Lots of people objected to the Co-op redevelopment, they held a local meeting in Sunderland Road and only 2 local residents turned up, including myself. My complaint being over the lack of disabled parking, at the planning meeting, I was the only person who turned up objecting to the development in it current form and armed with additional facts, like the one disabled space, what happens if they have a disabled employee?
Its very well objecting and complaining on here, but you have to go to the council meetings and make your voice heard.
Not getting a parking permit and not owning a car are totally different, they will park in Stanstead Road or in the bays the opposite of the Fish & Chip shop.
I think these pictures look nice - I hope they get planning permission. God know anything is better than the piece of tarmac and a couple of portacabins there at the minute.
Planning meetings work like this, subject addressed, the developer puts their side then objectors put their side and the council decides. If the developer never turned up it would probably be refused. Had the hotel had adequate car parking it would have been less of an issue.
The thoughts of City workers staying in the hotel and going to work by train might work, but will they not drive to the hotel to start with. Not sure how much Holiday Inn Express charge per night (that what it will be) but you can get a double room in a Novotel for £90, 2 minutes walk from Canary Wharf.
I’m sorry the outcome wasn’t what you’d hoped for.
From my understanding, the planning office takes all the written recommendations in account before a decision is made. Sometimes, that decision is referred to a planning committee (as in this case) for final approval. Councillors on the planning committee receive a summary and the presenting/case officer will present the summary, including a summary of objections to the meeting. Councillors ask questions, then a representative of the applicant may speak followed by a representative for the objectors. If a development directly affects you, then it is important to be there in person or ensure a representative for you and other objectors does the job.
We had made objections to proposal in a neighbouring property back in November. The recommendation was for approval. But our verbal representation ensured a number of conditions were added which satisfied our specific complaint. If we had not gone in person the proposal would have passed unhindered.
I know this doesn’t help you now. But I add this more as a cautionary tale. If people directly affected by a proposal object, and it goes to committee then ensure at least one of you can attend to represent your concerns.
On our visit the PA system barely worked. Perhaps BBC Question Time will have sorted that out for them last week.
The planning process is not easy if people find a hour to actually attend a meeting. When they held the open informal meeting in Sunderland Road was held and only 2 objectors turned up it tells the planners what the real opposition is. Its embarrassing when the architect, site owner, traffic study, local community liaison (who lives in Colliers Wood) and a local Councillor turns up it shows real opposition, you would never convince me that all objectors were working late or single mothers. I am disabled and I managed to make both meetings. If I could make them, then I am sure others could.
There is less commercial than previously, that’s just the way things are going, however a purely residential property is less appealing to planners and developers, and nobody wants to live in a road front ground floor flat (bang on the south circular even more so).
Or so you’d think.
But look along the length of the Sth Circ and you’ll see hundreds of them.
I’d bet that this will end up going back into planning for flats on the ground floor after the developers can prove that there are no takers for the commercial parts.
I think you can convert shops into flats without needing to ask permission. So developers could include ground floor shops and then convert into flats.
Personally I think this is exactly the type of development that this site needs. It is close to the train station and is well designed and looks good. The flats are all well laid out and generally away from the railway line, only the point of the site is close to the railway the rest looks away. Once you get above the viaduct level you get great views across railway lines and with good glazing noise impact should be minimal. If people only object to schemes then there will be no development, better to fight your battles on sites such as the Duncombe Hill proposal which is a far worse site for development
Very much the case in Tower Hamlets where they have a car free policy for new builds. The development where we used to live in E2 was car free. It had some underground parking available to buy or rent (but not enough for every flat). Nobody was able to get a resident’s permit for the surrounding streets though, so no extra pressure on the local area.
Lots of proper construction work activity at this site. Presumably it’s this scheme that’s now going ahead? Or has another scheme been put through in the meantime?
Not sure if this was discussed earlier in the thread…. but they’ve started to demolish the old wall and I’ve noticed on the brochure that the car parking at the front takes out the two trees. Surely they would be obliged to replace them, seeing as there’s an effort to add more trees in London not less.