New homes for Sydenham Hill Estate?

[stuart]

The City of London Corporation wants to replace the empty 99 flat Mais House and Otto Close garages in Sydenham Hill Estate with 110 homes to be let at social rent. Not everybody is happy. I'm undecided.



https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/new ... ll-estate/

Stuart

[Growsydenham]

Local campaigners always say they want genuinely affordable, car-free, low-emissions social rented housing for local families. Rather than spending millions of taxpayers money with private landlords for poor quality temporary accommodation. Yet when the option presents itself, time and again, reasons are found to object.

[sydenhamgardener2]

110 homes in that space is a lot. That could be an extra ~300 people. I think I would prefer a lower density of homes as we don't have the infrastructure (especially GP places) for even more people.

[JGD]

I have not read all of the late submission documents.

Cllr Alan Hall raised a range of matters around whether Planning Officers and thereby the Council had fully scrutinised their obligations around access matters and any adequacy of existing services (such as GP's) to meet the rise in numbers of people in that location.

And having failed to scrutinise them, the Council could not be seen to have delivered or discharged its obligations. To the extent Cllr Hall recorded his reservations that mandated requirements and obligations had not been dealt with satisfactorily.

The Planning Officer was NOT clear about how the Council might enforce and fully discharge these unmet obligations after Consent had been granted by the Council.

It was woolly at best. One to watch, I feel.

[broken_shaman]

It's a shame, these days, that you seem to have to be for all development, regardless of how it looks on a road, in a conservation area containing some pretty lovely looking old houses/ mansions, or against all development of any description.

If only there was a middle ground where you could support knocking down some old, empty and fairly bland blocks and building some new housing, but without a very modern looking, 4 storey building towering over the road.

The hill slopes down steeply from the road, so taller blocks would be easily hidden further into the site.

I tire of the push to build housing without any objections/ democracy.

Anyway. It's approved now and most people will only know about it once they see it irl and I'd guess most of those people will say to themselves 'who let that through???'.

[Growsydenham]

I read in the Sydenham Society news letter that residents are consulting barristers, with a view to suing the council and blocking this new social housing. I get that many people don't like the design, or wish they could be built in someone else's eyeline. But a planning process was held and councillors made their decision. In the middle of a housing and health crisis I think this gives our neighbourhood a bad image.

[OnCrestOfHill]

There is a Crowd Justice page explaining a little about the possible legal challenge and looking for donations to make it possible.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/friendsofmaishouse/


They say:

“We welcome the development of the City of London Sydenham Hill Estate for additional social housing. We believe in building good quality, environmentally friendly social housing that will last well into the future.

In November 2020, Lewisham granted planning permission for the development of 110 units on the site of Mais House and Otto Close garages. The huge increase in density in such an environmentally sensitive location, sets to impact the quality of the housing built, the historic environment, the conservation area, the local infrastructure and the natural environment, reducing the much needed green communal space, felling mature trees and impacting the ancient woodland opposite, visited by people across London.”

“The grounds focus on the illegality of the decision taken, owing to serious neglect to inform the Planning Committee of Heritage and Conservation reports available. This is backed up by Lewisham’s own Community Involvement Statement, The planning Act, The Listed Buildings Act, The Local Government Act, The National Planning Policy Framework, and a number of recent case laws. Protection of the environment is key.”

[Growsydenham]

Amazing really that when charities are in such financial need, especially now, people are so generous in donating money to stop new homes for the homeless...

[TredownMan]

The objectors can spend their own money on this if they like. But it's a bit rich that the rest of us will be left paying the bill for the council's legal fees racked up by this claim.

[JGD]

The objectors can spend their own money on this if they like. But it's a bit rich that the rest of us will be left paying the bill for the council's legal fees racked up by this claim.

Good observation.

Have the protestors and potential litigants expressed any view as to what levels of density of buildings and volume of housing provision is deemed acceptable to them. Can anyone point me to any utterance by them on these very relevant points?

I am certain I recall seeing statements akin to this:

We welcome the development of the City of London Sydenham Hill Estate for additional social housing.

Perhaps it is not viewed as being a potential risk to any success in garnering public support if they cannot specify something with a great deal more granularity than this. Perhaps the risk of it being viewed as a protest that has an objective of preventing any development in that neighbourhood is not considered to be too great.

In the old days and as an example, if English Heritage were scrutinising an application for work to be done to a listed building and they found that any particular element was not entirely satisfactory and thereby they would not provide consent for the work to proceed, the EH Inspector was obliged to specify what alternatives would be deemed satisfactory.

I think the principle is understood and is applicable here.

In circumstances where funds are being raised via public appeal and where the LPA will incur costs responding to potential litigation, the protestors should be obliged to state publicly what their thresholds of acceptability are.

If the litigants require that there be no development and thereby zero housing - let it be stated. Let those who might consider making contributions decide whether that statement is acceptable to them and choose to be contributors - or not.

Transparency is everything in these matters.