency and recycling have been around for years and indeed all developers should be striving for a carbon neutral solution. (I have just done a scheme for a travellers site with at least as many green credentials). Also in relation to the light loss diagrammes these are not the standard I would expect. What time of year or time of day do they represent. When being part of a building design team three years ago we procuded shadow maps showing the effect of the building at various times of year and day showing the affect on the neighbouring properties. I would ask you to come to my house and imagine what consequences this building will have on me and my neighbours.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are higher buildings around. But what do they overlook? In any case the Cobbs building is hardly the monolithic structure you will see here. And even if the Greyhound building is retained you will hardly notice it under the oppresive weight of these flats.
So don't be frightened into thinking this is take it or leave it time. That is not true. Rather it is a time to hold our nerve, think of everyone involved and get a development we can truely be proud of in Sydenham.
And I should have said sign my on line petition!
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/greyhound-pub.html
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/greyhound-pub.html
-
biscuitman1978
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: 16 May 2006 20:14
- Location: Chislehurst; previously Sydenham
dp9 are the planning consultants. The architects are 6a architects - http://www.6a.co.ukGaz wrote:Finally, it appears that dp9 are the architects (working for Wealdfrost).
i didn't mean to be confrontational, i was trying to put across a balanced opinion. Whatever is proposed will be with us for a lifetime, therefore i wouldn't want a 'rush job', or a 'take it or leave it' scheme.
Whilst we await the detail, i do think the current proposals are lacking imagination and could be submitted in a far better format.
Just because the site is laying 'dormant', should not be seen as a lever to get innadequate propsals accepted.
(my opinion)
Ali B
Whilst we await the detail, i do think the current proposals are lacking imagination and could be submitted in a far better format.
Just because the site is laying 'dormant', should not be seen as a lever to get innadequate propsals accepted.
(my opinion)
Ali B
-
scott.l.hamilton
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 28 Jan 2008 11:51
- Location: SE26
Start somewhere! People are wanting a utopian (Chelsea / Kensington - high cost, cutting edge) design in an area riddled by pound shops and low cost/ low quality shops and a community at "battle" with itself. Don't get offended yet, the high street has some gems, but predominately, it is rubbish. Before anyone knows exactly what is happening at the Chemists, there are calls to boycott. This is reasonable and certainly entices future/potential traders.
The Greyhound site and design team has taken great efforts to come up with a suitable, feasible and appropriate design. While it could be better in a perfect world, the design is appropriate for the current environment and the mid-term furture 15-30 years.
There is a thread how how Penge is moving ahead of Sydenham. In a way they are. They are moving! sydenham is waiting for someone(s) to come and say, " What an undiscovered gem, let's make it perfect!"
This will not happen, change is incremental and you have to start somewhere.
Simple formula. no start = no change
How about we take a new approach...
Rather than constanly saying why things can't happen and shouldn't happen, let's come up with options and reasonable and feasible ways to make executable ideas better.
Respectfully from someone who wants a better Sydenham
The Greyhound site and design team has taken great efforts to come up with a suitable, feasible and appropriate design. While it could be better in a perfect world, the design is appropriate for the current environment and the mid-term furture 15-30 years.
There is a thread how how Penge is moving ahead of Sydenham. In a way they are. They are moving! sydenham is waiting for someone(s) to come and say, " What an undiscovered gem, let's make it perfect!"
This will not happen, change is incremental and you have to start somewhere.
Simple formula. no start = no change
How about we take a new approach...
Rather than constanly saying why things can't happen and shouldn't happen, let's come up with options and reasonable and feasible ways to make executable ideas better.
Respectfully from someone who wants a better Sydenham
Ali - there are hundreds of pages of detail in the Lewisham planning docs link I posted above!ALIB wrote:Whilst we await the detail, i do think the current proposals are lacking imagination and could be submitted in a far better format.
Simono - I know green roofs are not a new thing. I personally though haven't seen actual rooted trees on roofs before. Would you say the plans would be acceptable to PHG if the blocks were one storey lower?
Biscuitdude - Doh! Thanks for the link. Their website isn't so inspiring...
Scott - Yep, pretty much agree with this. Last thing we want is a 'Forest Hill pools' stand-off situation for the Greyhound.
Gaz