True, and “Ariel” – the (mis)spelling used in the planning bumf – is also a character in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, which is the point Clausy was making.
3 Likes
Ha ha! God loves a trier. I am sympathetic, truly I am.
1 Like
The simple fact of the matter is that the nation’s big housebuilders like Bellway and Berkeley Homes, among many others, are too powerful for local councils to take on so they get away with murder in most cases.
4 Likes
No developer is going to build enough new houses to depress the housing market and reduce house prices!
Thanks Leo. I appreciate your responses on these issues. I did raise the pathway issue in the pre-planning survey but they don’t seem particularly interested (like with most of the feedback). A minor amendment to the bike sheds would allow for a path through, although having looked at the ground levels today, I can see that it might be a set of steps rather than a flat path, but Taymount people are used to walking up hills and steps.
6 Likes
There needs to be reform, particularly to incentivise smaller developers and increase competition.
The current rationing of land to develop on causes land that is likely to get planning permission, to skyrocket in value. Plus the inherent risks in the planning system (such as a councillor veto) add a great deal of risk. It’s only really the big players who can dominate in such an environment and yes, without reform, they will build out slowly to stop an area being swamped with new supply.
You are entirely right but to some extent I hope that the pandemic can change the way we spread our population. We have proved that people don’t all need to be in office blocks in London all of the time to work effectively.
There are reports that the population of London has already dropped by 1 million people, but if this were true I would have expected to see some reaction in the local housing market.
But we have a choice to make as a city and as a country: can we see a future where Leeds is as prosperous and desirable as London, or should we continue to focus population growth in one city surrounded by Green Belt?
Over the last 20 years the population of Leeds has increased by 17% but the population of London has increased by 45% and, excluding Green Belt and green space, we are running out of land - which is why targets relating to social housing provision appear to be completely obsolete.
2 Likes
The problem is London flats are not just homes they are safety deposit boxes. When people leave London they often do not sell.
When I was buying five years ago I lost count of the amount of agents who said “if the seller doesn’t get the price they want they will just rent it out.”
At the lower end of the London property market you are always competing with the siren call.of buy to let.
2 Likes
Also completely agree Michael, stronger regional cities are good not just for those cities but also for London and Londoners and should be encouraged.
Judging by the rental market, most of the London-leavers have returned.
At the start of the pandemic, there were some massive drops in rental prices. Camden saw rental values plummet 20.7% in a year, while the City of London also saw a 12.6% reduction. But things have ‘bounced-back’ with current rental values now sitting 9.4% higher than they did during 2020 and they are predicted to continue rising.
I agree we need to focus on improving public transport and job creation in our other cities. But Leeds, like London, is also surrounded by a Green Belt. There are some sensible Green Belt reforms out there, such as releasing lands within 10 minutes walk of rail stations. My old boss worked on a campaign for reform.
We also need to release much more land for redevelopment and reform the planning system so it’s not such an expensive and risky business, dominated by a few huge developers who can manage those risks (through things like land-banking).
The Gov has seemingly dropped planning reform but the idea of street votes shows promise and I think Michael Gove is a fan. Some promising signs ahead perhaps.
3 Likes
We live on Taymount rise and received no leaflets the 1st we heard of this application was on this forum.
What with the parking problems, problems with water leaks and poor public transport reliability not to mention over stretched GO’s in this area I wonder who will want to buy an overpriced shoebox
Probably’buy to let investors’
1 Like
I only found out slightly earlier, from a post on our block’s forum with a link to the online version of the leaflet. I don’t know what the protocol is – mailing via the block’s managing agent or directly “to the homeowner/leaseholder”, or at least posting them through individual doors? At least Lewisham Council mailed us a formal notification, but that was only in the past couple of days.
3 Likes
That’s pretty bad - it will impact everyone on Taymount Rise. The developers are not showing a lot of interest in or respect for the local community.
I recall from the pre planning consultation there were vague promises of contibutions to local amenities but I can’t find anything more detailed. It would be great if they paid to resurface and repair the frankly disgraceful road and pavements on Taymount Rise. Some places are now more pothole than road.
We got a formal letter from the council yesterday. I am not sure how many addresses on Taymount Rise will get them.
2 Likes
They should really have posted it to every resident.
The way the consultation was carried out was very discriminatory to residents that are housebound or cannot use the internet. The excuse of covid to not hold a meeting was a bit pathetic seeing as there are currently very few restrictions, they could have always made it hydrid for people unable or unwilling to attend in person.
3 Likes
Parking is already difficult in Taymount Rise. Fortunately there is plenty of spare parking capacity halfway down the hill in Forestholme Close:
Most of the Forestholme Close spaces (7 out of 11) are at the end of the cul-de-sac. That’s a three minute walk up a hill with your shopping! (and likely to be further than the 200m walk distance from the site).
If we remove the vacant parking spaces spaces beyond the 200m limit, it reduced the number of vacant spaces in Forestholme Close by 8 and the total number of spaces drops to 5 (with 120% occupancy).
But this still leaves 9 parking spaces on Taymount Rise and the roundabout (mostly on the roundabout) for overnight parking. We just need people to squeeze up a bit more to make sure the roundabout parking is always fully utilised. And even more space can be provided on those useless pavements.
1 Like
Completely agree that the parking situation on Taymount Rise is tricky enough as it is, without the addition of however many cars 20 more flats will add.
According to the application documents, the car parking beat survey was conducted in the early hours of 30th and 31st March last year - in the school holidays and Easter week. Probably not exactly typical!
2 Likes
Indeed. I can say as someone who has to walk all the way to the top of Taymount Rise most days it is already an unpleasant and sometimes dangerous pedestrian experience We also suffer from a lot of commuter and workers parking from on Taymount Rise as well as residents and tradesmen.
Something else I have noticed is SORN and beaten up cars are often left on Taymount Rise for a good period of time.
2 Likes
And lockdown meant a lot of the normal passing traffic (workers, tradesmen) that often park on Taymount Rise would not be around.
We actually live in Forestholme Close and it’s all dropped kerbs because the houses are terraced and they all have drives…
There is really limited parking currently with overspill from Taymount and commuters as the parking on the other side of London Road is CPZ. More than once residents have had their cars blocked in their drives by people parking in the street.
The parking bays are mainly used by residents (many have adult offspring living at home who also drive) or residents guests. And yes, it is usually pretty full up much as Taymount especially in the evenings. I wonder why the survey wasn’t carried out then?
And a space or so has been taken to be used as a cycle park.
1 Like
I live in Taymount Grange and of course appreciate the local need for more housing, but object to the way this proposal has been lodged with such limited consultation (with the pandemic used as an excuse).
As has been mentioned above, a large and handsome red beech tree (see pic below) was chopped down last year; the reasoning given was that it was jeopardising one of the two houses that are now going to be demolished. Quite a coincidence!
4 Likes