Catford Stadium Redevelopment

[Tim Lund]

It was announced yesterday that 589 new homes are to be built on the site of the former Catford Stadium - BBC story here.

It's not a case I have followed at all, so I'll probably be missing some details, but it does illustrate some of the points I've made in recent years on this Forum.

The land was transferred to the Greater London Authority last year under the Localism Act.

actual democracy only works at the level of political entities which (1) correspond to areas people identify with, and (2) are large enough to be effective.

which in London means London.

Source here

for the last decade has been left empty and unused

Ten years it took for our planning system to get nowhere. Here's a link to some Frequently Asked Questions on the Lewisham Council web site about it. Read them and lose the will to live. Are there yet any planners prepared to defend the current system? Answers are still waited here - Planning - What is it good for?

From those FAQs:

attempts to regenerate Catford town centre have been hampered by various complex commercial and financial issues, including the number of different landowners with stakes in and around the town centre

'of course, the problem with Sydenham [Road] is too many small landlords'.

The solution for High Streets like Sydenham

I think there is also a pattern of wanting to protect a declining sector of the economy because of a sentimental attachment to it of the ageing demographic who vote.

The historic greyhound track in south London closed in 2003 after years of falling attendances

I think it's the same thing as happens with the knee-jerk reaction of wanting to preserve old pubs. Canny political operators know very well that there are still votes in beer and fags



but it is the priced out younger generation who pay the price.

[leenewham]

It's great that it's being built on, finally, although I hope the new development pay homage to the stadium to give it a sense of place. The visuals for the buildings look more like an advert for trees than the development and I'm sure it wont look like that.

Hopefully it will be better than the ugly, poorly finished developments at Bell Green.

Once again, totally disagree about your stance on pubs Tim.

[Eagle]

Tim
Still votes in real ale.

Surely smoking is only now performed by the lower classes of society. The sort who do not usually vote.

[G-Man]

Agree with you there Lee. Apart from I'm not to offended by the flats at Bell Green at all.

I think that your stance on pubs is wrong too Tim. Look at the Catford Bridge Tavern, saved from development and doing very very well indeed as a community hub. Also look at the Ivy House in Nunhead, saved and bought by the community to create a pub to serve the local community, which I know will be a great success.

G-Man

[Tim Lund]

It's great that it's being built on, finally, although I hope the new development pay homage to the stadium to give it a sense of place. The visuals for the buildings look more like an advert for trees than the development and I'm sure it wont look like that.

Hopefully it will be better than the ugly, poorly finished developments at Bell Green.

No disagreement here. I think it reasonable for 'society' - acting via LB Lewisham Planning department - to require developments to respect a sense of place, even if at some cost in terms of time and money. But not ten years. Hopefully that is all behind us, and Barratts will even now be able to adapt one of the standard pattern they go for.

Once again, totally disagree about your stance on pubs Tim.

But what makes pubs different? The arguments made for them are similar to those made for greyhound stadiums, and turn on their heritage value and role in the local community. (I'm also thinking here of another case, in my home town, where the local MP is grandstanding away

“I am also confident that, given the planning designation of the site is for recreation and not housing and there is such strong community support for the stadium, that the whole scheme to demolish the stadium and build houses will be turned down.”

- this in a city where, according to Shelter, average rents for a 2 bedroom house take over 50% of the median family income.)

It certainly is possible to redevelop pubs for residential, and retain much of the architectural detail - e.g. here- as it is with redundant churches, so the argument from the visual heritage does not seem very strong. The community argument depends on it not being possible for anywhere to work as a community centre as well as a pub. Is this what makes them special?

To put the stress on pubs in perspective, I was recently in a purpose build modern community in Oxford. I suppose it might have been thought a problem that at 12.00 the conversation had to stop as a horde of parents with toddlers invaded to café where we were - previously there was just the happy background sound of singing about winding the bobbin up. The previous time I'd heard this was a cold Tuesday in March at Grow Mayow, which Iris happily opens up for a similar group. No disrespect to Iris, but what sort of place is it that leaves parents and young kids out in the cold?

Looking on that community centre's website, I discovered that the building was funded thanks to the redevelopment - for housing - of an old school. Google it now, and you will findany number of other things going on there - Farmers' Markets, meetings of the Communist Party of Britain, rooms for hire.

In Sydenham, we used to have the local authority owned Rotary Day care centre in Addington Grove, which got redeveloped, with a few thousands in planning gain, which disappeared into I know not what LB Lewisham account. We also have a community group saddled with trying to keep Sydenham Library open, with its leaking roof. Surely that could also have been redeveloped, with due sensitivity to a sense of place, and amenities created for the younger generation.

[Tim Lund]

Agree with you there Lee. Apart from I'm not to offended by the flats at Bell Green at all.

I think that your stance on pubs is wrong too Tim. Look at the Catford Bridge Tavern, saved from development and doing very very well indeed as a community hub. Also look at the Ivy House in Nunhead, saved and bought by the community to create a pub to serve the local community, which I know will be a great success.

G-Man

I have nothing against pubs in themselves, just I think providing homes is rather more important. If more housing had been built elsewhere, there wouldn't be the pressure to redevelop pubs. I think you and Lee would do better to explain why you are against housing people. You should also think more about the sections of the community who don't actually want pubs.

[michael]

Ten years it took for our planning system to get nowhere. Here's a link to some Frequently Asked Questions on the Lewisham Council web site about it. Read them and lose the will to live. Are there yet any planners prepared to defend the current system? Answers are still waited here - Planning - What is it good for?

From a different part of the FAQs:

This site is owned by the Greater London Authority (which now incorporates the Homes And Communities Agency). Planning permission was granted by the Council for a major redevelopment of the site in 2008. However, the scheme was later considered unviable due to the economic climate.

It was not the planning system that was at fault. This enabled redevelopment of this site 5 years ago when planning permission was granted. The failure is with the economy and the housing bubble fueled by dodgy sub-prime trading and the unwillingness of many western governments to curb the use of public and private borrowing to provide economic growth from 2000-2008. Eventually the housing market collapsed in the US and this had knock on effects for projects like this one in Catford.

Of course that one paragraph hardly captures 10 years of economic history, and I'm sure Tim will point us to another posting he had made previously that better explains it in enough pages for most of us to lose the will to live. But I hope he will accept that with planning permission granted in 2008 (with 193 documents), it is not fair to blame the planning system on the following five years of inactivity on the site.

The transfer of the ownership from central and regional government quangos did not help to speed up this development and exactly the same has been the case in Crystal Palace Park. It would not appear to be local councils that are getting in the way of new housing and development projects, the more detached regional and central government would seem more at fault. Which is one reason why these decisions are best made at the lowest possible political entity, at a higher level these decisions are best made by people who have to live with the consequences and who understand the problem of large areas of derelict and under-utilised land in their area.

Incredibly back in 2008, when this planning application was approved by Lewisham, Tim was complaining about an over-supply of housing! Can you believe how wrong he was?

We've had decades of over-supply brought on by inflated prices, and the touching belief (I remember hearing it from my grandfather) that you can't go wrong buying property.

More recently (2011) Tim was less certainly about inflated pricing leading to over-supply:

Sorry Mike, but changes in property prices don't actually result in more properties. It's very simple - we either need more properties - where people want them - or we need to be more prepared to share where we live.

That comment was made on the same day as he referred to the previous thread on se23.com that I quoted above from 2008.

My conclusion:
Back in 2008 when Lewisham was approving planning applications for 500 new homes, Tim was complaining about too many houses being built.
More recently Tim has been complaining about not enough houses being build, and specifically blaming Lewisham council (and civic societies) for the lack of new housing and the planning system from preventing such schemes being successful.

No doubt I have completely mis-understood (not deliberately) Tim's position in 2008 and 2013. I'm very happy for him to correct any misunderstanding I have of his various positions, and to explain what Lewisham council did wrong in this case.

[Eagle]

I thought this was a flood plain. I believed we were trying to avoid building on such sites.

With that sort of devolpment the junction onto The South Circular would be choc a block ( not that it is not now)

[Tim Lund]

No doubt I have completely mis-understood (not deliberately) Tim's position in 2008 and 2013. I'm very happy for him to correct any misunderstanding I have of his various positions, and to explain what Lewisham council did wrong in this case.

I don't think there is any fault in your understanding here. I have simply changed my mind.

I'm actually quite impressed that Michael has brought out this old post of mine, and as always by his command of detail. As I said, I had not been following the details of this case, and I'm quite prepared to admit that the delays have not been solely the fault of the planning system, or LB Lewisham.

The basic change in my thinking is that it's unrealistic to think we would move back to living at the sorts of density our grandparents did.

Edit - when I write here "living at the sorts of density our grandparents did" I mean "as many to a room as in our grandparents' time". I'd be just as happy with the same numbers of people per area - but that involved building higher.

[michael]

And what did Lewisham do wrong with this site? Is it really the planning system's fault for a lack of the 589 houses in Catford that could have been built at any time since 2008?

[Tim Lund]

Well, help me out here. What was happening between 2003 & 2008? Where would you say the responsibility for these delays lies?

And on one point of detail. How do we reconcile the BBC writing that "The land was transferred to the Greater London Authority last year under the Localism Act" and Lewisham Council writing on its FAQs "This site is owned by the Greater London Authority (which now incorporates the Homes And Communities Agency). Planning permission was granted by the Council for a major redevelopment of the site in 2008"? The two statements do not actually contradict each other - so what did happen last year?

[michael]

Well, help me out here. What was happening between 2003 & 2008? Where would you say the responsibility for these delays lies?

Well there were some thoughts about keeping the site for sports events. But two years after the closure (2005) the stadium burnt down. That avoided any problems with listing or thoughts of using any of the existing facilities. It was then another two years before a detailed planning application was submitted for 589 homes.
And I don't know at what point the land was transferred to public ownership or whether the freehold was always with the Homes And Communities Agency (seems unlikely for a dog track).

The basic change in my thinking is that it's unrealistic to think we would move back to living at the sorts of density our grandparents did.

Thank goodness for that. You'll be aware that most Londoners lived in terribly cramped conditions before the Germans (and Atlee's government) did us a favour and cleared the East End of high density slums. Let's hope we can learn from these mistakes and allow families to have decent amounts of space to live in.
Just so you know, I'm deliberately misunderstanding you here as the alternative is that you want higher density than my grand parents had to live in London's East End. I think we should be aiming higher than that in this century.

[Tim Lund]

Just so you know, I'm deliberately misunderstanding you here as the alternative is that you want higher density than my grand parents had to live in London's East End. I think we should be aiming higher than that in this century.

Not sure if you saw the edit I put in:

when I write here "living at the sorts of density our grandparents did" I mean "as many to a room as in our grandparents' time". I'd be just as happy with the same numbers of people per area - but that involve[s] building higher.

except that I in the edit made a typo, writing 'involved' instead of 'involves'. I note the deliberate misunderstanding.

By "aiming higher" are you hinting at allowing higher rise developments?

[leenewham]

Oh for goodness sake Tim, we aren't against housing people, stop twisting my bloody words to mean something other than they are intended!

Knocking down pubs or converting them all for housing isn't the answer to housing. Pubs have a role in community, you seem to think the answer to housing is to build as many spaces for people as possible no matter where.

Pubs, parks, social spaces, markets, shops, cafes etc all add to a quality of life that is important. There are answers to the housing crisis. But they shouldn't come at the detriment of community. Or quality of life. Michael is right. We should be aiming for better. There are lots of homes in Favellas. Not sure i'd like to live in one though.

Catford stadium reached the end of it's useful life, pubs, as G-man said have so many other uses. I totally support Liam in his 'grandstanding' as you call it. Good on him, bravo, (Lee waves flag and cheers). Thank god he grandstanded on saving the library too. That could have made a few nice homes, as could Home Park, which was little used. We could stick quite a few more tower blocks on that patch of grass couldn't we Tim? Yes, it is annoying when you twist what someone is trying to say isn't it? (don't worry Tim, I'm writing this with a wry smile).

[Pat Trembath]

Oh dear! I try not to post too often because I don't have time to join in these endless arguments in favour of housing over community assets BUT -

"We also have a community group saddled with trying to keep Sydenham Library open, with its leaking roof. Surely that could also have been redeveloped, with due sensitivity to a sense of place, and amenities created for the younger generation" from Tim makes me wonder why he doesn't keep up to date with all that is happening and why he demotes infrastructiure which is important to sustain local neighbourhoods and bring a sense of community.

Sydenham Library is open - its roof does not leak since it was repaired last year by a solar panel company - and the Library is reaping the benefit of reduced utility charges. It has recently been redecorated; the tarpaulin is down and a new cafe is now in place. There is a new Library Manager and regular events are being held, work experience is also being offered alongside free computer training and help with writing CVs. On 31 May, two year's ago, the Lease on the Community Library was signed and it is now thriving. Funding for a new Literary Piazza, which is currently being designed, has been secured to connect the LIbrary with Home Park while at the same time improving the connection with Sydenham Road.

The Library is about to re-open after the re-decoration, with an official re-opening planned on 31 May. Pop along and see what a splendid community asset this is. See how it will play its part in the Sydenham Arts Festival and other community events.

How much of this would have been secured for an acknowledged area of deprivation if the Library had been closed and yet more housing been developed on its site? I say, "Good on the community group which went into battle to keep the second oldest Carnegie Library in London open!"

[simon]

Well, help me out here. What was happening between 2003 & 2008? Where would you say the responsibility for these delays lies?

And on one point of detail. How do we reconcile the BBC writing that "The land was transferred to the Greater London Authority last year under the Localism Act" and Lewisham Council writing on its FAQs "This site is owned by the Greater London Authority (which now incorporates the Homes And Communities Agency). Planning permission was granted by the Council for a major redevelopment of the site in 2008"? The two statements do not actually contradict each other - so what did happen last year?

Between 2003 and 2008, as far as I can remember, three successive developers went bust. Whether that was down to their development of the dog track or because of their own financial problems I don't know.

The site was then taken over by the Home and Communities Agency, whose London assets were subsumed into the GLA last year.

Catford stadium reached the end of it's useful life,).

Not so Lee. Attendances were ok and a new BAGS contract made it financially viable. Like pubs, they are community assets, often used for stock car, racing, speedway and bingo.

[Tim Lund]

Oh dear! I try not to post too often because I don't have time to join in these endless arguments in favour of housing over community assets BUT -

If you create spaces for people to live, they will develop their own community assets - it's human nature. In a case I mentioned recently, it's what happened when 1930s planners failed to build any pubs on the Becontree Estate - someone just got on with recitfying the oversight. People are not helpless, communities are resilient - they don't need the old guard telling them what particular community facilities they need.

What we have now with Sydenham Library is good in itself, but who counts the costs of the missed opportunities other than those paying for excessive housing costs?

[Tim Lund]

Between 2003 and 2008, as far as I can remember, three successive developers went bust. Whether that was down to their development of the dog track or because of their own financial problems I don't know.

Going bust even then, before the credit crunch hit? Were they trying to redevelop the stadium, or going for housing? Were the planners trying to make them keep the stadium going?

[simon]

Don't know why they went bust but they were doing housing and had permission to do so. Lewisham did nothing to keep it as a dog track.

[michael]

People are not helpless, communities are resilient - they don't need the old guard telling them what particular community facilities they need.

Fair enough Tim. I guess we should have allowed the swimming pool to be turned into flats. If 'the community' wanted a swimming pool they could jump in a lake. And the library should have been bulldozed to make way for flats. If the new residents wanted a library they could build a new one, one brick at a time, in a space that no longer exists.

'The old guard' are an integral part of the community, they don't always speak for everybody, but they are the backbone of a resilient community.

It is time for Tim to recognise that there is a reason he is in a minority of one when it comes to some of his more extreme views on urban planning. Tim is good at changing his opinion and admitting to that, which is positive. Unfortunately he doesn't always listen to sensible voices if they disagree with him. Perhaps the area is better with Sydenham library still open, Forest Hill swimming pool rebuilt, a few remaining pubs with a bit more protection from Tesco or housing developers, and typical suburban densities across both suburbs. Personally I'm glad we don't live in an area where Tim is responsible for planning decisions.