Gaz - from my point of view one storey lower would make all the difference. It would mean the blocks were at roughly the same height as the existing. Alternatively the scheme could be modified by reducing the hieight where the existing building is and keeping to the existing building line and them stepping the scheme away from the boundary with PHG towards the high street and increasing the height accordingly even to 4 floors nearer to the railway and more of a distance away. In this way space could be created around the greyhound building for a square and create amenity space for the residents to the rear of the scheme.
As for trees on roof tops I can show you lots. I work in Kingston and there are schemes built six years ago with trees on the roof. More in the city and if you go abroad to cities like Amsterdam they are really common. So sorry there is just no inovaton here at all. It is a bog standard off the shelf design a first year architectural student would come up with.
Greyhound Pub
-
digime2007
- Posts: 258
- Joined: 10 Sep 2007 18:26
- Location: Sydenhham
I have to admit that I'm a bit tired of protests against development. Over the last few years it seems like every time there's hope for some change there's a petition or objections or an active campaign to stop things.
I understand why people do it and understand that development needs to be kept in check and be moderated by the community but people around here seem to have some misplaced fantasy about what's achievable.
I feel Sydenham has missed out on the boom years of development because of these attitudes and that's why we are left with derelict sites, eyesores and no local swimming pool. I find that so depressing.
I know people mean well but Sydenham will move backwards if people don't start being a bit more pragmatic.
I understand why people do it and understand that development needs to be kept in check and be moderated by the community but people around here seem to have some misplaced fantasy about what's achievable.
I feel Sydenham has missed out on the boom years of development because of these attitudes and that's why we are left with derelict sites, eyesores and no local swimming pool. I find that so depressing.
I know people mean well but Sydenham will move backwards if people don't start being a bit more pragmatic.
Haven't had time to read all the very long posts since last logged on but have been wanting to add to my earlier post about the blocks being too high.
1. I also think it would be more acceptable if the block next to the high street was removed from the plans. Why some developers want to do this I don't know. Who wants the walls or windows of their home so close to passersby? Some good landscaping here would be much better....it would seem less imposing and perhaps more exclusive to potential buyers so maybe they could get a better price for some....building homes right up to the pavement line in most instances should be banned IMHO.
2. Also, if the Greyhound is to have any viabililty as a business such as Pizza Express etc wont' it need a few parking spaces too? I know the one in Dulwich Village doesn't but there seem to be more residential streets to park in nearby.
1. I also think it would be more acceptable if the block next to the high street was removed from the plans. Why some developers want to do this I don't know. Who wants the walls or windows of their home so close to passersby? Some good landscaping here would be much better....it would seem less imposing and perhaps more exclusive to potential buyers so maybe they could get a better price for some....building homes right up to the pavement line in most instances should be banned IMHO.
2. Also, if the Greyhound is to have any viabililty as a business such as Pizza Express etc wont' it need a few parking spaces too? I know the one in Dulwich Village doesn't but there seem to be more residential streets to park in nearby.
The reason your suggestions wouldn't work Poppy is that if you start removing significant parts of the proposal the scheme would then become unprofitable for the developer and they would "walk". This simply isn't a "mix and match" proposal where we can all act as amateur architects.
Simono has suggested building up the area overlooking the station as a solution to the bulk of the site, This would, of course, be unworkable in planning terms since it would cut out all morning sunlight to the rear of PHG.
Simon - both you and Gilly were outspoken and trenchant supporters of demolition of The Greyhound when this was mooted by the previous developer. Your petition and long statement above call not for minor tampering with this scheme but its wholesale rejection and replacement with a new scheme.
Can you make your position clear? Are you still in favour of the demolition of the building and how else would you accommodate your demands to severely lower the height of the main block and accommodate large amounts of parking space without removing the Greyhound - and other major components of the site such as the public square and the commercial space?
Presumably your preferred aim is for a new plan which demolishes the Greyhound?
Simono has suggested building up the area overlooking the station as a solution to the bulk of the site, This would, of course, be unworkable in planning terms since it would cut out all morning sunlight to the rear of PHG.
Simon - both you and Gilly were outspoken and trenchant supporters of demolition of The Greyhound when this was mooted by the previous developer. Your petition and long statement above call not for minor tampering with this scheme but its wholesale rejection and replacement with a new scheme.
Can you make your position clear? Are you still in favour of the demolition of the building and how else would you accommodate your demands to severely lower the height of the main block and accommodate large amounts of parking space without removing the Greyhound - and other major components of the site such as the public square and the commercial space?
Presumably your preferred aim is for a new plan which demolishes the Greyhound?
I think the debate over the Greyhound building is over and whilst I think it wrong accept it. However I do not accept that the residents of PHG should have a building foisted on them that will devestate their outlook and quality of life just because someone cannot be imaginative enough to come up with a workable solution.
Also you misunderstand my point completely around the bulking up towards the station end as my point is that it should be pushed forward away from PHG. In any case I would rather lose some morning sun than light for nearly all the rest of the day, particularly in Winter.
Also you misunderstand my point completely around the bulking up towards the station end as my point is that it should be pushed forward away from PHG. In any case I would rather lose some morning sun than light for nearly all the rest of the day, particularly in Winter.
Simon - Sorry to ask you again but you are being unclear.
How do you intend to lower the height of the main building and accommodate large numbers of parking spaces on site without losing one or more of the major components of the plan such as the Greyhound, the public square or the commercial space? Just believing that this can be done with a different "more imaginative" plan is disingenuous isn't it?
Can I ask you to drop your petition please - this simply isn't getting the public support it needs to succeed. You have a perfectly valid point but it isn't going to strengthen your case if you go along to a planning meeting with a handful of signatures and the opposition of much of the local community.
I fully support a local meeting or "consultation day" in which the developer and architect meet the public and explain their approach to the scheme. Indeed, I know that local councillors are planning such an event. At this event, locals can put all of the points they want to the developer who I believe has shown great imagination and openness throughout this entire process.
How do you intend to lower the height of the main building and accommodate large numbers of parking spaces on site without losing one or more of the major components of the plan such as the Greyhound, the public square or the commercial space? Just believing that this can be done with a different "more imaginative" plan is disingenuous isn't it?
Can I ask you to drop your petition please - this simply isn't getting the public support it needs to succeed. You have a perfectly valid point but it isn't going to strengthen your case if you go along to a planning meeting with a handful of signatures and the opposition of much of the local community.
I fully support a local meeting or "consultation day" in which the developer and architect meet the public and explain their approach to the scheme. Indeed, I know that local councillors are planning such an event. At this event, locals can put all of the points they want to the developer who I believe has shown great imagination and openness throughout this entire process.
Let me assure you that the petition of the people that really count, the local people who are directly affected is going really well and I can promise a very large presence of people opposed to these plans at the committee. People are both upset and angry about this proposal and they will come and show that.
OK Simon fair enough. But you are throwing away the real support you need from people locally and hardening attitudes against some of the changes you want to bring about which as far as I can see it is complete destruction of the existing plan. Planning officials fully expect a group of angry people to appear from any neighbourhood affected by a plan - every planning meeting is full of such people. What counts and makes politicians and planning officers change their minds is wide community support and the ability to compromise to make things work.
Digime2007!!! You are totally spot on about this! Couldnt have said it better.digime2007 wrote:I have to admit that I'm a bit tired of protests against development. Over the last few years it seems like every time there's hope for some change there's a petition or objections or an active campaign to stop things.
I understand why people do it and understand that development needs to be kept in check and be moderated by the community but people around here seem to have some misplaced fantasy about what's achievable.
I feel Sydenham has missed out on the boom years of development because of these attitudes and that's why we are left with derelict sites, eyesores and no local swimming pool. I find that so depressing.
I know people mean well but Sydenham will move backwards if people don't start being a bit more pragmatic.
The fact Sydenham has been given this opportunity to change is invaluable. Were only going to carry on rolling back if we dont get our act together. If we step back and look at this it isnt only a chance to attract the much needed commercial investment into this area and provide a better local economy, it is part of the regeneration to make Sydenham a more desireable and prosperous area to live and work. I cannot believe all this arguing and inconsistency within our views when we are so desperate and near to making a big difference to our town.
Fat-mike ...i believe it looks like that the proposals will go ahead, too many people are for the plans now.
Sydenham cannot and WONT carry on living in its neglected past.
Objections and petitions do not necessarily carry weight in the planning process if the arguments put forward are not backed up by planning policy.
The developers have evidently done their best to pack in as much space as possible but the kneeejerk response is to worry object to height.
However the Victorian buildings across the road are 4 storeys high (and probably higher storeys than a new development) whereas the proposal shows 4 storeys on the Syd Road frontage (retail at ground floor so I don't know what the objection about privacy for residents was about) with an additional storey set back. It is normal for development on a deep plot to be allowed extra height set back from the frontage.
There is a presumption that height is bad in terms of the high street character whereas I think the taller frontages on Sydneham Rd are the most pleasing whereas it is the shorter ones that are out of keeping. Taller buildings can give an impression of a more lively and energetic, bustling neighbourhood, and furthermore create the necessary demand for retail. The English are predisposed against density but at tne same time bemoan the rise of car-access only retail and failing high streets. Paris is 3 times as densely populated as London and that is why each neighbourhood has a market, decent bakeries, etc. within walking distance.
This is from the urban design viewpoint. On the other hand I am unconvinced that the residents of PHG are unaffected in terms of sunlight/daylight (a legal planning concern). Though the consultants may have proved the windows are not affected I see no reference to the impact on sunlight to the garden areas. However it is really up to a tenacious PHG resident who is affected to look into this in more detail and make a case.
If I were wanting to object, I think there may be other things to focus on other than the height. the main thing that will impact on everyone is teh quality of the public realm at ground level. I think there is a basic problem with a scheme with a pub in an island of space with no 'rear' for service. How is it being serviced? I see there is a connection to the car park via the basement but only via a relatively narrow staircase and a single leaf door which looks more like a fire escape obligation to be than a serious means of servicing. It looks like the pub will service via the public space with no area for holding empty kegs etc without causing an obstruction.
This combined with some poorly managed or vacant retail units could result in a very unpleasant and unsafe space. I think the pub should be forced to service via the car park with a proper bay, lifts to starage in the basement.
Whether or not this happens I question whether the rear public passage behind the pub is desirable at all. It will really have to be maintained in a pristine fashion with CCTV etc. not to attract undesirable activity. If the section of the passage directly north of the pub was enclosed to provide space for the inevitable servicing junk (loosing a bit of quite undesirable retail frontage) ther would still be a generous sense of public space in the wider parts to the east and west flanks whilst lessening the risks highlighted.
Normally the police are consulted for developments of this scale so I am suprised this has got through.
Nevertheless I support the spirit of the proposal and impressed by the commitment to a fully planted roof with adequate soil depth for tree planting which contrary to some comments is rare in a commercial development. Hope they don't get 'value engineered' out.
The developers have evidently done their best to pack in as much space as possible but the kneeejerk response is to worry object to height.
However the Victorian buildings across the road are 4 storeys high (and probably higher storeys than a new development) whereas the proposal shows 4 storeys on the Syd Road frontage (retail at ground floor so I don't know what the objection about privacy for residents was about) with an additional storey set back. It is normal for development on a deep plot to be allowed extra height set back from the frontage.
There is a presumption that height is bad in terms of the high street character whereas I think the taller frontages on Sydneham Rd are the most pleasing whereas it is the shorter ones that are out of keeping. Taller buildings can give an impression of a more lively and energetic, bustling neighbourhood, and furthermore create the necessary demand for retail. The English are predisposed against density but at tne same time bemoan the rise of car-access only retail and failing high streets. Paris is 3 times as densely populated as London and that is why each neighbourhood has a market, decent bakeries, etc. within walking distance.
This is from the urban design viewpoint. On the other hand I am unconvinced that the residents of PHG are unaffected in terms of sunlight/daylight (a legal planning concern). Though the consultants may have proved the windows are not affected I see no reference to the impact on sunlight to the garden areas. However it is really up to a tenacious PHG resident who is affected to look into this in more detail and make a case.
If I were wanting to object, I think there may be other things to focus on other than the height. the main thing that will impact on everyone is teh quality of the public realm at ground level. I think there is a basic problem with a scheme with a pub in an island of space with no 'rear' for service. How is it being serviced? I see there is a connection to the car park via the basement but only via a relatively narrow staircase and a single leaf door which looks more like a fire escape obligation to be than a serious means of servicing. It looks like the pub will service via the public space with no area for holding empty kegs etc without causing an obstruction.
This combined with some poorly managed or vacant retail units could result in a very unpleasant and unsafe space. I think the pub should be forced to service via the car park with a proper bay, lifts to starage in the basement.
Whether or not this happens I question whether the rear public passage behind the pub is desirable at all. It will really have to be maintained in a pristine fashion with CCTV etc. not to attract undesirable activity. If the section of the passage directly north of the pub was enclosed to provide space for the inevitable servicing junk (loosing a bit of quite undesirable retail frontage) ther would still be a generous sense of public space in the wider parts to the east and west flanks whilst lessening the risks highlighted.
Normally the police are consulted for developments of this scale so I am suprised this has got through.
Nevertheless I support the spirit of the proposal and impressed by the commitment to a fully planted roof with adequate soil depth for tree planting which contrary to some comments is rare in a commercial development. Hope they don't get 'value engineered' out.
Adrian, there is lots of detail about gardens being overshaded in the following planning report. The most easy to understand part are the diagrams in the appendix (pages 72 and 73). Although, apparently, this is acceptable according to planning law, you can see that this will adversely affect the majority of residents in PHG:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/43993_4.pdf
Regarding your concerns of the rear of the pub, I can see where you're coming from; however, near where I work there are several pubs that back directly onto a rear access road and have no separate outside storage facility - I have never seen any kegs or debris outside these pubs so guess that unless the landlord is unclean this shouldn't be a problem.
The design for the back of the pub actually looks quite innovative to me, with aims of having a local artist design the tile design to cover the entire rear wall. I agree that this is the most 'vulnerable' part of the square though and that it is imperative that it is well lit and kept clean with clear sight lines.
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/43993_4.pdf
Regarding your concerns of the rear of the pub, I can see where you're coming from; however, near where I work there are several pubs that back directly onto a rear access road and have no separate outside storage facility - I have never seen any kegs or debris outside these pubs so guess that unless the landlord is unclean this shouldn't be a problem.
The design for the back of the pub actually looks quite innovative to me, with aims of having a local artist design the tile design to cover the entire rear wall. I agree that this is the most 'vulnerable' part of the square though and that it is imperative that it is well lit and kept clean with clear sight lines.
Gaz
Thanks for the link. As I said it is really up to a PHG resident to challenge the development from the point of view of daylight/sunlight. However in terms of overshadowing outdoor space I think the requirements are over-lenient in that only permanent overshadowing is considered. I.e. you can end up going from constant sunlight to 10mins of sunlight and it still will not be counted as overshadowing.
As far as the space to the rear of the pub is concerned I have mixed feelings. The design aspirations are good, though whether the developers truly deliver is another matter. However in terms of hard-nosed retail development the shops behind the pub and to the rear corner are far from being 'Grade A' in terms of distance from frontage and visibility.
With 'the best will in the world' this could all be very pleasant. However designing with the most optimistic expectations in terms of management and economic viability is not really best practice. In a nutshell, the whole perception of this new neighbourhood will hinge on the success of the large retail unit they have created to the rear. There are reasons to be hopeful as new developments tend to attract more blue-chip retailers. But I do think that less risk would be a better way to go. With all the mosaic art and street lighting possible it just takes a bit if litter, the odd beggar and a failing discount store to turn this into Sydenham's least favourite place to be on a November evening.
Thanks for the link. As I said it is really up to a PHG resident to challenge the development from the point of view of daylight/sunlight. However in terms of overshadowing outdoor space I think the requirements are over-lenient in that only permanent overshadowing is considered. I.e. you can end up going from constant sunlight to 10mins of sunlight and it still will not be counted as overshadowing.
As far as the space to the rear of the pub is concerned I have mixed feelings. The design aspirations are good, though whether the developers truly deliver is another matter. However in terms of hard-nosed retail development the shops behind the pub and to the rear corner are far from being 'Grade A' in terms of distance from frontage and visibility.
With 'the best will in the world' this could all be very pleasant. However designing with the most optimistic expectations in terms of management and economic viability is not really best practice. In a nutshell, the whole perception of this new neighbourhood will hinge on the success of the large retail unit they have created to the rear. There are reasons to be hopeful as new developments tend to attract more blue-chip retailers. But I do think that less risk would be a better way to go. With all the mosaic art and street lighting possible it just takes a bit if litter, the odd beggar and a failing discount store to turn this into Sydenham's least favourite place to be on a November evening.
If anyone is interested in what the cherry pickers are doing in the Greyhound car park they are to illustrate the height of the buildings to be constructed on the site. I am sorry but I simply do not believe that anything this tall (and ugly) can enhance a conservation area, and not dominate and overshadow all the surrounding buildings (including the Greyhound itself) and not have a devastating effect on the people that live round this site.
Approximately 1m taller than the ridge of the buildings above the bookshop. But that is away from the street. On the pavement edge they are the same as the eaves line of the opposite buildings.
They show the dome on top of Ring O Roses as taller but I don't trust the accuracy as there is no survey height.
If anyone knows of a date for a public consultation meeting I would like to be informed.
They show the dome on top of Ring O Roses as taller but I don't trust the accuracy as there is no survey height.
If anyone knows of a date for a public consultation meeting I would like to be informed.
just out of interest i popped along this afternoon with my camera.
(bear with me, i am rubbish at using Flickr)
The photo above is taken from Spring Hill, to the side of the Greyhound. You can see the taller of the cherry pickers over the top of the roof of the Greyhound. To the far left is the rear of the first house in Peak Hill
The second picture is from Sydenham Road. You can still make out the Greyhound to the left and the rear of the houses in Peak Hill, just above the grey fencing.
(bear with me, i am rubbish at using Flickr)
The photo above is taken from Spring Hill, to the side of the Greyhound. You can see the taller of the cherry pickers over the top of the roof of the Greyhound. To the far left is the rear of the first house in Peak Hill
The second picture is from Sydenham Road. You can still make out the Greyhound to the left and the rear of the houses in Peak Hill, just above the grey fencing.