The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment

[duncmac]

I thought it would be a good idea to start a discussion thread to share view and info on the proposed redevelopment of this site.

View site here.
http://goo.gl/maps/1uMdu

I'll be adding plans, maps and details as they come available to me.

[Tim Lund]

Just to say welcome to the Forum - your postings should be of great interest.

[stuart]

I live nearby and received the letter about the redevelopment of the Sally Ally old folks home. I didn't realise it was such a large site.

I was unable to attend the Friday night/Saturday event. Do you have info on what was said?

Stuart

[LPC]

For those interested the proposals for the site are;

26 x 4 bedroomed houses
50 x 1 bedroomed apartments
28 x 2 bedroomed apartments
11 x 3 bedroomed apartments

Therefore 115 new residencies in all with an estimated 400 population density. 115 car parking spaces are also included.

There is a mixture of tenure in the plan. The freehold properties are likely to be the houses with the double car parking spaces. The three storey flats built on the original 'Rookstone' footprint are likely to be housing association due to them encroaching on the 'restricted planning zone' over the Penge East to Sydenham Hill Tunnel.

Maps of the layout are available to all from lee@polityuk.com. This is the lobby group which are working to push the plans through.

The developers are Kitewood and the architects are DunnettCraven. If you look at http://www.dunnettcraven.com/project/65/southbury-road, there are examples of the buildings that they create.

The Salvation Army are still the owners. Unable to sell the land due to complications with planning restrictions, they are set to increase the value of their land with the benefit of planning permission. According to the literature supplied by PolityUK, ' Following active marketing, it is apparent that demand no longer exists for the original uses provided at the site and that it is not commercially viable or appropriate to maintain them'.

Many local people are concerned with the four storey 'block' development and the impact of the increased population on the already congested area around St Christophers Hospice and the Tennis club. The population density proposed far exceeds all extisting nearby developments.

Planning application has not been submitted yet, but when it does there is only 21 days to respond. I can email copies of the proposals if anyone would like to have them. Please pm me.

The local councillors responsible for the area are John.Canvin@bromley.gov.uk and Tom.Papworth@bromley.gov.uk. If you register an interest it will possibly help in the future planning descisions.

For those who know the area, the old woodland and orchard of the original Willoughby House has been completely removed. More mature trees are to be removed in the future if the proposals are accepted.

Hope this helps.

[Eagle]

What a huge devolpment
Can the utilities cope ?

Do we need so many parking places when so close to 3 railway stations and many bus routes.

[LPC]

It is hard to say about the utilities. The developers must have done the research as part of the planning process. It is dealt with by the 'Community Infrastructure Levy', a tax applied to the development, according to councillor Papworth. It carries no weight in a planning application.

The car parking is interesting. At the meeting, it was suggested that many families had more than one car but others had no cars at all. I am not sure of the relationship between population density and car ownership but 400 residents will require sigificant parking.The spaces provided are supposed to prevent parking problems in the surrounding streets. There is also the tunnel restriction zone within the site which cannot be used for anything else.

[Eagle]

Tunnel Restriction Zone sounds interesting? What is it please .??

I am puzzled why so many car parking spaces provided with new houses / flats.

In SE 26 no need for cars unless one is handicapped.

[Annie.]

I think there is an old tunnel underneath where the Tennis club and nearby is Eagle, therefore it cannot be developed on .

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Thanks Annie

Just wondering why, and what was it there for??

Best wishes

[LPC]

It is the main rail line from Penge East to Sydenham Hill.

[Eagle]

Oh sorry , that tunnel.

This must be a big are to house all these persons.

[Eagle]

I have studied the map again and although quite a large area surely the dwellings quoted will create a very cramped site.

The site looked very peaceful and tranquil . We have all to few of such areas in the GLC. Seems a shame to develop it really.

[JulietP]

I really don't understand this automatic rejection of housing developments. As a country we are simply not building enough houses - in London this problem is particularly acute. We are exacerbating a problem which may see our children completely unable to buy homes. Why can't we recognise the bigger picture and ensure that our initial response to such developments is positive, while obviously scrutinising the detail as appropriate to ensure they are well designed and of sufficient quality?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Tunnel Restriction Zone sounds interesting? What is it please .??

I am puzzled why so many car parking spaces provided with new houses / flats.

In SE 26 no need for cars unless one is handicapped.

Unless one intends to spend ones entire life nailed to the perch in SE26, many require cars.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Julsb]

I agree with Juliet. There is another thread on this forum exclaiming over rising house prices in SE26, which we know is significantly influenced by an overall lack of supply. Building high density housing is required in places like Sydenham and other parts of Greater London. The green belt surrounding London is fiercely protected, so if London's rising population is going to be supported with semi-affordable housing it's to have to be built in Zones 3 and beyond.

Yes, there will be knock-on effects on schools, waste collection, GP access, and so on. Those effects need to be addressed and planned for, and should be part of the planning process. (My reservation about the planning process itself is that it doesn't seem to have teeth when a developer fails to uphold their side of the bargain - I'm looking at you, Purelake.) However, if there is a problem with enforcing agreements, then THAT is the problem to address, not automatically shutting down all attempted developments.

[Tim Lund]

I agree with Juliet. There is another thread on this forum exclaiming over rising house prices in SE26, which we know is significantly influenced by an overall lack of supply. Building high density housing is required in places like Sydenham and other parts of Greater London. The green belt surrounding London is fiercely protected, so if London's rising population is going to be supported with semi-affordable housing it's to have to be built in Zones 3 and beyond.

And I agree with Juliet too - which will come as no surprise to regulars of this Forum and SE23.com. It's good also to read a relatively infrequent poster stating the bleeding obvious about lack of supply, and the need for more housing here. In my all too numerous posts on the matter, however, I have tried to avoid advocating "high density housing" - just "higher density", but to little effect - it gets misrepresented by local NIMBYs whatever.

"Semi-afordable housing" - that's interesting. I'm sure you are just trying not to take too extreme a position, such as I seem to have done did when I asked whether the Forest Hill Society wanted affordable housing. But I'd still go for affordable housing, without qualifications, or inverted commas.

Yes, there will be knock-on effects on schools, waste collection, GP access, and so on. Those effects need to be addressed and planned for, and should be part of the planning process. (My reservation about the planning process itself is that it doesn't seem to have teeth when a developer fails to uphold their side of the bargain - I'm looking at you, Purelake.) However, if there is a problem with enforcing agreements, then THAT is the problem to address, not automatically shutting down all attempted developments.

With property prices where they are, there should be no problem extracting enough "Community Infrastructure Levy" from developers to fund the increase in demand for these sorts of public goods. So they can be addressed and planned for.

Yes - we do need better enforcement, but if there are too many regulations, enforcement officers get overstretched.

[Eagle]

Mary
Not sure why the able bodied should need a car when we are awash with public transport.

I do accept some people think their car is essential , but in inner London , surely non.

Possibly 400 odd more cars down Lorry Park Rd.

[Annie.]

The new developments in lower Sydenham, has the infrastructure been revised to accommodate the increase in footfall?

Just curious.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

The new developments in lower Sydenham, has the infrastructure been revised to accommodate the increase in footfall?

Just curious.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I can't say for sure, but there's no reason to think not; the increases in population resulting from new build such as this can be planned for, and Lewisham, like other London Boroughs, has a Local Development Plan and Local Strategic Partnerships which should co-ordinate this planning. I'm sure with time and effort failings could be found, but I suspect more often we'd find planners and local government officers actually being competent (shock, horror, but no great news value). One failure in recent years that I am aware of is not anticipating the increase in demand for school places, but that will not have been the result of new build, but that more people with children come here to live, with society not having managed to provide enough new places for them to live as well.

[LPC]

Hello. The 'Community Infrastructure Levy' is a tax applied to developments by the borough council. This is a 'pot' of money used for infrastructure development wherever the council sees fit. There is no obligation to use the money around the development site.