It seems the owners of No 22a and 24 Sydenham Rd have applied for permission to bulldoze the existing buildings and replace them with a four storey block of flats. (For any one who doesn’t know quite where I mean, they’re the buildings just below the former HSBC – one currently trading as a pound shop, the other as an office for a blinds fitter.)
Although the buildings are currently quite run down, they date from the 1750's, and are among the oldest left in Sydenham. Rather than replace them with yet more flats, our High St would be much richer and more interesting if they were restored. The one with the yard in front would make a very attractive pub, for instance. (The Sydenham Society much have an opinion on this)
You can see the application for yourself on the Lewisham council website http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=48727
If you want to object, you’ve only got until 27th December to do so.
W. Wonder
Historic buildings under threat
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
It's hard to tell exactly from the plans, but this development looks exciting. Never knew about the old buildings at the back - to be honest all we can see is an eyesore at the moment. What is this meeting hall? Could it be saved/moved?
They claim the materials are going to be sympathetic with the surroundings and it's great that there'll be live/work units. The emphasis is not on cars but on bikes and proximity to the station. Puts extra pressure on the trains, though.
The rear timberwork and landscaping look better than the front. I'd love to see a model.
They claim the materials are going to be sympathetic with the surroundings and it's great that there'll be live/work units. The emphasis is not on cars but on bikes and proximity to the station. Puts extra pressure on the trains, though.
The rear timberwork and landscaping look better than the front. I'd love to see a model.
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
The proposed frontage looks nobetter than the 1950's blitz replacements further down the High St - very drab, cheap and nasty. Honestly - would they suggest such low grade design for Beckenham or Dulwich - I don't think so. But of course, this is Sydenham...........
Looks aside, as well as the loss of the existing buildings, does the developer honestly think the occupants won't have cars simply because there's public transport nearby? And where are these cars going to be parked? Venner Rd, Newlands Park and Homecroft Rd - great - has anyone tried parking on these roads during the day - fun isn't it - NOT.
The proposal is a complete over-development, cramming units into every corner possible, milking the site for all it's worth and giving nothing in return - oh, except a space for London's largest pound shop.
W. Wonder
Looks aside, as well as the loss of the existing buildings, does the developer honestly think the occupants won't have cars simply because there's public transport nearby? And where are these cars going to be parked? Venner Rd, Newlands Park and Homecroft Rd - great - has anyone tried parking on these roads during the day - fun isn't it - NOT.
The proposal is a complete over-development, cramming units into every corner possible, milking the site for all it's worth and giving nothing in return - oh, except a space for London's largest pound shop.
W. Wonder
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
Although Wispy Wonder makes some very valid points, I'm not sure that the case for restoring the present buildings is that strong.
I'm generally all for preserving and restoring Sydenham's old buildings, and would normally be inclined to support the call to oppose this application. However, a couple of months ago I was given the opportunity to have a look around the cottages, and take some photographs. Because there is so little of the original structure surviving, apart from parts of the wall fronting Sydenham Road, there is little left to restore.
Both buildings have been in industrial use since the 1890s. Norman Cottage, no.24, was a builder's workshop and yard for over 80 years and Arden Cottage, no.22a, was a commercial laundry for more than 70 years. These uses took their toll on the original fabric and during my visit I was unable to find anything internally that reflected their age. I don't feel that restoration would be an option, both cottages would need to be virtually rebuilt.
The site to be redeveloped is very large, the cottages are just a small part of it with large units extending behind. I don't believe there is a case for opposing the application on the grounds of protecting the two cottages. Aesthetics, however, is another matter and the fight should be to ensure that what is proposed will be a worthy addition to the high street, architecturally, socially and commercially.
These are the cottages being talked about:
I've uploaded some of the pictures I took [here].
I'm generally all for preserving and restoring Sydenham's old buildings, and would normally be inclined to support the call to oppose this application. However, a couple of months ago I was given the opportunity to have a look around the cottages, and take some photographs. Because there is so little of the original structure surviving, apart from parts of the wall fronting Sydenham Road, there is little left to restore.
Both buildings have been in industrial use since the 1890s. Norman Cottage, no.24, was a builder's workshop and yard for over 80 years and Arden Cottage, no.22a, was a commercial laundry for more than 70 years. These uses took their toll on the original fabric and during my visit I was unable to find anything internally that reflected their age. I don't feel that restoration would be an option, both cottages would need to be virtually rebuilt.
The site to be redeveloped is very large, the cottages are just a small part of it with large units extending behind. I don't believe there is a case for opposing the application on the grounds of protecting the two cottages. Aesthetics, however, is another matter and the fight should be to ensure that what is proposed will be a worthy addition to the high street, architecturally, socially and commercially.
These are the cottages being talked about:
I've uploaded some of the pictures I took [here].
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
It doesn't look cheap to me. They seem to have done their homework and worked with the planning department. They specifically state that the commercial unit is to be flexible and quote the Sydenham Road Shopping Centre Manager who wants a family restaurant/coffee shop.
And these flats are two-bedroomed, not studios, hardly crammed in. These seven live-work units behind could attract enterprising/arty people to the area.
As for the parking, is that why you are set against them, Wispy Wonder?
And these flats are two-bedroomed, not studios, hardly crammed in. These seven live-work units behind could attract enterprising/arty people to the area.
As for the parking, is that why you are set against them, Wispy Wonder?
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
Thanks, Steve, for uploading the pix, which show what a large site this is.
Planning Service at Lewisham has to deal with the application as submitted, and the Sydenham Society has commented on the application as submitted. There are a number of points on which we agree with Wispy Wonder.
I very much doubt whether this application will be the definitive application which will go before the Planning Committee for approval. What is good is that this site is ready for redevelopment and the unit at street level will be one of the largest available in Sydenham Road.
The site has previously been designated for industrial use (once being the site of a laundry), although for many years there were 4 employees assembling imported blinds on site. The application has been made for A1 (retail) and A2 (business, office) use. The Sydenham Society has requested that A3 (restaurant) be added to these categories in order to make the unit as marketable as possible.
As WW says there is a deadline of 27 December for comments to be made to Planning Service. It is open to anyone with an interest in Sydenham Road to comment of this application - the URL of which is provided above.
Planning Service at Lewisham has to deal with the application as submitted, and the Sydenham Society has commented on the application as submitted. There are a number of points on which we agree with Wispy Wonder.
I very much doubt whether this application will be the definitive application which will go before the Planning Committee for approval. What is good is that this site is ready for redevelopment and the unit at street level will be one of the largest available in Sydenham Road.
The site has previously been designated for industrial use (once being the site of a laundry), although for many years there were 4 employees assembling imported blinds on site. The application has been made for A1 (retail) and A2 (business, office) use. The Sydenham Society has requested that A3 (restaurant) be added to these categories in order to make the unit as marketable as possible.
As WW says there is a deadline of 27 December for comments to be made to Planning Service. It is open to anyone with an interest in Sydenham Road to comment of this application - the URL of which is provided above.
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
-
Wispy Wonder
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 11 Jan 2006 22:13
- Location: Sydenham
castiron73 - my objections to the proposed development are as I stated previously but to recap and elaborate:-
The current buildings are a mess but could be renovated and make an attractive feature on Sydenham Rd. As others have added on the forum, the site is very large and could easily be developed at the back to provide shop space, a restaurant, or even living accommodation – leaving the restored façade standing.
Regards the development, the proposed street frontage is totally out of keeping with neighbouring buildings and will stick out like a sore thumb – much in the same way as the Naborhood Centre does down the road. The rear aspect is no better, I mean who’s really going to want to live in a development tucked behind shops where the only access is a pokey alley. It won’t be the arty/creative types you hope – more like buy-to-let types.
Parking is a big issue though. As it is, the High st and station are poorly served with parking spaces. Hence, Newlands Park, Homecroft and Venner roads are commonly chocked with cars belonging to commuters, shoppers, and local shop and office workers. It’s naïve to think that simply because there is public transport nearby, that the new residents won’t have cars, as the proposal implies. They too, therefore will park on the surrounding roads, leaving even less for everyone else – including those all important shoppers. And if anyone doubts how important the parking is on these roads to the high st, just come and watch the shoppers come and go at the weekend.
So fine – redevelop the site – but any new buildings should make a positive contribution to Sydenham – not blight the streetscape or further undermine the potential of the high st to function as a retail area.
W. Wonder
The current buildings are a mess but could be renovated and make an attractive feature on Sydenham Rd. As others have added on the forum, the site is very large and could easily be developed at the back to provide shop space, a restaurant, or even living accommodation – leaving the restored façade standing.
Regards the development, the proposed street frontage is totally out of keeping with neighbouring buildings and will stick out like a sore thumb – much in the same way as the Naborhood Centre does down the road. The rear aspect is no better, I mean who’s really going to want to live in a development tucked behind shops where the only access is a pokey alley. It won’t be the arty/creative types you hope – more like buy-to-let types.
Parking is a big issue though. As it is, the High st and station are poorly served with parking spaces. Hence, Newlands Park, Homecroft and Venner roads are commonly chocked with cars belonging to commuters, shoppers, and local shop and office workers. It’s naïve to think that simply because there is public transport nearby, that the new residents won’t have cars, as the proposal implies. They too, therefore will park on the surrounding roads, leaving even less for everyone else – including those all important shoppers. And if anyone doubts how important the parking is on these roads to the high st, just come and watch the shoppers come and go at the weekend.
So fine – redevelop the site – but any new buildings should make a positive contribution to Sydenham – not blight the streetscape or further undermine the potential of the high st to function as a retail area.
W. Wonder
Planning objection
Given that there is very little of the original building left and that a decent new development would enhance the high street I don't object to the building in principal. However I am very concerned that 14 two bed and 7 one bed apartments will seriously affect the parking situation in Homecroft Road. We have two young kids and my wife frequently has difficulty finding parking near our house. Consequently I have lodged an objection with the planning office.
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
I like the design of the proposed building. I had a good look at the site on the way home from the station and it really lets the block down. It would also get rid of that nasty advertising hoarding on the side of the building on the left.
But I grant you parking is a big issue. The free car park seems too far for shoppers in cars to bother with. They want to use the nearer side roads. The lower Thorpes get filled up with commuters during the day. Luckily we're a few yards too far away for the lazy sods to park near our house, but occasionally we have to park in another street as neighbours get pushed up the hill.
Trouble is, I've heard the new high street design can't take any account of accommodating cars or TfL won't be interested in financing it. I imagine most London planning laws deter builders from incorporating parking too.
Perhaps they should build flats on the car park and turn the cottage site into a multi-storey car park. With red bricks and sash windows of course
But I grant you parking is a big issue. The free car park seems too far for shoppers in cars to bother with. They want to use the nearer side roads. The lower Thorpes get filled up with commuters during the day. Luckily we're a few yards too far away for the lazy sods to park near our house, but occasionally we have to park in another street as neighbours get pushed up the hill.
Trouble is, I've heard the new high street design can't take any account of accommodating cars or TfL won't be interested in financing it. I imagine most London planning laws deter builders from incorporating parking too.
Perhaps they should build flats on the car park and turn the cottage site into a multi-storey car park. With red bricks and sash windows of course
Not so sure with the assertion that live/work units will attract arty types. If memory serves, live/work units get round some regulations or other and are built in order to save the developer's money. I think those new flats behind Tomorrow's Pine were designated live/work but are not necessarily targetted at an arty market.
Absence of parking spaces simply isn't an issue which in planning terms will be considered as a reason whether this development will go ahead or not. Current planning regulations do not require builders to supply parking spaces when planning a building. Writing to the planning dept citing this as a reason for refusing permission is a waste of ink.
You may think this is not an acceptable situation you but you ain't going to change things in terms of this application - government guidelines on this issue are clear. If you want to change this situation, you need to change the law or the planning guidelines.
My own view is that the site currently looks a mess, the buildings aren't worthy of preservation and that we need a modern building in its place. (like Sainsbury's at FH).
You may think this is not an acceptable situation you but you ain't going to change things in terms of this application - government guidelines on this issue are clear. If you want to change this situation, you need to change the law or the planning guidelines.
My own view is that the site currently looks a mess, the buildings aren't worthy of preservation and that we need a modern building in its place. (like Sainsbury's at FH).
I tend to agree with you nasaroc,
Time to move on and try to improve the High Street.
i'm all for preserving that which can be preserved but looking at Steves pictures it looks like that chance has been and gone,by the way Steve i love the pictures you post and just want to say thank you and have a nice Christmas.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
You Obviously don't need to park in your own road
Annie wrote:
I tend to agree with you nasaroc,
Time to move on and try to improve the High Street.
i'm all for preserving that which can be preserved but looking at Steves pictures it looks like that chance has been and gone,by the way Steve i love the pictures you post and just want to say thank you and have a nice Christmas.
Annie, I take it you don't live in Homecroft Road and you don't have a car and you don't drive round for 30 minutes at the end of a hard working day just looking for somewhere to park near your own house.
??
The council did recently offer the option of controlled parking zones on the streets off the high street but people overwhelming voted against it. That was our chance to sort out the problem by stopping the shoppers and commuters parking on side streets and get them to use the free car park. I was one of only a handful of people who voted for it, and given everyone’s objections to doing anything about parking I doubt the council will be sympathetic to the parking argument.
But what I don’t understand is commuters who drive the station. There are loads of railway stations in the area – it is one of the great things about Sydenham. After a quick look on the A-Z I can’t see anywhere that is more than a mile from a station. How can driving a mile (or less) in rush hour traffic be quicker or easier than walking??? It’s madness.
Back to the topic of the thread, does anyone know if the development got the go-ahead?
But what I don’t understand is commuters who drive the station. There are loads of railway stations in the area – it is one of the great things about Sydenham. After a quick look on the A-Z I can’t see anywhere that is more than a mile from a station. How can driving a mile (or less) in rush hour traffic be quicker or easier than walking??? It’s madness.
Back to the topic of the thread, does anyone know if the development got the go-ahead?
PJWSON,
I just wanted to clear up a misunderstaning that seems to have occured,
i am not at all against new parking areas,infact when i said time to move on i was actually saying that to have a sainsburys or something would help the situation out because they always include parking spaces in their planning of new stores. what i was against was the original post which wanted to save two old buildings that were'nt worth saving ( in my humble opinion)If you read other posts that i have written you will see that like you it drives me nuts when people park in MYspace outside MY house.
Live work units need to be just that, not the usual easily granted planning application that's built, not let, and then turned into flats within a year. When the planners look at these proposals surely it obvious what the intentions are.
The council need to be specific about what live/ work actually means.
Good quality units are a valuable stepping stone for small businesses that have grown out of their spare room but cant afford or need large offices or factories. Small developments should be encouraged, but with vigilance.
And I would have thought that we had enough take aways / restaurants in the area, 74 at my last count.
The council need to be specific about what live/ work actually means.
Good quality units are a valuable stepping stone for small businesses that have grown out of their spare room but cant afford or need large offices or factories. Small developments should be encouraged, but with vigilance.
And I would have thought that we had enough take aways / restaurants in the area, 74 at my last count.