The Haven & Rookstone redevelopment

[Nigel]

Tim
You say under- supply - others say over-demand .

Your line of thought is the same one that said building the massive M25 would lead to emptier roads and less congestion . Whether you like or not many people object to London becoming increasingly populous and large and this is at the heart of the argument .

Your theory that people have "right" to come and live in London is sheer nonsense - those that wish to will take advantage of any system that gives them a financial , welfare or familial access to London and those that don't want this to happen because they love London how it is - will strive to prevent this . It is a clash of two positions . The difference is I know who I am arguing on behalf of and you are arguing for an intellectually bankrupt theory that quality of life can maintain in the face of population density.
The fact that you have used your "NIMBY" argument more than once shows the weakness of your argument .
Good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Nigel

Well said Sir.

[Tim Lund]

The difference is I know who I am arguing on behalf of and you are arguing for an intellectually bankrupt theory that quality of life can maintain in the face of population density.

Allow me to relate a true story, which I'd thought about posting on the thread Mary started about Getting an allotment, having seen whittler's comment

if you are looking for support for the campaign to save the Windmill from the local allotment group who happen to use the pub (for their meetings),as i suspect you may be

When I lived in Peckham, with an allotment not so far from where Damiola Taylor was murdered, a dispute arose once about the elderly and stone-deaf Salvatore having been seen stealing a cabbage from Akhtar's plot. The upshot was a meeting, after which I found myself wondering why I should have given two hours of my life to discussing an allegedly stolen cabbage. It was a time when I was active in campaigning for more environmentally friendly transport, and had recently organised a supposedly successful meeting at the Town Hall, with local Councillors, officers, representatives of bus operators and most of the usual locally committed suspects. But walking home I was struck that I was pretty well the only white face around (I exaggerate a bit), but at the meeting, out of 60 people there, there had been just one black face - someone from a bus company.

By comparison, at my allotment meeting about the cabbage, we had a rather better cross section of society. It was held in the home, on a notorious estate, of an Irish couple, originally catholics, I'd guess, but now Jehovah's Witnesses, with photos proudly displayed of various mixed race grandchildren. There was also, in addition to Akhtar and, representing Salvatore, his daughter: my next door neighbour, an Evangelical Christian from LA; the allotment secretary, a born and bred Londoner; and myself. And we sorted it out. All of us, from our different backgrounds, but sharing a common humanity, found ourselves able to live together, and keep going, managing the inevitable conflicts of having to share living space.

A year or so later, I came across a submission from LB Southwark to the Department of Transport making the case for their allocation that year, and referring the meeting I'd organised as part of how they had consulted the community in drawing up their spending plans. No problems with that, but I think the real community was better represented by the people at my allotments meeting. Also, as a community, we didn't need the Town Hall, and we didn't need a pub either; in fact the Town Hall would have been offputting for many, while religious principles would have made Akhtar, my evangelical neighbour and the Jehovah's Witnessess uncomfortable about meeting in a pub.

So, when Nigel says he knows who he is arguing on behalf of, my counter is that so do I - the sorts of ordinary people from such diverse background who come to live in London, and manage to fit in with our society as they find it.

The only intellectual bankruptcy round here is from those who in one breath can regret increasing densities, and in the next say that the areas where this happens have become more desirable. Intellectual bankruptcy is also shown when people feel unsure about the idea of rights, that they have to put them in sneer quotes:

Your theory that people have "right" to come and live in London is sheer nonsense

I may not be religious myself, but I have many friends who are, who certainly are not intellectually bankrupt, and who share my views on what amounts to a just society.

[Eagle]

Tim
I do admire in many ways your support for complete freedom of movement , but is this really realistic.

London has about 8 to 9 million people, more than about 30 years ago.

If you asked 1 billion Africans whether they would prefer to live in London then if only 1% said Yes then we have more than doubled the population overnight.

We cannot have free movement of people worldwide . People will generate to where they perceive they will get a better life and at the moment London would be one of the top destinations worldwide.

As Nigel so well stated we value out nooks and crannies and green spaces and do not want them built on. If your view of the world were correct world not matter how many houses were built , people would be queuing up to get here.

Rather like if you build a motorway if fills up with traffic and you wonder where this traffic was before.

[Tim Lund]

Tim
I do admire in many ways your support for complete freedom of movement , but is this really realistic.

I hope you've noticed that I don't support the idea of anyone being able to settle here and automatically receive benefits, which make the idea of complete freedom of movement rather more realistic. So, with regard to enlargement of the EU, I do acknowledge there could be problems with allowing Romanians and Bulgarians the right to come here and claim benefits. OTOH, there could also be benefits, such as a couple of friendly faces to chat to as I do my shopping in Sydenham Road, and also the net contributions they make as tax payers to the economy. It's a balance, and I do admit there are serious arguments on the other side.

[duncmac]

Getting back on topic.

Looks like the developers have rejigged their plans and are going for less units with more bedrooms.

They are submitting their planning application on the 14th feb, from the info I have.

Lets hope they've eased off on maximum density and arent going as high as four storeys. But i doubt it ....

[LPC]

The planning aplication has now been submitted by Kitewood and it will be available to view on the Bromley planning webpage in the next few days. I will try to get a link up unless someone beats me to it. It will be interesting to see what the developer has done to the plans since they were first presented. The expectation in that there will be a few less dwellings but the number of residents is thought to be higher.

[LPC]

The link to the Bromley Planning Portal is below;

https://searchapplications.bromley.gov. ... lications/

If you enter SE26 6HG you will be presented with about 60 pages of documents relating to this proposal.

Most of this information is completely new to those directly involved so it may take some time to appraise fully. For those interested in the way that Sydenham is being transformed by these large scale developments, I urge you to take a look.

There are only 21 days to comment on this application so I hope that this forum will provide some insight to the effect this development will have on the current residents and the surrounding area.

On initial reading it appears that Kitewood and The Salvation Army are proposing a gated community here. This can be seen on the Design and Access Statement.

Any questions or comments most welcome.

[RFW]

The planning portal for this development has now been closed down. The message on my screen said it was closed for maintenance until Saturday 22nd 10.30. If this is the case residents have lost 4 + days to view the proposal out of the 21 days we are allowed for comment. Local democracy..............

[admin]

Hi RFW, Its working now for me.

BTW Thanks for the great input on this. Would you or LPC or anyone, once you have read and digested the contents, like to write a summary we could put on the frontpage?

Admin

[LPC]

I will try to get some details up when I have some more time. One of the problems with a development of this scale is that the application submitted differs somewhat from the original proposal. The detail supplied is overwhelming and most people would be happy with a basic model which they could use to visualize the use of space and impact on the existing community. I don't think that would be in the developer's interest though.....

[admin]

That would be great LPC. You are absolutely right that it is difficult to convey the magnitude and shape of the development without some sort of visual mode. Trouble is 'artistic impressions' can be equally misleading. Careful use of perspective, a little artistic licence devoid of real people doesn't on an idealic summer's day always match on to reality this time of year ...

But good luck. PM me if you need help.

Admin

[Sid Nam]

I agree that this is a hefty application and difficult to make sense of the multiple geo-environmental documents. Anyone who is interested but hasn't got a degree in geology can go direct to the design and access statement as that's where the details can be found.

https://searchapplications.bromley.gov. ... 445355.pdf

I was surprised to see the developer claim that the scheme enjoys neighbouring support and that those who attended the consultation were all in favour as I know a few who weren't. The developer also claims to have taken on board comments about density and reduced the housing numbers while increasing the car parking but this is still over development of suburban land set in the middle of a built up residential area.

The future residents of the 110 homes will need access to education and health services, now as far as I am aware school places are in short supply so what will LBB do about this? My view is that LBB will push the responsibility of infrastructure supply on to Lewisham.

This is how the developer justifies the scale, design and density of the proposal,

"Local Scale is diverse and recent development has tended to be three and four storeys high with larger footprints. There is no specific architectural character to the area. Nevertheless the best buildings in the area have an informal arts and crafts style."

On the one hand a picture is painted of an area with no architectural merit whatsoever but ends with a nod to the fact there are some noteworthy buildings. So I guess this means the Kitewood estate will not be of architectural merit in order to fit in with its surroundings. Typical developer spiel and somehow I don't see this company raising the building bar in any other field but density.

A well designed development on a much smaller scale that sits well with the neighbouring landscape, building style and infrastructure would enjoy my support. This does not.

[LPC]

Here is a brief summary from what I have read.

Application submitted to Bromley Council includes;

110 residential units, at almost the highest density the London Plan allows. The Rookstone building will be replaced with a 3 storey block of flats while the main private development sits behind with a mass of 3-4 storey adjoining blocks arranged in a narrow 'V' layout. (Having a look a the plan really helps)
135 car parking spaces.
The tenure is mixed overall but segregated into blocks of shared ownership/private/social housing. It is not integrated.
It is estimated the development will increase the population by 450-500 residents.

The building process involves;
Full demolition of the buildings with associated hazards like asbestos dust.
Further removal of 46 trees from the site. It is a common misunderstanding that all the trees are now protected with a TPO after the Salvation Army recklessly felled the complete mature woodland in 2012. The trees to be removed either get in the way of the development or are not considered to be healthy specimens.
Heavy metal pollution of the soil has been discovered by the soil surveys. All the topsoil will be removed from the site and 'new' topsoil will be imported to replace it.
The soils are compressible London clays and therefore the whole development will be pile driven into the ground.

I will try to describe the buildings and the explain the impact on the area the best I can.
Follwing Lawrie Park Crescent downhill, there will be a single three storey detached dwelling sitting approximately on the driveway of Rookstone. Next, the new building on the orignal Rookstone footprint will be three storey and consits of 18
shared ownership one bed flats wilh six private two bed dwellings. That is consistent with a population of 45-60 new residents. There are 13 car parking spaces provided but the street to the front will mainly be dropped curbs, so current parking levels will be reduced. The new residents will definately require more parking spaces here and the extra traffic and vehicles will undoubtedly add to the high levels of congestion in the surrounding roads. Lawrie Park Crescent, Springfield Road, Border Road, Sydehham Avenue, Lawrie Park Road and Crystal Palace Park Road will all have higher demand on parking and use.
Following past the Rookstone building, the main access to the development is found in Springfield Road. This is where a new road will enter the private gated development through the current boundary. This is an already perilous junction and is likely to be a hazzard at busy times of the day.
The main road into the new development will have a 'gatehouse' block of three and four storey houses, but this area is mainly a hard standing with car parking for approximately 70 vehicles.
The main part of the development is to be found to the left, with two blocks of mainly three and four storey buildings which face each other. This dead end tightens towards the southern end of the site to approximately one car length apart. The area in the middle is mainly hard standing with parking on the frontages. The developer has also provided childrens' plagrounds, conveniently sited next to neighbours gardens. Aside from the noise and pollution of all these vehicles, the building and the road will be lit at night to prevent crime and and antisocial behaviour.
The final block will be located on Crystal Palace Park Road and consists of approximateily 18 social housing units in a block of three and four story dwellings. There are 17 car parking spaces provided off this busy road and the plans show that this building will have balconies which will overlook the current residents and reduce their privacy. There are also bin stores placed right next to neighbouring properties.
All of the neighbours will be adversly affected by this development. Some will gain up to 5 new neighbours against their boundary and three or four storey buildings as near as 9m away. It is the developers plan to kindly screen these buildings with trees for the most affected neighbours but this will only be useful when the tree have leaves. It is also misrepresentative for the developers' plans to show mature sizeable trees amoungst their buildings as these do not exist and will not be a suitable screen for many years to come.
It is my view that this is an overdevelopment and I would like to urge readers to object on any information in the planning application that is detrimental to the character of the area. This is also an appeal for support and anyone who would like to help preserve this corner of Sydenham is welcome to submit thier planning concerns on The Bromley Planning Portal using the postcode SE266HG. The closing date for public comment is 9th March 2014.
Other ways to object;
Email planning directly:planning@bromley.gov.uk
Or by post to: The Planning Support Team, Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley BR13UH.

Many thanks
LPC

[stuart]

Thank you LPC for that comprehensive review. There will be, no doubt, vigorous discussion on the density of housing. We do need much more, what we don't need is some of the costs of it.

A point that struck me is that 400/500 and the parking space provision do not, in current demand, match. You rightly predict that this will inevitably lead to increased on road parking in the surrounding area. This will be a nuisance to existing residents. More importantly is will constitute an increase in danger to those using Lawrie Park Road (where we had a nasty fatality recently) and further disruption to bus services.

What's to be done? You can't tell the new folk they can't have a car or even two. Putting a CPZ around the development in place is difficult both because some existing residents may resist and it would require two authorities to coordinate. But is it worth a try? Banning parking altogether in LPR would be nice, but what would the Hospice say?

Trying to be positive and what conditions could be laid by the planning authority when permission is granted? I'm presuming it will, its just primarily the density that is being negotiated. I'm finding this really difficult to think through.

So far I have only come up with two relatively weak proposals:

* As a condition all residents must become members of a car club (like Zipcar) and the car club should have the prime parking areas allocated and a decent volume (6 to 10 cars?). We find ways for the developers to subsidise or spread the costs for residents so the take-up is likely to be real and result in a significant reduction in number of cars needing to be housed on site or nearby.

* All residences to have built in secure bicycle accommodation equal to the projected number of residents - with separate traffic free paths around and exiting the site.

Finally a real problem is going to be schooling and I'm not talking capacity - but where is the nearest school and how do they get there? That will create significant traffic flow. I really can't see kids walking/riding down to St John's in Penge. St Barts & Kelvin Grove means navigating the almost permanently blocked Kirkdale roundabout further impacting public transport. Maybe ZRG could squeeze some provision in the Park said he whimsically.

Stuart

[LPC]

Thank you Stuart for your reply. All valid concerns but unfortunately only planning concerns may be voiced in any objection.
All those following this should know that the final dates for comments to the council have been changed. Due to signage not being placed correctly around the site boundary, the final date for comments is now 27th March 2014.

It is clear that the developer has largely ignored the community it claims to involve and the major document within the proposal (The Statement of Community Involvement) is littered with false and misleading information.

Even if you do not live near to the site your views are important and the council will have to consider every comment logged. Please help to support the local community and express any planning concerns which will help to limit the scale and density of this project and maintain the character of this area.

Many thanks.

[DerBrenster]

An update to bump this back up to the top of the list and to advise anyone interested that this submission will be heard by Bromley's Development Control Committee at Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley at 7.30pm this Thursday, 10th April. It is understood that 67 objections were received. A number of local residents will be in attendance and as it is a public meeting, all are welcome.

The application was latterly revised to 107 dwellings (down 3) with 253 bedrooms (up 3) and has been recommended by Planning Officers to be refused, largely on the basis of the further loss of the remaining trees both during and after development.

There is some concern that the numerous, seemingly obvious, specific breaches of Bromley Planning policies have not been used to reject the proposal but the wording of the planning report, if accepted by councillors on Thursday, will make it difficult for any future proposal to be of a similar scale. Which, given that this proposal is completely out of proportion to everything around it, seems a reasonable outcome.

Whilst the developers are now attempting to find ways around the defeat of their £30 Million profit making scheme, already looking to question Bromley's processes and perhaps to defer Thursday's decision, should a refusal be forthcoming then the land will continue to be owned by The Salvation Army.

Since this proposal became public, they have been hiding behind the planning process, refusing to communicate with local residents and using lawyers to deflect questions and criticism over their appalling behaviour around the sale of this land.

Come Friday morning, notwithstanding the inevitable appeal that Kitewood will lodge if they lose, local residents will be urged to focus attention of the real villains of this piece - starting with Lt. Col. Ivor Telfer, Managing Director of The Salvation Army Trustee Company of 101 Newington Causeway, London, SE1 6BN. eMail: ivor.telfer@salvationarmy.org.uk

He, along with the Trustees and other Executives of the Army, failed to fulfil their statutory obligation to discuss the disposal of this land with the local community before they began the sale process.

Instead, they decided to cash in for as much as they could get. Which would be fair enough for a commercial organisation, but charities have additional responsibilities when selling land that requires them to consider the impact of their actions.

They failed to fulfil them and should now be held to account for that. If you care about the quality of this area, please do contact Ivor and question what they're going to do with the land if their grubby deal with a sharp toothed developer fails.

Though you should be warned that he's already put the phone down on one of my very polite neighbours, but only after knowingly lying to him (twice) before he did so.

[DerBrenster]

Planning permission was refused at last Thursday's Development Control Committee, where the developer attempted to obtain a deferral based upon claimed inadequacies in communication from Bromley's Tree Preservation staff.

This was dismissed by the committee on the basis that there were many more reasons to reject the application than the tree loss. Several other breaches of Bromley Planning Policy were given as the basis for the refusal, the application was spoken against by several councillors and their vote was unanimous.

The substantial turn out of residents at the meeting showed the developers the strength of local opposition and these particular weasels in human form left the meeting with their tails between their legs and their eight figure profit evaporated.

Kitewood Estates now have three options. Appeal (which it is hard to believe would be successful given the comprehensive rejection), come back with a far less excessive plan (which reduces their incentive) or walk away (having lost about £100k in fees).

It's anyone's guess at the moment what they'll do but they have up to six months to appeal at a cost of another £100k. If, as suggested, short term international finance sat behind this application their money may run out. Nobody is naïve enough to be sure we've seen the last of them. In case they or their PR company are reading this, your sort isn't welcome around here.

Whatever happens next, the fact remains that there is an opportunity to build something on this land that will befit it's surroundings and which respects the character of the area.

Residents of Sydenham can contribute to that process by letting the Salvation Army know that sharp-toothed capitalism isn't the behaviour expected from an already wealthy social welfare charity. They are vulnerable now that the process they've hidden behind has rejected their partner's plans.

Lower density social and private houses, not flats perhaps? Places with space, not boxes stacked on top of each other. Mix in some use of the site to accommodate the ageing population too to respect it's heritage?

The Salvation Army should have talked to the local community - charity regulations make that clear. But they didn't and they've put a lot of people to a lot of trouble over many months to fight their overdevelopment of this important site. We've won the battle for now but this war against The Army, which they started, is not yet won. Contacts below.

Lt. Col. Ivor Telfer, Managing Director, The Salvation Army Trustee Company, 101 Newington Causeway, London, SE1 6BN.

ivor.telfer@salvationarmy.org.uk; clive.adams@salvationarmy.org.uk; john.warner@salvationarmy.org.uk;

P.S. If you do write to them, you could also enquire why they brutally destroyed 20 large mature healthy trees in 2012 just before a TPO was placed on the whole site and without having carried out the diligence they were meant to with The Forestry Commission beforehand. It was that act which made this whole application possible in the first place. Enquiries regarding the existence of a Bat Habitat survey made before their felling are on-going. http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html

[LPC]

A quick update.

The Salvation Army and their partners Kitewood have logged an appeal against the refusal of this development. This is registered on the Bromley planning website and the Planning Inspectorate website dated 11th November.

In addition, a new planning application has been submitted to Bromley by Kitewood for 46 residential units on this site. It has only appeared today but the application was received by the Council on Friday 3rd October 2014.
There are 42 documents to view so it may take a few days to review.

Search SE266HG or 'the Haven' on Bromley planning website for more info; http://www.bromley.gov.uk/planningaccess

[Nigel]

Firstly thank you for alerting us - this appalling developer is clearly not above using underhand tricks to speed things through and avoid scrutiny .
I will certainly be writing to councillor a about the abuse of process - whether or not there is some loophole they have slithered through is beside the point - they can't expect meaningful engagement o a project that is so inappropriate anyway by trying to treat us like idiots .
I will also make my views known about the scale and the impact of it .
I know there are some opposing views out there , mainly from people who don't live close by but lets not miss the valuable call to action . We have to keep the pressure on and make sure nothing ruinous is allowed to happen in out community
A very good evening
Nigel