Proposal to demolish houses and build flats on Taymount Rise

Streetscape
#43

Hi @HannahM
Yes & it has been so for many months. They do not give an excuse because I actually have not talked to anyone from the council offices but the collectors say either “staff off sick or wrong items in the wrong bins” (which is often true) but because the bins are not emptied weekly, they continue to fill up and spill out and no one sorts it out, but surely someone must be employed to sort out the over flowing items before they hit the ground and it starts to become messy? I reported it quite a few times last summer on Fix my Street as, if you report it via the Council option you have to give your own address and I am afraid I do not wish to be logged as “that person who constantly reports or complains” when it is not my own issue but rather, mostly, lazy, stupid people on this estate who do not read the guidelines and separate their rubbish from recycling, rinse off or wash it before disposing, sort it, but rather they put recycling in plastic bags or black refuse sacks etc which is a NO-NO and they also do NOT make sure what they recycle IS actually recyclable. The collectors will not empty the bins if mixed, and have put notices on saying so in the past, but not lately, so they fill up, overspill, end up on the ground and then spread by foxes, squirrels, birds etc. making the place look like a shithole, for weeks on end. One leaseholder actually tries to sort the stuff out from bin to bin sometimes, but I am afraid I do not have time, not body strength to dumpster dive these years and, do not see why I should have to sort out a problem other tenants create. I have given up now, everything goes in the main refuse bins, because there is no room in the recycling bins. What else can I do? I do not have the room to keep stuff inside for weeks on end.

SIGH :frowning_face:

UPDATE 5th DECEMBER Oh joy, finally the bins were emptied a few days back (probably will be a few more weeks since that happens again) so I have put what I had outside the front door (lovely to see that, when you come up to my door, a pile of recycling) into one of the 2 almost full bins near my block (less than a week since emptied) AND within the past 3 days they have sent a a generic “Block Letter” to each address telling everyone that, if they do not put the correct items, washed, sorted etc. in the recycling bins then, they may have to be REMOVED !!! Wow, what a good solution to the problem? Remove all the recycling bins, so that we cannot recycle anymore anyway! NOT! Oh well, MAYBE the idiots WILL actually read the helpful guidance leaflet enclosed, finally and start to recycle properly. Maybe? I will not hold my breath … OR …my recycling, in my home, for weeks on end! I also feel extremely pissed off that I got one of the letters, when I have busted a gut to recycle properly for years (but am not an idiot and realise what a block letter is and I hope it DOES WORK). :roll_eyes:
The recycling bins used to be situated off of the estate, near the grass “triangle” between Derby Hill Crescent and Featherstone Avenue, but often used to end up being full-up to overflowing and, it did not help that anyone or any passing car, van or truck tended to dump their recycling, rubbish or waste,in or next to the 3 bins, making a terrible mess and eysore that would, of course, sit around for weeks on end

This problem is obviously not unique to Shackleton Close but can someone please tell me, how will more, dense housing help the waste and recycling situation? It is not going to is it? Some tenants and residents are to blame, but not all, so how can this be solved? Leaseholders have to pay for extra services, on this estate and others, so ignorant selfish a-holes who live here and make the place look a mess cost everyone more money (taxes) and stress, which is not nice or good.

Oh, sigh, rant over.
Hope the newly built places are a dream and get serviced to the extreme! :stuck_out_tongue:

I am sorry this has turned into a very long extra issue away from the original thread theme but it IS relevant to new homes being built so, maybe, a split could be made somehow to open up a new discourse on erm. “borough council services, dense/condensed housing issues,” or something? (just thinking off top of my head, not got the right titles, obviously)

4 Likes
#44

Hey Folks,

Would it be possible to bring this thread back on topic and focus on the immediate and long term effects of building so close to existing buildings.

As the current development on Knapdale Close is topping out I’m now starting to realise the effects of “overlooking” can be. Taymount Rise was graced in the summer evenings by a wonderful golden hour of light which cast across the front gardens between a narrow gap between Forest Croft and Taymount Grange. People used to sit out there and get that the last bit of sun. The development on Knapdale Close now casts a shadow over this area, its an effect that I didn’t consider during the planning phase.

I feel very sad about this loss and no doubt the owners of green bank cottage who even closer probably feel even sadder and no doubt selling up to developers is a no brainer for them.

Work on the proposed development on the Green Bank Cottage and Taymount Cottage has been quietly going on in the back ground. The observant of you may have notice the removal of a healthy and mature copper beech tree last year which was close to the pavement. Sadly there was not a tree protection order on this tree so the owners were within their right to remove it, but it is now very apparent the removal was about making the planning application easier as incorporating into the design would have not been financially viable.

Whether the owners were lied to or are complicit the removal of a healthy and mature tree for easing planning is completely immoral, something that should be chalked up against the environmental impact of a development.

Would also like to point out that the leaflet proposal is deliberately misleading. Take a close look at the side profile drawing of positioning against Forest Croft and and Taymount Grange, 5 storeys high means it would be an equal height to Taymount Grange. The illustration does not does not accurately represent the spacing between these buildings.

Of course pre planning is a negotiation process and developer will want to be as much as possible, it iss likely that the height and distances will be adjusted but at present estimate that this development worth between £8-£10 million. Market value of both those house are about one million. Can’t see a huge amount of profit being made by the developer so the claim of “Luxury apartment” will very quickly be adjusted to a budget build…

6 Likes
#45

Taymount Lodge was on the market last year for £1.3m so together I reckon the cost of buying both would be well over £2m.

You are right though the over looking issues and impact on natural light from a five storey building crammed on to that site would be bad not just for Forest Croft and Taymount Grange but for parts of the Forest Estate behind and the houses on the roads off the top of Taymount Rise.

3 Likes
#46

You need to consider rights of light.

4 Likes
#47

Also we have a very longstanding problems with the drains overflowing in inclement weather and burst water-mains leading to a stream running down Taymount rise.
The drainage and watermains in the area seem to be at breaking point and constantly leaking.
What will an extra X amount of dwellings at the top of the hill do to the already overburdened pipes and drains ?

2 Likes
#48

That is a very good point.

#49

The other issue is we at the top suffer more if there is a burst water main on London Road as the resulting much lower pressure means we can be off supply for longer.

A fair few times I have had rather testy conversations with Thames Water where they claim we should have some supply when we don’t. It was particularly bad a few years ago when the big main by the Horniman was always breaking and they diverted supply via other mains.

3 Likes
#50

A planning application has now been submitted for this

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/centralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_112781

2 Likes
#51

Is it really okay for 20 flats to be built without any social housing because it isn’t ‘financially viable’?
Doesn’t the 35% policy exist for a reason or does it not really apply any longer in London?

3 Likes
#52

That does seem pretty disgraceful

There is a big gap between people eligible for social housing and those who can afford circa £400k for a two bed flat. The average salary in Lewisham is around £35k

If this goes ahead it should definitely feature affordable units.

The.other big gap is affordable houses. I would like to see the site used for small “starter” two and three bed houses, along the same design lines as the Grassmount or Forestholme houses.

Seeing as there are already a lot of blocks with one - three bed flats on the road, affordable houses would actually meet a gap in the market.

Meeting housing need is not just about cramming as many units in as possible but thinking what the area actually needs and well priced, well built houses is a big need in an area attractive to young families.

3 Likes
#53

I do like how in the plans they have ‘Ariel views’ for example this one from the South… Very Shakespearean!

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/4E0434A0EB79313F92FA36E1ED12BB2C/pdf/DC_21_124859-ARIEL_VIEW_FROM_THE_SOUTH-1055814.pdf

2 Likes
#54

Developments proposals that provide 35 per cent affordable housing can be fast tracked by the London Mayor’s guidelines.

The fast track process allows developments to progress without the need to submit detailed viability information and without late viability review mechanisms which re-assess viability at an advanced stage of the development process.

35% is an aspiration and one that is incentivised through this fast track process. In my experience, 35% of affordable housing is only ever hit on very large schemes (but not always - the scheme at Our Lady & St Philip Neri Infant Site on Mayow nearly hit that and was only 59 homes).

This application will need to submit detailed viability information which will be independently verified by the council. A developer can get out of providing affordable homes if they can prove the application would be financially unviable if they were provided.

Usually, the smaller the scheme the less likely it is to provide affordable homes (because the profit margin will often be lower). However even if no affordable homes are directly delivered, there may be still be an off-site contribution for affordable homes (sometimes this is better than offering 1 or 2 affordable homes in a block, because registered social housing providers often do not want to take single units on). An ‘off-site’ contribution means the council we get some monies to deliver affordable homes elsewhere.

Finally, I would also make that point that Lewisham needs homes of all tenures. The increase of new market rate homes are crucial and can help us tackle rising rents and house prices.

Michael I will speak to the planning officer about potentially opening up the site through this application, to provide a back and through public entrance to Shackleton Close. However, as the application has already gone in, there is likely little that be done. Changes like that to a design, are usually something that happens at the pre-application process. I’ll report back and email you with what I find out.

5 Likes
#55

Hmm. The pre application consultation process for this was pretty shoddy.

It consisted of a badly printed A5 sheet dumped in the foyers of the nearest blocks of flats like pizza leaflets.

I would expect a developer looking to make millions from this site and cause significant inconvenience to the local residents to show a little more respect.

4 Likes
#56

Also I am not an economist but the housing market seems to defy the normal laws of supply and demand. No matter how many market rate shiny new flats councils allow developers to build, those damn house prices and rents never seem to come down to affordable levels.

4 Likes
#57

Exactly – the dumping of the leaflets (which would have been removed ASAP as a fire hazard!) doesn’t bode well for our being treated with consideration should the works go ahead.

2 Likes
#58

It might feel like houses and flats are popping up everywhere but land in Greater London remains majorly constrained. The Green Belt, conservation areas, the steep price of land, the tightness of planning regs, all add up.

Forest Hill being a good example, there are no major sites for regeneration. (Willow Way in Sydenham is a sizeable small site, which the council is encouraging partners to assist with in its redevelopment).

Over the last few years, we are starting to build more homes. But this is after decades of minimal house building. To start seeing a fall in rents and prices, we will need to see home building on the scale not seen since at least the 70s. We’ll also need to build in areas of particular high demand - the south east for example.

Due to the planning constraints in London, outlined above, councils need to maximise their major sites to try and hit their housing targets. It’s why you see tall towers in Lewisham, and are likely to see similar in Convoys Wharf, New Bermondsey and (perhaps to a lesser extent) Catford Centre.

We deliver about 50% of our social/affordable housing through extraction on private developments. The more homes a development crams into a site, the more profit they make, meaning the more affordable homes the council can extract from them through Section 106/CIL agreements upon viability assessments.

If you want to see affordable homes on this Taymount Rise site, it’ll need to larger. That’s the trade off we face.

I won’t comment on this particular application, as I do not want to pre-judge it before it comes to committee.

image

2 Likes
#59

Oh I support more housing, I just rather admire your naive optimism that the housing market is subject to normal economic rules in this country.

Things like stamp duty holidays, help to buy and the egregious under taxing of housing gains shows successive governments are commited to pumping the bubble ever larger.

1 Like
#60

Lol!! Savage.

1 Like
#61

‘Ariel views’ Ariel is a detergent surely you mean aerial

1 Like
#62

No Government in my lifetime has been willing to challenge home-owner wealth. So I know I’m facing an uphill battle.

1 Like