The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment

[Nigel]

Don't know if anyone else was at the meeting today at Sydenham Tennis Club .
The developer is definitely of the more cynical kind .
Issues raised included density, parking , environmental impact , screening in the way of trees , protection of bats and other wildlife , noise and of course the sad loss of the care facility for the elderly.
This is definitely one of those developments that must be monitored - we need to take a very active interest as developer is hell bent on maximising profit at the expense of build quality , visual amenity and impact on local residents .
Good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Annie.]

Are there any set plans yet Nigel?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Nigel]

Annie
Only the site maps and information at the beginning of this thread .
The level of concern among people that attended was very high . Nobody objected to some kind of housing development but the amount of housing planned was I think a concern for all at the meeting .
There have been a couple of posts in this thread basically saying " build all the units the developer wants and the refuse collection , parking , schools and doctors will follow " .
Not remotely convinced myself .
Good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Annie.]

I doubt if the items that you listed are at the top of the developers list, profit profit profit is more likely the top dog!

This is why I care about these build anything mentalities,
If they get their way it will cause untold problems, maybe not in the short term, but in the long term problems will arise with over building, cramming in as many as you can in a small space.
Like you I'm not against building there, but you do need to build on continuing a community.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Nigel]

Annie , very well put.
The idea of building on an existing community was very much part of the residents' concerns - basically that area is leafy, lots of trees and birds , quiet and pleasant and that's why the local people bought there.
There are some great developers and architects and i am always stunned and the crappy no-hopers , eg Purelake that win these contracts .
My personal preference would have been zero energy homes with some outstanding architectural merit .
A very good afternoon
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Annie.]

I think some people forget about the quality of life for the residents past,present,and future.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Well said Annie and Nigel.

One can of course build more and more flats and houses in nooks and crannies, but will probably destroy what most people like about living here.

[LPC]

This should be a link to the planned development from the Bromley council website;

https://searchapplications.bromley.gov. ... 417169.pdf

The documents that are linked to this also indicate 120 proposed new dwellings. This is greater than the 115 presented by Kitewood at the local consultation.

[Annie.]

The link says no document available?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[LPC]

Hi Annie

This is the link to the Bromley planning website. The plan con be found under the 'documents' link. Let me know if this link works ok.

https://searchapplications.bromley.gov. ... Z8MBT0GG00

[Annie.]

Thank you, I have read it all now, bit confused, would have liked a guide as to what all the different colours stand for, or did I miss it?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[LPC]

Hi Annie,
Yes,it is very confusing. There is no key provided for the colours on the plan.
All I can add is that the Rookstone building will be demolished and a three storey block put on its footprint.
The Haven site will be completely developed with two integrated blocks and an avenue in between
The new houses (purple on the plan) will be 3 and 3+ floors, whilst the six bigger blocks of flats (orange and yellow) will be four storeys.
I can try and explain further but detailed information is frustratingly hard to obtain.

[Inglenook]

I'm cringing a little bit at the intelligence of those who think the site is in Lewisham but there is a little part of SE26 that is, sadly, forever Bromley... And this 1.3 Hectare site is indeed in Bromley, although the pressure that cramming 400 people into such a site will create will inevitably ripple out across the boundary.

Bromley of course are rubbing their hands because (a) they have a 500 new homes a year target (b) they don't give a toss about this end of their borough as long as the streets of Chislehurst are kept clean and (c) they're rubbing their hands together at the thought of more lovely council tax to spend across the largest borough in London.

Anyway as one of the "NIMBY"s who adjoins the site, can I put it to you this way. Look at the plot (an irregular 3.3 acres in old money) and take that same area and overlay it on the surrounding area. Count how many people live in that same space. You will find that to be a small percentage of what Kitewood propose.

This plan is the equivalent of a 30 storey block of flats with four 3 bed dwellings per floor. With all of the motorised traffic that will come from that.

Next to the park.

It is an unashamed attempt to maximise the huge profit that the developer, in collusion with that nice fluffy charity that owns the site, can make from it with no concern for the consequences on the area.

I live in Sydenham because it's suburban. This proposal is extra-urban in density and if allowed to succeed will set a precedent for the whole parkside area to be classed as urban.

Those who have previously stated that they have no problem with increasing density on spare land, I actually agree with. But at the same time, I'd suggest that existing residents have rights too.

But don't you think that putting 400 people on a site where the equivalent surrounding density is about 50 is overdoing it somewhat? And for whose benefit is that going to be? You can be sure that dwellings 3 minutes from Penge West are going to attract big price tags.

Kitewood stand to make an absolute fortune out of this as it stands. Their outrageous proposals were disingenuously exhibited and a more detailed design document was not made public at their "Community Involvement Event"; those who did get access to it were horrified by the size, scale and density of these plans.

I note the recent example of the authorities being walked over by the developers of the Greyhound, but they won't be getting such an easy ride on this one.

There will be a considerable battle fought by those nearby to frustrate these plans but for those who are a little further away - don't think it doesn't affect you one way or another because if Kitewood's plans succeed, then you become one step closer to living in the urban jungle, not the leafy Sydenham that you bought your house/flat or mansion in.

PolityUK by the way, their "PR" company, are in fact an unlisted political lobbying firm. Have you ever encountered a PR company without a website? That's the mark of this bunch. They should be driven out of the area by hordes of angry weapon bearing residents.

But it hasn't come to that yet.

[Eagle]

This devolopment does seem a bit over the top.

Will the water , sewage etc be able to cope. Plus extra speeders down lorry park road.

Perhaps it ought to be questioned why the population of Sydenham is mushrooming whilst there are very few jobs locally.

[Annie.]

I'm cringing a little bit at the intelligence of those who think the site is in Lewisham.

Don't quite understand this comment?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Annie

Whilst I am aware of the Borough boundries , history and geography , I am not surprised there are residents who do not.


I find the comments of Inglenook , dare I say , a trifle arrogant.

[Annie.]

I couldn't understand why inglenook made the comment Eagle, had someone said otherwise about it being in bromley ?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tockerty]

I have to disagree with a lot of the sentiments for significant sized developments on what are green sites within London; it is not just the green belt that needs protecting. One of the nice things, and more unusual aspects of Sydenham, is that it is a relatively green and leafy part of London - why shouldn't that be preserved for future generations? I know that over the last two property booms I have seen that every spare scrap of land available in inner East London seems to have been developed on, and all that has happened is that the area has become more desirable and people that used to live there have been priced out.
There is lots of discussion on this being a supply issue, but there are plenty of empty houses - towns of empty houses, in other parts of the UK. If investment is encouraged outside of London, such as the BBC's move to Manchester, then demand will be spread more evenly. The other problem that London is facing, is that the demand is created because property is seen foremost as an investment not as a home. The Autumn statement today mentions introducing capital gains tax on foreign owners second homes, recognising the inflationary impact this is having on the market.

[Inglenook]

"Lewisham, like other London Boroughs, has a Local Development Plan and Local Strategic Partnerships which should co-ordinate this planning".

Although to be fair, I did speed read it and in it's context I can see now that it may not have meant what I first took it to - so, apologies to the author of that if I offended.

Anyway - Eagle. Are you having a laugh (as us locals say)? You also use the plural in relation to my comments when your accusation could only really apply to the first line. And to be frank matey, having read some of your worryingly excessive contributions on here over time, that's certainly a description that could be very fairly aimed at you. Please be advised that I'm not even slightly interested in what you think. I'm that arrogant.

Back to the point of this thread.

This proposal is scandalous. If the local community is happy to just let the character of their surroundings change massively, and negatively, as a result of a bunch of chancers who acquire a pile of internationally sourced cash to squeeze 120 homes into a plot suitable for an eighth of that then you should be ashamed of yourself.

It is at times like these, when the proposals remain just that, that people need to stand up and be counted rather than bleat quietly in the background and be rolled over.

The good news is that there are already several people doing that, but clearly it would be very helpful if more voices were heard so if you care about Sydenham, make your views known to your councillor, your MP, your Mayor or the developer themselves via Lee@polityuk.com.

[Tim Lund]

I have to disagree with a lot of the sentiments for significant sized developments on what are green sites within London; it is not just the green belt that needs protecting. One of the nice things, and more unusual aspects of Sydenham, is that it is a relatively green and leafy part of London - why shouldn't that be preserved for future generations? I know that over the last two property booms I have seen that every spare scrap of land available in inner East London seems to have been developed on, and all that has happened is that the area has become more desirable and people that used to live there have been priced out.
There is lots of discussion on this being a supply issue, but there are plenty of empty houses - towns of empty houses, in other parts of the UK. If investment is encouraged outside of London, such as the BBC's move to Manchester, then demand will be spread more evenly. The other problem that London is facing, is that the demand is created because property is seen foremost as an investment not as a home. The Autumn statement today mentions introducing capital gains tax on foreign owners second homes, recognising the inflationary impact this is having on the market.

There are some good points in this, but they need to be balanced against other good points.

If "every spare scrap of land available in inner East London seems to have been developed on", and yet "the area has become more desirable", then it means for a good number of people anyway what has happened is no bad thing. Of course, it's an exaggeration - a glance at Google Maps shows a fair amound to green still there, and that's because the planning system, even if not as restrictive as Tockerty and Inglenook probably want, is still operational. Of course, to some extent "people that used to live there have been priced out", and the character of where they live will have changed for those not actually priced out, but we would all be worse of if cities were unable to adapt.

As to the problem that "property is seen foremost as an investment not as a home",one major reason for this is that the supply of new homes, ever since the 1960s, has failed to adjust to the demand for them, where people, for good or ill, do want to live. It is this that has driven up prices, and confirmed the general view that you can't find a better long term investment than property. It is only by cities adjusting to higher densities that this attitude can be challenged.