At first I thought there was going to be a pool on the roof, then I realised it says ‘Commercial’.
1 Like
The 2021 expansion of the ULEZ may help the pollution around there - it looks to be the area ‘inside’ the South Circ so very close to you, and covering this development.
Of course it could mean more old commercial fleet vehicles skirting around the edge of the new ULEZ and increasing traffic in the short term, but it’s got to help in the long run. In just wish they could expand it a bit more and sooner.
1 Like
I’ll admit I am slighty apprehensive of the proposal myself. I tend to believe that area doesn’t exactly scream out for the need for futher property development. I understand many have identified the positives of the development but I struggle to see a positive impact on the area as a whole. It seems impractical for a square development inside such a triangular plot of land, as others have stated before me, and the natural volumes of traffic about the area brought about by the local high street would be only an inconvenience to the residents intensified by the lack of parking offered in the site. I would like to see the site used for other public services other than housing or convenience stores, which are in abundance in the area as is.
1 Like
Unless I’m missing something, once again this is a proposal that makes no provision for parking. In terms of timing it comes at the same time as the proposal to develop the Co-op site into a hotel which also makes completely inadequate provision for parking (which is discussed on the related Co-op development thread). These two developments straddle Stanstead Rd, which is a residential street that is already over-subscribed for parking (both due to the weight of residential properties and because its proximity to the station encourages people to park there). As can be seen in this image, it seems blindingly obvious to me that Stanstead Rd will bear the brunt of the new parking demand that these two proposals will create:
Yes there are potential solutions to this - resident only parking control areas, extension of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone etc. - but it’s so frustrating that all these developments don’t take any responsibility for trying to address these problems in advance, they just ignore the problem and let others deal with the fallout later.
1 Like
But planning want to see two things on planning applications. Cycle parks and public transport. Then they can tick their green boxes.
1 Like
Indeed - And I would be all for “green developments” that had some sort of restrictive covenant that meant that purchasers/residents could not own cars (I’ve lived in London for 15 years and have never had a car so it’s perfectly possible). But sadly it’s a fiction. By my estimate the 21 new homes on the portakabin site and the 50+ hotel rooms on the Co-op site have together made provision for a grand total of [drum roll] TWO car parking spaces. It’s completely divorced from reality.
2 Likes
Indeed, but the developers have ticked those boxes so it will get built.
In 2017 a proposal to change the class use of a building by Sunderland Road and Waldram Park Road was refused based mostly on traffic and parking concerns.
Perhaps the developer should use the ground floor commercial for onsite parking.
1 Like
I don’t think any new development should encourage car usage therefore I am more than happy for no dedicated parking, if it only encourages one person in the building to ditch the car and using public transport it would be positive, station. Is 2 min away so no excuses. You don’t build Smoking shelters to make people stop smoking what’s different with cars ?
3 Likes
Not having dedicated parking on site just means that they park on the road and not that they jump on their bikes or use public transport - or when they do the car remains parked on the street. There is a strong bias to approve any application at the moment given the shortage of housing and the issue of parking has been pushed aside usually with the assistance of a parking assessment report that is usually not reflective of the real world position. The only way to solve this would be to have resident parking permits but I doubt that will happen any time soon.
3 Likes
As I said anything which discourage driving in London and don’t care where they park as long they nit on the road polluting everyone and btw I am a driver and a smoker 
I don’t really agree with the logic here - if it only encourages one person in the building to ditch a car then that is still net 20 new cars introduced into our local area which are adding to pollution and parking pressure. How is that a positive?!
As I mentioned I am all for introducing schemes that actually prohibit (rather than just discourage) people buying/renting in new residential developments from having a car, but in the meantime it’s just like building a pub with no toilet - where do you think people are going to go? answer, the nearest available street.
2 Likes
My logic is to make it as difficult as possible to own a car and I understand it is not a popular opinion and as I said I don’t care where they are going to park even if it causes headaches for the surrounding streets, once again that’s just my opinion and building a pub without toilets is as much valid then building Smoking shelters to discourage smoking
Getting a bit circular here, folks - can we stick to the subject of this new development please
1 Like
Sorry, agree we gone off topic
1 Like
Out of interest did anyone on this topic attend the event at the Signal? If so was parking discussed? In light of the hotel development on the Coop site the impact of surrounding areas including Westbourne Road in addition to Stanstead Road seems central to the proposal.
This makes the bold assumption that every flat in this particular development will own a car, which I think is far fetched.
And even if there are a few more cars on the road around this specific development, whereabouts in Forest Hill do you propose would be better suited to a new development where this issue will not arise? It will be the same story everywhere - local residents complaining about more cars on their streets.
And I truly don’t understand how local residents in Stanstead Road can be so sensitive about probably around 5-10 extra cars when they have chosen to live a stones throw from the car cesspit of the South Circular.
1 Like
This does happen in some Boroughs. I know that some residential developments specify that the owners/occupiers will not be entitled to a parking permit in the Borough.
I’m struggling to understand the link between a major thoroughfare and residential parking. But I’m also sure our neighbours in Stanstead Road are also concerned about the impact that an 89-room hotel next door might also have.
1 Like