Adrian,
I Fully understand yours and nasarocs's concerns.
To answer your question, Planning Law in Sussex differs vastly from that in Lewisham as sites are assesssed in completely different policy context. Sussex is mainly Rural and dictated by different Plan policy than Sydenham.
Sydenham ( Lewisham) , is Governed by its own Policy and the London Plan. I'm sure you would understand that this does not apply to Sussex.
Sydenham in Planning terms is considered Urban,Sussex is considered Rural; it follows that different policies apply. So unfortunately, " How do they do things in Sussex " is not relevant at all.
As most others on this site I am behind Development of the Site but not in desperation and concern for a "quick fix ".
You question my interpretation of the viability of the scheme. I have admitted before this is purely speculation by me , as your assumptions are too.
I respect fully your opinion and can not quote values for " Zone 3 Office space as opposed to residential". Show some facts and I will agree with you , unreservedly and apologies ?
Do Banks and /or investors finace deals on the basis that , and I quote you " The maket will probalby pick up eventually " ?
I wish to see the site developed as much as anyone and agree that it needs to be viable for the Owner, but scare tactics to push a plan through, on the basis of "its OK to some", is possibly dubious ?
I respect all opinions on this site, and hope the best prevails.
Greyhound Pub
Dorian - I don't necessarily think that it's winning the argument to push the burden of proof regarding financial viability over to me. I do not have the figures to hand but work with developers and have never heard of a development other than residential in this sort of location.
Evidently all developments are in question in the current financial climate. However a developer will be seeking to gain the most potentially profitable form of consent. In this respect I suspect the developers know what they are doing. But in any case the financial ups and downs are irrelevant to planning consent and relatively high density housing will always be deemed appropriate by any planning officer in such a location.
What I find lacking in the various arguments against the scheme is any coherent suggestion of alternatives.
Apart from any provable objective concerns from PHG residents I doubt that the general nimbyist attitudes (comparisons with Manhattan and the like) will carry much weight in terms of the decision because these are par for the course in any prominent development.
Evidently all developments are in question in the current financial climate. However a developer will be seeking to gain the most potentially profitable form of consent. In this respect I suspect the developers know what they are doing. But in any case the financial ups and downs are irrelevant to planning consent and relatively high density housing will always be deemed appropriate by any planning officer in such a location.
What I find lacking in the various arguments against the scheme is any coherent suggestion of alternatives.
Apart from any provable objective concerns from PHG residents I doubt that the general nimbyist attitudes (comparisons with Manhattan and the like) will carry much weight in terms of the decision because these are par for the course in any prominent development.
My suggestion Adrian was to knock off a storey and set it back from the road with generous and good quality landscaping.
I know they will lose some units, but they could potentially ask more for what is left because it could be more desirable. I have no problem with tall, modern buildings and really like the flats built near East Dulwich Sainsburys on Dog Kennel Hill for example.
I know they will lose some units, but they could potentially ask more for what is left because it could be more desirable. I have no problem with tall, modern buildings and really like the flats built near East Dulwich Sainsburys on Dog Kennel Hill for example.
Poppy - I think you should get over your fear of the height and position of the front wing of the building as it meets the high street. Lowering it one storey (whereas I was referring the part that affects PHG) would make that frontage only ground plus 2 storeys which seems unnecessarily conservative. Receding it would create another area of blank pavement in front and compromise the form of the 'square' around the Greyhound.
Recessing the building would also expose a quite ugly flank wall to the adjoining building which was never designed to be exposed and currently has an unsightly advertising hoarding and access platform attached. No Victorian builder would have left that wall exposed I guess they would have built to the proposed height if they could afford it (as can be seen by the incremental increases in height further down for the more notable buildings). Furthermore - no planner (Victorian or current) will tell you to retreat from the adjacent building line and leave a blank end-of-terrace wall exposed. It's just a misreading of the context.
It would also withdraw the retail frontage from the existing run of shops breaking the continuity which is a traditional element of the high street and creating the sense of a separate precinct instead of having the shops continuing and then turning 90 degrees to face the square. This is the kind of 'bitty-ness' which causes the feel of a high street to break down rather than reinforcing it.
I think the strategy is quite clear - the open space is that surrounding the pub defined by the L-shape which meets the line of the street.
Recessing the building would also expose a quite ugly flank wall to the adjoining building which was never designed to be exposed and currently has an unsightly advertising hoarding and access platform attached. No Victorian builder would have left that wall exposed I guess they would have built to the proposed height if they could afford it (as can be seen by the incremental increases in height further down for the more notable buildings). Furthermore - no planner (Victorian or current) will tell you to retreat from the adjacent building line and leave a blank end-of-terrace wall exposed. It's just a misreading of the context.
It would also withdraw the retail frontage from the existing run of shops breaking the continuity which is a traditional element of the high street and creating the sense of a separate precinct instead of having the shops continuing and then turning 90 degrees to face the square. This is the kind of 'bitty-ness' which causes the feel of a high street to break down rather than reinforcing it.
I think the strategy is quite clear - the open space is that surrounding the pub defined by the L-shape which meets the line of the street.
I am aware that this process has proceeded far too far down the road of "progress" to be remotely consideration-worthy, but why was it never mooted that the GH parking lot, or a lrge portion of it, be taken over via compulsory purchase to provide parking for all the new train passengers using the ELL? And where will the AB1 (and maybe C or even 2) shoppers and cafe-and-deli-frequenters arriving to the booming Sydenham of Tomorrow park their jet cars?
Waters muddied - my work here is done. See you at the (ahem) Naborhood Centre on the 21st.
Waters muddied - my work here is done. See you at the (ahem) Naborhood Centre on the 21st.
I had a look at the model and the plans in the bookshop and actually think the new proposals are pretty good and could have been a lot worse.
Trying to fit as many flats into the area was always going to be an aim, and we could have ended up with a solid block of flats covering the whole area with a "modern" design made out of that tatty wood that looks great to begin with but goes grey and black after 2 years.
What we have actualyl ended up with is a more considered effort which includes retials premises and some greenery. Of course it is not ideal that it is likely to be a very high building, but no developer going to commit to building period bungalows! Whatever we get will be high, I'm just thankful it isn't highrise!
If this isn't approved we stand to have either an empty site for months possibly years to come, or an even worse development.
Trying to fit as many flats into the area was always going to be an aim, and we could have ended up with a solid block of flats covering the whole area with a "modern" design made out of that tatty wood that looks great to begin with but goes grey and black after 2 years.
What we have actualyl ended up with is a more considered effort which includes retials premises and some greenery. Of course it is not ideal that it is likely to be a very high building, but no developer going to commit to building period bungalows! Whatever we get will be high, I'm just thankful it isn't highrise!
If this isn't approved we stand to have either an empty site for months possibly years to come, or an even worse development.
What is this fixation with , "if this scheme is not approved , nothing will happen for years" ?
Why pannick into a major devlopment on a key site on that basis ?
There are thousands of unimplemeted planning permissions across London due to there non viabilty, who says this scheme if approved will ever go ahead ? Just because its approved does not mean that in a year or so's time the pretty pictures and trees on the roof will be visable , or will they ? Correct me Richie , if im wrong.
I am open to convincing
Dorian
Why pannick into a major devlopment on a key site on that basis ?
There are thousands of unimplemeted planning permissions across London due to there non viabilty, who says this scheme if approved will ever go ahead ? Just because its approved does not mean that in a year or so's time the pretty pictures and trees on the roof will be visable , or will they ? Correct me Richie , if im wrong.
I am open to convincing
Dorian
You are correct that just because planning permission is granted doesn't mean it will be built asap. However, without planning permission there is of course no chance that it will be built to that design - or any other until the plot is sold or a new application is made.Dorian wrote:What is this fixation with , "if this scheme is not approved , nothing will happen for years" ?
Why pannick into a major devlopment on a key site on that basis ?
There are thousands of unimplemeted planning permissions across London due to there non viabilty, who says this scheme if approved will ever go ahead ? Just because its approved does not mean that in a year or so's time the pretty pictures and trees on the roof will be visable , or will they ? Correct me Richie , if im wrong.
I am open to convincing
Dorian
My view would be better to have a bird in the hand than two in the bush with this development (and the Forest Hill pools for that matter)!
The reason for not blocking a planning application unnecessarily is that developers work to tight margins and the cost of an application in terms of fees etc. is a healthy chunk of the cost of development.
A planning application is a gamble and when they lose the gamble the development profit is lost and the incentive to move forward disappears.
In any case this is a side issue. I still feel that those who oppose the development have not given very well articulated reasons (other than the height from PHG issue which if proved can result in an amendment) and drag the discussion into minor side arguments.
To summarize the reasons against the development:
1. Height for PHG residents
2. It's modern
3. It's tall (ish)
4. It's housing (as opposed to...)
Please! Articulate!
A planning application is a gamble and when they lose the gamble the development profit is lost and the incentive to move forward disappears.
In any case this is a side issue. I still feel that those who oppose the development have not given very well articulated reasons (other than the height from PHG issue which if proved can result in an amendment) and drag the discussion into minor side arguments.
To summarize the reasons against the development:
1. Height for PHG residents
2. It's modern
3. It's tall (ish)
4. It's housing (as opposed to...)
Please! Articulate!
I agree with Dorian. Some STF posters seem to want to moan about this new exciting development, in my view, because the design doesn't have old-fashioned "curly" bits to the building (what's this obsession with Prince Charles type housing anyway - we're in 2009 for heavens sake!!). I don't think from the deisgn that the building looked too tall either. Anything would be far better than the derelict site it is now.
I saw the model and was impressed. Enough of the moaning and endless delay. I think it's an exciting opportunity for Sydenham and will hopefully attract more professional residents to the area who hopefully will spend their hard earned cash in the area giving local businesses a boost. (Not sure if it's a private housing development?).
I saw the model and was impressed. Enough of the moaning and endless delay. I think it's an exciting opportunity for Sydenham and will hopefully attract more professional residents to the area who hopefully will spend their hard earned cash in the area giving local businesses a boost. (Not sure if it's a private housing development?).
Adrian - My previous post responding to yours said quite clearly that we were submitting a very detailed opposition letter together with the petition to this development. Although height was one concern there were others which were just as relevant. These were documented within the letter which accompanied the petition which, I would add, was signed by nearly all the residents of Peak Hill Gardens and Spring Hill. The reasons for not setting out all our concerns at this time must surely be apparent to you.adrian wrote:The reason for not blocking a planning application unnecessarily is that developers work to tight margins and the cost of an application in terms of fees etc. is a healthy chunk of the cost of development.
A planning application is a gamble and when they lose the gamble the development profit is lost and the incentive to move forward disappears.
In any case this is a side issue. I still feel that those who oppose the development have not given very well articulated reasons (other than the height from PHG issue which if proved can result in an amendment) and drag the discussion into minor side arguments.
To summarize the reasons against the development:
1. Height for PHG residents
2. It's modern
3. It's tall (ish)
4. It's housing (as opposed to...)
Please! Articulate!
I am really quite fed up with people assuming that the residents of PHG are neither articulate enough to present a coherent case for our opposition, or that we are just opposing it because 'it spoils the view from our homes'. Please credit it us with more common sense.
I think we have presented our views clearly and concisely and I, for one, am proud of all those that have had the courage to stand up to those who seem to want development at any cost, including the devasting effect it will have on those who will truly be affected. Those who have listened to the scare mongering tactics of some on this site, and still had the courage of their convictions.
dear gillyjp
I have always unequivocally supported any objections by PHG residents based on impact on daylight/sunlight. I have also registered my support for the scheme with Lewisham with clearly stated reservations in this respect which I believe necessitate the design to be amended. I have also registered my concerns about the workability of the ground floor layout. And the scheme is easily amendable with respect to both these issues.
I also understand that PHG residents want to make their objection appear as strong as possible by adding a whole raft of other objections to the scheme. These are (probably) where I disagree.
In any case comment was not directed at you or PHG residents. So please allow me to address the discussion as it arises in this forum rather than letters I have no access to which may or may not be well reasoned. If you have arguments which you can't share, well so be it. In which case I am simply adressing the arguments which HAVE been presented. And with respect to these I am trying to solicit a slightly more analytical level of debate from those who ARE prepared to share their views, as I have found that have tended a bit towards the 'I know what I like and I like what I know' variety and could do with being a bit more objective and analytical simply to enrich the discussion. Which is what this forum is all about.
I have always unequivocally supported any objections by PHG residents based on impact on daylight/sunlight. I have also registered my support for the scheme with Lewisham with clearly stated reservations in this respect which I believe necessitate the design to be amended. I have also registered my concerns about the workability of the ground floor layout. And the scheme is easily amendable with respect to both these issues.
I also understand that PHG residents want to make their objection appear as strong as possible by adding a whole raft of other objections to the scheme. These are (probably) where I disagree.
In any case comment was not directed at you or PHG residents. So please allow me to address the discussion as it arises in this forum rather than letters I have no access to which may or may not be well reasoned. If you have arguments which you can't share, well so be it. In which case I am simply adressing the arguments which HAVE been presented. And with respect to these I am trying to solicit a slightly more analytical level of debate from those who ARE prepared to share their views, as I have found that have tended a bit towards the 'I know what I like and I like what I know' variety and could do with being a bit more objective and analytical simply to enrich the discussion. Which is what this forum is all about.