I dont understand why people think more people living in Sydenham is a problem, SE London is no where near as densely populated as other areas such as SW London. Why are people objecting to having people living in these empty buildings, its not like the local shops couldnt handle a greater footfall, a good indication of the lack of people in this area is the lack of new money going into investment of the borough and the small number of new business opportunities in the high street.
If you want to see a place that is bursting at the seams go to Tooting Broadway or Putney High Street. Sydenham is no where near as busy.
Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road New builds
Yeah, I agree with you Parker. And if we don't build decent buildings no-one will actually want to live here, so it'll just be a dump.
I think this area around Kirkdale could be quite a nice little place in a couple of years. The Tesco building actually looks quite good quality with nice smart flats, and this building would further enhance the area.
Furthermore I'd say that the photos kindly posted above by Steve are obviously a few years old – the buildings don't look anything like as charming now - and even in that photo they do look very run-down. These buildings are not going to be cared for in their current state and can only get worse.
Steve – you say you are not against new development only concerned about what they're going to be replaced by. Well it looks like we have something to be positive about because the new proposals look really good.
I think this area around Kirkdale could be quite a nice little place in a couple of years. The Tesco building actually looks quite good quality with nice smart flats, and this building would further enhance the area.
Furthermore I'd say that the photos kindly posted above by Steve are obviously a few years old – the buildings don't look anything like as charming now - and even in that photo they do look very run-down. These buildings are not going to be cared for in their current state and can only get worse.
Steve – you say you are not against new development only concerned about what they're going to be replaced by. Well it looks like we have something to be positive about because the new proposals look really good.
-
richpickings
- Posts: 75
- Joined: 15 Oct 2006 17:05
- Location: Ex of Kirkdale
as someone who overlooks these buildings I would much rather have the current buildings rather than yet more empty, soulless retail units, which, at four storey's high, would block out the rather nice view that attracted me to my current property in the first place. I definitely object. Let's fill the empty units first before we add more (and with something other than fried chicken outlets)
The Forest Hill Society has written in support of the Sydenham Society to object to the proposed development at 109-111 Kirkdale.
Our main concerns are on the impact to the streetscape, access to the rear building, issues of overlooking, inadequate amenity space, lack of parking provision, and the effect this development could have on the redevelopment of the Willow Way site for employment use.
Full details of the letter of objection from the Forest Hill Society can be read here.
Our main concerns are on the impact to the streetscape, access to the rear building, issues of overlooking, inadequate amenity space, lack of parking provision, and the effect this development could have on the redevelopment of the Willow Way site for employment use.
Full details of the letter of objection from the Forest Hill Society can be read here.
The FH Society has written of several concerns in their objection letter which I am surprised haven't been already covered in the developers' discussions with the planning dept.
I must say though that I do actually like the proposals overall and I would like to see a new development there (and have no objection to more people residing in this part of Sydenham):
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/48312_1.pdf
I must say though that I do actually like the proposals overall and I would like to see a new development there (and have no objection to more people residing in this part of Sydenham):
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/48312_1.pdf
Hmm, it's not a bad development. Certainly compared to all the other one s in Kirkdale which are awful and have totally ripped the character of the area apart.
Looking at Steves post, it's a shame so much has been lost to poorly designed, ugly, unused unloved blocks. Shame this development wasn't one of those.
Looking at Steves post, it's a shame so much has been lost to poorly designed, ugly, unused unloved blocks. Shame this development wasn't one of those.
Agreed – which is why we have to start supporting good developments when they happen. Tis a pity it happens to be on the site of these last two old buildings, but I personally believe its too late for them anyway.leenewham wrote:Hmm, it's not a bad development. Certainly compared to all the other one s in Kirkdale which are awful and have totally ripped the character of the area apart.
Looking at Steves post, it's a shame so much has been lost to poorly designed, ugly, unused unloved blocks. Shame this development wasn't one of those.
The population of this area - SE26, Lewisham or south-east London - is lower than it was 50 or 60 years ago.
The population of Greater London was 8.6m in 1939 and in 2006 (the last reliable count) was 7.46m. GLA studies (carried out with the help of London university departments) estimate a population of 8.27m by 2026.
In other words the population of London in 2026 will be lower than that of 1939.
There is no risk of water deficiency in south-east England. We have plenty of rainfall. The problem is retention and storage - which is why our local roads are currently full of excavations!
We have a shortage of homes, because of a greater number of households - not people. Let's build more homes providing they are of good quality. However, this proposed development in Kirkdale is not of good enough quality and should be rejected.
The population of Greater London was 8.6m in 1939 and in 2006 (the last reliable count) was 7.46m. GLA studies (carried out with the help of London university departments) estimate a population of 8.27m by 2026.
In other words the population of London in 2026 will be lower than that of 1939.
There is no risk of water deficiency in south-east England. We have plenty of rainfall. The problem is retention and storage - which is why our local roads are currently full of excavations!
We have a shortage of homes, because of a greater number of households - not people. Let's build more homes providing they are of good quality. However, this proposed development in Kirkdale is not of good enough quality and should be rejected.
I already read the FH objection and I disagreed with the majority of it. It seemed to be based on opinion rather than fact, but I suppose that is the point of planning objections.nasaroc wrote:Read the submissions by the FH and Sydenham Society above.
I have no idea what the official Syd Soc objection is – I can't find it anywhere – unless its the same as the FH one.
My real problem with this is how I perceive the process behind whether to object to something or not seems to work.
It appears to me it goes something like this: Someone find out they're going to knock down two historic old buildings to build a modern one – apparently that must be stopped at all costs so then the plans for the new building are looked at with the eye to object to them. So they are pored over for anything that COULD be objected to – without someone actually taking a step back and saying - hang on - overall is this new building maybe actually a bit better overall than these old buildings?
I really hope I am wrong but this is how I perceive it to work at the moment.
When I wrote the letter of objection from the Forest Hill Society about this development I knew nothing of the historic nature of the site. This was certainly not the motivation of the Forest Hill Society in objecting, nor is any mention made in our submission. There was another motivation that I shall come to in a moment.Juwlz wrote: It appears to me it goes something like this: Someone find out they're going to knock down two historic old buildings to build a modern one – apparently that must be stopped at all costs so then the plans for the new building are looked at with the eye to object to them. So they are pored over for anything that COULD be objected to – without someone actually taking a step back and saying - hang on - overall is this new building maybe actually a bit better overall than these old buildings?
I really hope I am wrong but this is how I perceive it to work at the moment.
For me the real problem is the replacement of a single building with two buildings at the front and back of the property. This creates a whole range of problems that are detailed in the objection.
But you are right that, once you choose to object to an application, it is important to include all relavent planning issues. Every one of our objections is related to specific planning policy adopted by Lewisham council, and which they should uphold.
The other motivation for objecting to this development was the impact it will have on the Willow Way site. This site has the potential to significantly regenerate this area of Sydenham (not as a pool but in other interesting employment uses). My fear is that by allowing a front entrance to a property from the very edge of this site, it will reduce the development opportunities of this site. Having spent a lot of energy looking at possible uses for this site, it would be a real shame if the development of the Kirkdale site prevented a greater regeneration for Kirkdale/Willow Way.
I do agree with those who say that the modern building proposed for the frontage does look better than what is there at present (not that I wish to demean their historic character), although the 'golden box' concept seems a little odd and I suspect it is only to avoid the potential problems of party walls with the neighbouring properties.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
It looks as though those who are keen to see the last remaining buildings in Kirkdale replaced by nice, modern ones are going to get their way.
This recent application proposes: "the alteration and configuration of... 105 Kirkdale... to provide a smaller retail unit and a 2 bedroom self-contained maisonette with provision of three car parking spaces."
105 Kirkdale in on the left of the Londis building.
This recent application proposes: "the alteration and configuration of... 105 Kirkdale... to provide a smaller retail unit and a 2 bedroom self-contained maisonette with provision of three car parking spaces."
105 Kirkdale in on the left of the Londis building.
Everything that has been built close to the roundabout on Kirkdale - especially the flats on Dartmouth Road, and the flats that Steve has taken the picture of - looks like a gerry-built (can we still use that term?) eyesore.
Even the flats over the Tesco Express (the best of a bad bunch) are about as uninspirational as architecture can be. They look poorly designed and poorly built.
The buildings which are cleared by Lewisham council never fail to astound me.
The whole issue, in my opinion, harks back to the bad old days of the fifties and sixties, when planning permission was granted on the basis of a brown envelope.
I know of a recent case, also in Forest Hill, where there was a massive objection from local people to a residential development, and they put together a lucid and coherent objection to the plans - which was subsequently railroaded and rubber stamped.
I find episodes like that very suspicious.
Even the flats over the Tesco Express (the best of a bad bunch) are about as uninspirational as architecture can be. They look poorly designed and poorly built.
The buildings which are cleared by Lewisham council never fail to astound me.
The whole issue, in my opinion, harks back to the bad old days of the fifties and sixties, when planning permission was granted on the basis of a brown envelope.
I know of a recent case, also in Forest Hill, where there was a massive objection from local people to a residential development, and they put together a lucid and coherent objection to the plans - which was subsequently railroaded and rubber stamped.
I find episodes like that very suspicious.
I Share your concerns about the planning dept Fishcox.
I'm not bothered that modern buildings are replacing old ones, it's about the quality, size and amenities that this property and some of the recent additions in the area provide and the impression these give the area.
Some of the newer buildings have tiny rooms, unusual layouts and no parking or room for bins.
Walking past the yellow building today you will see rubbish blocking the pavement. It stinks and looks distgusting. What does that say about the area?
Regards the plans for 105 i think these modernise the building and split the shop acomodation apart from the flat making it more attractive to residents. It provides 3 parking spaces and room for bins. I think it will improve the area
I'm not bothered that modern buildings are replacing old ones, it's about the quality, size and amenities that this property and some of the recent additions in the area provide and the impression these give the area.
Some of the newer buildings have tiny rooms, unusual layouts and no parking or room for bins.
Walking past the yellow building today you will see rubbish blocking the pavement. It stinks and looks distgusting. What does that say about the area?
Regards the plans for 105 i think these modernise the building and split the shop acomodation apart from the flat making it more attractive to residents. It provides 3 parking spaces and room for bins. I think it will improve the area
-
Trawlerman
- Posts: 318
- Joined: 17 Sep 2009 13:56
- Location: Sydenham
new buildings etc
What's this about 'no parking...spaces ...only bikes'...?
I would have thought the fewer cars in London...the better??
[3000 or so dead on UK roads per year, many thousands more maimed for life, ongong problems re juvenile asthma, 'congestion', global warming...shall I go on... ?]
Bikes bad? Cars good? Don't make me laugh !!
Also... Building on spaces where they have always [for the past 100 years or so] had buildings?
Hmmm...[But I am in favour of 'pretty' ...Let's have more 'pretty' [Please]
I would have thought the fewer cars in London...the better??
[3000 or so dead on UK roads per year, many thousands more maimed for life, ongong problems re juvenile asthma, 'congestion', global warming...shall I go on... ?]
Bikes bad? Cars good? Don't make me laugh !!
Also... Building on spaces where they have always [for the past 100 years or so] had buildings?
Hmmm...[But I am in favour of 'pretty' ...Let's have more 'pretty' [Please]
Agreed fewer cars the better. But it's naive to think that Having flats without parking spaces deters people from Driving or owning cars.
They'll use the street parking, so congesting the streets even more.
Equally providing cycle spaces wouldn't particuarly encourage people to cycle.
""Also... Building on spaces where they have always [for the past 100 years or so] had buildings? ""
Noones suggesting we want it all to be green fields round here, just quality housing which improves the look of the area instead of all these crappy little boxes.
And yes pretty is ok
They'll use the street parking, so congesting the streets even more.
Equally providing cycle spaces wouldn't particuarly encourage people to cycle.
""Also... Building on spaces where they have always [for the past 100 years or so] had buildings? ""
Noones suggesting we want it all to be green fields round here, just quality housing which improves the look of the area instead of all these crappy little boxes.
And yes pretty is ok
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
You're quite right, bag lady. When I first saw this application the documentation wasn't available. It looks better better than I feared and may, as you say, improve the area.bag lady wrote:Regards the plans for 105 i think these modernise the building and split the shop acomodation apart from the flat making it more attractive to residents.
I would just like to add some comments.
I am not a big fan of many new developments which seem plain compared to older buildings. However, newer buildings tend to be more functional, more energy efficient and more appropriately designed.
Of course, how well a building is designed and how it looks can be very much subjective. As for the provision of car parkling spaces, although I use public transport when i can, I also have a car. I think you will find most people who have a driving licence will want a car. I would think (and i am ready to be proved wrong) that residential buildings with parking spaces will attract a higher sale price than those without.
Following this train of thought, flats without parking spaces may also be problematic to sell. The free-market (although at the mercy of developers pf varying degrees of (in)competency) is considered the best rule of thumb for proposals.
I am a big advocate of the integrated Planning system, but I'm not sure if you can object to the proposal on the basis of what might happen to the Council land behind it (on Willow Way). In the absence of any firm proposals or timescales for the site on Willow Way, I would find it difficult to put the argument forward that this development would have a detrimental impact.
I am not a big fan of many new developments which seem plain compared to older buildings. However, newer buildings tend to be more functional, more energy efficient and more appropriately designed.
Of course, how well a building is designed and how it looks can be very much subjective. As for the provision of car parkling spaces, although I use public transport when i can, I also have a car. I think you will find most people who have a driving licence will want a car. I would think (and i am ready to be proved wrong) that residential buildings with parking spaces will attract a higher sale price than those without.
Following this train of thought, flats without parking spaces may also be problematic to sell. The free-market (although at the mercy of developers pf varying degrees of (in)competency) is considered the best rule of thumb for proposals.
I am a big advocate of the integrated Planning system, but I'm not sure if you can object to the proposal on the basis of what might happen to the Council land behind it (on Willow Way). In the absence of any firm proposals or timescales for the site on Willow Way, I would find it difficult to put the argument forward that this development would have a detrimental impact.