leenewham wrote:Are they taller than the buildings opposite the Kirkdale bookshop?
If so then they are different to the plans on display. Do we know for a fact that they cherry pickers are there to illustrate the height of the buildings?
Well I can assure you that the cherry pickers were there to demonstrate the height of the development. I happened to be in when they arrived and saw the cherry pickers going up and up with a blue rope stretched between them which denoted the height and was from the top of the cherry picker baskets.
The Lewisham planner and the group of planners, architects and consultants (approx 8 in all) asked to come in to see it from our perspective and the devastating effect it will have on the residents of Peak Hill Gardens was quite apparent.
Drawing a line in the sky on the previously posted spring hill photo i cant see what the fuss is about.
The residents at peakhill should have realised that a vacant site would have been built on to the height of adjacent buildings at some point . the developers have made enough compromises and i think the scheme has a lot going for it and is a really positive step forward for sydenham.
I don't see why having tall buildings on one side of the road justifies building some as tall (or taller in this case) on the other....do we want to feel like we are all living in an inferior Manhattan!!? The current building line has to be important, surely?
Apart from the impact on the residents behind, such an imposing development, I think, would make all those who use the high street daily (or work in that area) feel very hemmed in...it might even feel quite oppressive
SMOKEIT wrote:Drawing a line in the sky on the previously posted spring hill photo i cant see what the fuss is about.
The residents at peakhill should have realised that a vacant site would have been built on to the height of adjacent buildings at some point . the developers have made enough compromises and i think the scheme has a lot going for it and is a really positive step forward for sydenham.
As explained previously many times we are not opposed to the site being built on, in fact we welcome it. However, because we will be living with said development we would like some consideration. We are entitled, as the nearest residents affected to some surely? We are also entitled for any development to be something that does not have such an adverse effect on the quality of our lives.
I agree with gillyjp that residents of Peak Hill have a right to defend the quality of their environment and I highlighted the impact (which is a legal planning consideration) in terms of daylight and sunlight on their properties and gardens earlier and if I lived there I would be fighting the current design tooth and nail. Though it may just be erring to the right side of legal requirements I think from their point of view the block facing them is at least one storey too tall.
The developers are pushing to maximize the value of their investment and residents of Peak Hill have a right to do the same if they can find support in planning law.
However I disagree with Poppy in terms of the impact on the street frontage. The comparison with Manhattan is comically out of proportion. Why not compare it to Paris or Barcelona for example where sometimes narrower streets will have buildings 7-9 storeys high? Yet no-one feels
hemmed in and the kind of population densities these buildings support ensure the kind of thriving local shopping environments at street level that we all seem to long for.
The proposals do respect the bulding line i.e. the buildings are at the height of neighbouring buildings at the pavements edge (ground + 3 floors of apartments). They are one floor taller further away from the pavement. Given that only the narrow end of the T-shaped development actually fronts onto the street and the relatively open aspect of the roundabout area, its ability to oppress is severely limited.
I don't think when an urban environment was built is relevant to how succesful and thriving it is as anyone who has visited these places and numerous other historical European towns will confirm.
The reasons these places work and create the kinds of street environments that attract people to them with a high density of cafes, restaurants, bakeries etc (THE overriding concern of most people on this forum) is that they achieve high (but reasonable, not Manhattan-like) density with a good mix of residents including both families and younger people with disposable income. It seems to me that a block of good quality private flats will house exactly the kind of people that might inject money into the high street.
A location at the busiest junction of Sydenham seems exactly the place to push the envelope a bit in urban design terms and give Sydenham a sense of prominence (which I find all the taller buildings along the high street do). Also, what the buildings do not do is take up much sky because the block approaching the road is quite narrow and most of the volume is further.
In any case, who walks down Sydenham Road thankful for the sky that the low buildings at the vacant Nickells blinds building gives them and then walks past the block on the corner of Venner Rd (relatively tall) and complains about the lack of sky?
The economic reality is, that if these plans are approved the flats will be sold to a Housing Association to rent to lewishams housing waiting list and the shops will remain empty.
I dont have a problem with the scheme at all, apart from the financial pressures the developer will be under to dispose of it the easiest way possible, which currently wont have the result some idealists posting here aspire to.
Dorian wrote:The economic reality is, that if these plans are approved the flats will be sold to a Housing Association to rent to lewishams housing waiting list and the shops will remain empty.
I dont have a problem with the scheme at all, apart from the financial pressures the developer will be under to dispose of it the easiest way possible, which currently wont have the result some idealists posting here aspire to.
Do we know this for a fact or is it speculation?
Sales are picking up and I know a few people who are investing in property due to low interest rates. The recession wont last forever, housing is still a great long term investment. And no, I'm not an estate agent.
Lets not be too pessimistic, how about some enthusiasm for Sydenham's future for a change!
Even if a Housing Association did purchase the scheme they would generally seek to maintain the level of private accommodation to generate profit. Also the proportion of affordable housing is specified in the planning submission. Changing this would require an alteration to the application. 100% social housing is generally ruled out by planning departments these days.
And there is every reason to believe that the flats will sell and that the retail outlets will be sold or let successfully. Should, of course, the proposal be granted planning permission.
This is a prime site – probably one of the last remaining locations in south-east London on which larger retail outlets (chain stores and chain restaurants etc) can be established close by a railway station and on an existing high street. Existing retail spaces on our high street are simply too small to accommodate this type of store.
TfL are confident that the new ELL will increase the number of people using the station by up to five fold. Maybe this is a touch on the high side but even if passengers numbers double, it means greatly enlarged potential trade. Shops on the Greyhound site will be in an ideal situation to take advantage of all the extra passengers entering and leaving the station. And also to enjoy the effect of the extra boost to trade arising from the £2.5m scheme to improve Sydenham Road and access roads to the station.
As for selling the flats: we are talking about these being completed in the future when the easing credit crunch and greater mortgage availability will make things much easier. Modern flats and housing on the other side of the station are extremely popular, so there is no reason why these flats – all built to very high specs – should not be equally sought after.
As with any other area of commercial life, there are no guarantees. But there is equally no reason to believe that this proposal will be unsuccessful commercially.
Stand by for the first postings saying that this or that store or restaurant opening up on the site will adversely affect smaller local businesses and should be stopped! Posted by the same people who tell you now that the site is never going to be commercially successful!
Did you say TFL expect passengers through Sydenham station to increase 500% . Surely they are not that bonkers.
I would have thought 150% would be quite an achievement for an already crowded station.
nasaroc wrote:
Stand by for the first postings saying that this or that store or restaurant opening up on the site will adversely affect smaller local businesses and should be stopped! Posted by the same people who tell you now that the site is never going to be commercially successful!
I have never posted the above, so no idea where that came from?
There is currently no Govenrment grant available for Housing Associations to develop private sale or shared equity housing. The application may well state the percentage of affordable housing to comply with the Councils policies and be included in a Section 106 agreement; this does not restrict the affordable Housing element to that percentage, merely secures a minimum percentage.
It's only crowded when waiting for a train, which if you heading towards London Bridge will probably be late! That's really the only time you get large crowds. With more trains you will get more people heading through the station. The 500% wont all turn up at once!
