Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds

bag lady · Post by **bag lady** » 9 Sep 2009 13:07

There is yet another planning application in, for yet another block of boxes (one and two bedrooms) on Kirkdale.

109-111, which at present is Raj's old news agents and the estate agents, they've applied for a block of several flats and a retail outlet.

No Parking spaces, only bikes.

I'm concerned at the expansion of buildings and esp flats with no parking in this area.

The new builds are overall ugly boxes in my opinion, none of the new builds have parking and are pretty small. The retail units are not letting and the one next to the proposal has been empty since it was built several years ago.

The Application is dc/o9/72209 on the lewisham planning site.

I've written my views to the planning dept and suggested they include the Sydenham society in the consultation .

Anyone share my view or have concerns?

Nickerbockers · Post by **Nickerbockers** » 9 Sep 2009 14:29

I totally share your views - I think FAR too many people are being shoe-horned into London, especially South East it would seem, and soon it's going to have an impact on day to day life! It makes me so angry that current residents are never thought of in the drive to build more ugly blocks of flats in areas that could be put to much better - and prettier - use! It makes me SO mad, and I will definitely be moving out of London eventually!! It's not a nice place to live anymore...

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 9 Sep 2009 15:41

I 100% agree the government will not be content until the South East is totally built over.
I think most people think the population is already far too big.

dickp · Post by **dickp** » 9 Sep 2009 16:33

Ok. So you're complaining that a building will be replaced by a building. In an area full of buildings.

What did you think they would put there? A farm? A slate quarry? A cheese factory?

And Eagle: The South East is not built over, however much you think it is. The conurbation of London pretty much stops eight miles to the south of Sydenham. There are miles upon miles of open country side, if you'd care to enjoy it - left undeveloped, mainly, because of the city's high population density.

Rant over.

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 9 Sep 2009 17:05

I cant remember a time in Sydenham where it was so packed you couldn't walk down the high street. I think that's a tad excessive!

The borough of Lewisham is the 12th most densely populated borough in London (which means it's one of the least most densely populated!).

London is the most Densely populated city in the UK.

London is the 43rd most densely populated city in the world.

Within a short walk you have Mayow park, Wells Park, Home Park, Crystal Palace Park, Sydenham Hill Woods etc etc.

London has a huge amount of parks.

As already said we live on the verge of a vast amount of beautiful open Spaces.

With the East London Line on it's way you will find more people will be living here. Good for the high street. Not good if you don't like people.

dickp · Post by **dickp** » 9 Sep 2009 17:34

Not to mention:

Beckenham Place Park (1.4 miles)
South Norwood Country Park (2.2 miles)
Bromley Common (6 miles)
West Wickham Common (6 miles)....

richpickings · Post by **richpickings** » 9 Sep 2009 22:35

It's not about "not liking people" it is about inappropriate and unnecessary development. The proposal as it stands would create a building higher than the surrounding properties blocking out the views of and devaluing neighbouring properties as well as creating more unoccupied and not needed retail space which is not good for any neighbourhood. The development next door has never utilised its retail space and the recent residential developments on the corner of Dartmouth Road (that were granted planning permission without adequate local consultation) reman unoccupied. This is one development too far.

Steve Grindlay · Post by **Steve Grindlay** » 10 Sep 2009 09:14

This shows the group of shops some years ago when still fairly intact. They were part of what was Sydenham (and Forest hill's) original shopping centre, laid out in the 1830s and known until the 1930s as the High Street. Olwen Carthew and the PO are the two shops the developers want to demolish. So much of this historic part of Kirkdale has been demolised in recent years I do feel it would be worth hanging on to these two, if only to remind us of what it was once like.

blue&whitewizard1991 · Post by **blue&whitewizard1991** » 10 Sep 2009 12:24

Steve Grindlay wrote:This shows the group of shops some years ago when still fairly intact. They were part of what was Sydenham (and Forest hill's) original shopping centre, laid out in the 1830s and known until the 1930s as the High Street. Olwen Carthew and the PO are the two shops the developers want to demolish. So much of this historic part of Kirkdale has been demolised in recent years I do feel it would be worth hanging on to these two, if only to remind us of what it was once like.

Just because it is old doesn't mean it is worth saving. I would question whether those two buildings are architectually superior to what is due to replace them.

ALIB · Post by **ALIB** » 10 Sep 2009 14:46

I think the real issue is the proposed end-use.

Of course the deign of any new build will have to be taken on its own merits, but the density of these new development projects is quite worrying. These would ppear to be ghettos in the making.

Looking at the recent new-builds at the end of Dartmouth Road and Willow Way I would say they offer little in the way of architectural input and in terms of end-use, devalue the area.

Just my opinion.

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 10 Sep 2009 19:17

Unfortunately the new builds in Kirkdale are of poor quality. There seem to be lots of empty properties around. Why not spruce those up first and convert those rather than knocking them down and building property no one likes or wants.

I'm with steve on this one. It's always worth saving a bit of the past to contrast with the new.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 11 Sep 2009 00:16

I'm a bit ambivalent about a new development there to be honest. Granted the existing buildings are slightly interesting in the way the 2nd storey is set back with a pitched roof; however, they are certainly not remarkable.

I also think that by more people moving into this end of Kirkdale, it would encourage greater footfall to the shops in Kirkdale thus preserving and encouraging the retail along there. I'm certainly not in favour of increasing the number of cars in the local area though.

dickp · Post by **dickp** » 11 Sep 2009 08:35

The property developer owns THAT property. He doesn't own the others. So whether other properties in the same areas should be renovated is irrelevent to whether THIS property should be redeveloped.

These properties are a clapped out eyesore. The retail units are small. From the outside at least, the accomodation looks grotty. Would you live there? Really?

I really can't think why these properties are remotely worth saving. Down the road, the Tescos property is new, probably pleasant to live in and - as a retail outlet - extremely popular. There is a very simple reason for this - it is fit for the needs of the 21st century.

What do you lot actually want? A clapped out, grubby, heritage ghetto, or a well-used high street, with accomodation you'd actually live in?

Great Bustard · Post by **Great Bustard** » 11 Sep 2009 10:15

" I do feel it would be worth hanging on to these two, if only to remind us of what it was once like."

A picture says a thousand words, but that one only needs three...."pull 'em down !!"

Youve got the pic as a reminder !

Steve Grindlay · Post by **Steve Grindlay** » 11 Sep 2009 10:57

blue&whitewizard1991 wrote:Just because it is old doesn't mean it is worth saving

I assume that as you quoted my whole post you were attributing that remark to me. I neither said it, not do I believe it. What I do strongly believe is that no building should be demolished unless something better is going to replace it.

If something like this is considered better then there is a compelling case for demolition:

You, dickp, Great Bustard and perhaps others may well think this improves the streetscape; I do not. And remember, the proposed new building is a whole storey higher.

Incidentally, 109 Kirkdale has (for me at least) a long and interesting history which is reflected in various additions and extensions at the back. Clearly this is of no interest to you so I won't bore you with the details.

dickp · Post by **dickp** » 11 Sep 2009 12:31

History has its place.

But you can't live in it or shop in it.

Thomas · Post by **Thomas** » 11 Sep 2009 12:58

I've been quite interested in the old photos that I have seen of the area and would be interested to hear more about the area.

Wispy Wonder · Post by **Wispy Wonder** » 11 Sep 2009 12:59

I'm usually quick to moan when old buildings in the areas are pulled down, but having seen the plans, I think they're OK. They do at least look as if they once graced an architects table (unlike so many other generic, off-the-shelf new builds nearby), and could act as something of an architectural beacon midst the grot on either side. And, they even present an attractive-ish face to Willow Walk - although who would want to look out over that mess escapes me.

I think it's fair to say that the shops around there are probably all holding on by the skins of their teeth, and if this development helps one do better (even if it is an estate agent), then so much the better. You never know, their success might rub off on the others. The area is not going to get any better as it is.

As for ghettoization - maybe that's true but I imagine the future marketing guff will refer to it as an enclave, shortly followed by references to Kirkdale Village/Quarter no doubt.

W. Wonder

Great Bustard · Post by **Great Bustard** » 11 Sep 2009 14:08

"ghettoization"

Thats for the most part down to the people rather than the properties.

Decent people will always be decent wherever they live.

Juwlz · Post by **Juwlz** » 11 Sep 2009 15:45

I think the new plans look really good though I haven't studied them in detail they look quite exciting and as though they're making an effort to build something different. Looks as though they have done a proper study of the surroundings too.

I think the proposed building is much better than what's already there and I would be very disappointed if the new building is opposed.

Sorry, I like history and old buildings but I just don't think these ones are special enough to warrant blocking a decent new build.

All these people moaning about more people. More people are coming anyway whether you like ot or not - they might as well live in decent homes rather than crap ones.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004

Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds

Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds