New council houses

The place for serious discussion, announcements and breaking news about Sydenham
Post Reply
Growsydenham
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

New council houses

Post by Growsydenham »

Dear all,

It's just come to my attention that the council has proposed four new developments for social rented housing, building on what are currently disused council properties. The applications went in at the end of last month. I've summarized them below, with case references for anyone who wishes to look them up.

Silverdale Hall
DC/18/106598
The demolition of one (1) existing single storey building (disused Community Hall) at 8 Silverdale, London SE26 4SZ to allow for the construction of two (2) blocks, each two (2) storeys in height to provide six (6) residential dwellings comprised of 2 x 2 bed houses, 2 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 2 bed wheelchair flats, together with landscaping, refuse storage, twelve (12) secure cycle parks, vehicle crossover and two (2) accessible car parking spaces.


Grace Path
DC/18/106597 | The demolition of one (1) existing single storey garage block comprised of seventeen (17) garages at Grace Path to the rear of 31-61 Silverdale, London SE26 4SG to allow for the construction of 5 x 3 bed houses (two storeys) together with landscaping, refuse storage, ten (10) secure cycle parks and five (5) car parking spaces.

Winchfield Road
DC/18/106485
The demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part three, part four, part five storey building comprising 8 one bedroom, 16 two bedroom, 7 three bedroomed self-contained flats, and a commercial unit at Home Park Housing Office, 129 Winchfield Road, SE26, together with the provision of 3 disabled parking spaces and 64 bicycle spaces, bins storage and associated landscaping.

Highlevel Drive
DC/18/106600
The demolition of one (1) existing single storey community centre at The Gateway Site (former Hillcrest Clubroom) to allow for the construction of one (1) six (6) storey building comprised of seventeen (17) flats (7 x 2 bed and 10 x 3 bed) and the demolition of seventeen (17) garages at Vigilant Close to allow for the construction of one (1) two (2) storey building comprised of four (4) houses (2 x 3 bed and 2 x 4 bed) at High Level Drive, London SE26 2XP, together with the provision of refuse storage, secure cycle parking, car parking improvements, alterations to the estate roads and landscaping improvements to the wider Hillcrest Estate.





It's a lot - but after some study I'm in favour, as sad as it is that council cuts mean that community centres are being shut. I'll be lodging my support with the council.

I was cautious when I first saw the application to replace the disused Silverdale community centre, as it's a handsome piece of 20th century design -- but the proposed houses are very tasteful, contemporary but with a good nod to the 1960s homes in the surrounding area. I'd be thrilled to live in one.

More generally - given the vast waiting lists in this borough, and the near-extinction of council house building nationwide - it's good to see council houses being built. If SE26 is leading the way in a renaissance then that's something to take great pride in i think.
mosy
Posts: 4111
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 20:28
Location: London

Re: New council houses

Post by mosy »

Although the new designs seem reasonably OK and it's good that some are council, it does seem a backward step to increase people density yet remove community halls leaving youths and adults no places to go.

It is a purely political decision IMO not to fund welfare activities allowing community halls to become idle and thus contrived ideal targets for demolition, which surely must exacerbate problems caused by a lack of them. (I suspect this stems from D Cameron's big society speech whereby anybody except the government should pay and be responsible for "society".) Hmm.
JRW
Posts: 539
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: New council houses

Post by JRW »

Two comments, firstly, the block on Winchfield road is awfully close to Fairlawn Terrace, overlooking their gardens, and directly into their homes. Given the amount of available land nearby, it seems unreasonable to position an five storey tower there, especially as the slope of the land would make it appear taller from Fairlawn. The planners admit that this block would seriously affect the daylight and sky views of the houses, but that they would still have the minimum acceptable level legally. Rather a high handed attitude!. The site needs developing, but a lower rise development would be more appropriate.

Secondly, I haven't looked at the plans of the other sites yet, but have a point about redeveloping a community hall. I would instinctively be adamantly against it, but the fact is that Sydenham is generously supplied with community halls, and some of them seem under used. I hope that Lewisham would at least make a generous investment in the alternative halls, particularly in developing a web based information and booking tool for the area. In looking into this, I have been amazed to discover halls I know nothing about, despite living here for 28 years.
TredownMan
Posts: 158
Joined: 28 Sep 2017 15:38
Location: Sydenham

Re: New council houses

Post by TredownMan »

I hope this doesn’t get mired in the usual planning gripes. Everyone is entitled to their preferences, but there are 1900 families listed as homeless in the borough, which has to come first. Let’s get behind the council.
simon
Posts: 965
Joined: 11 Oct 2006 15:35
Location: Longton Avenue

Re: New council houses

Post by simon »

I think there is already opposition to some aspects of the Hillcrest development and local residents don't feel they have been consulted properly.
SydenhamOwl
Posts: 100
Joined: 20 Jan 2017 15:26
Location: Sydenham

Re: New council houses

Post by SydenhamOwl »

Funny how it always seems to be social/council housing that brings about the opposition/complaints...
mosy
Posts: 4111
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 20:28
Location: London

Re: New council houses

Post by mosy »

It's not fair and it's even just wrong to assume that concerns or actual objections are NIMBY or prissy and have no genuine validity. (My generic complaint about underfunding and loss of community halls is clearly a strategy issue, not a planning one.) Loss of light (assuming all else equal, e.g. traffic) is a genuine concern IMO. Other high density issues like school and doctor places are no different whether council (social) or other.
Nigel
Posts: 2418
Joined: 22 May 2005 16:12
Location: Laurie Park

Re: New council houses

Post by Nigel »

Mosy
I agree , on the one hand we are wondering why more people didn’t raise concerns about the dire design and finish of St Philip Neri and now people are being slighted for recognising the validity of some objections .
It seems like the housing or more properly people crisis makes logic offensive . Without any control of the demand side , small amounts of social housing will not improve things for many or for very long .
Any to suggest that people only complain about social housing , whatever that now means , is snide and bullying - there was plenty of noise about the big development off of Lawrie Park ie the old Salvation Army site .
The quality of life issues that some people say is the downside of poorly managed immigration includes things like the loss of amenities to build more homes and of course pressure on existing services , but that is of course a merely logical point of view and probably not therefore a welcome one .

Avery good afternoon
Nigel
Pally
Posts: 1492
Joined: 2 Aug 2014 05:38
Location: Sydenham

Re: New council houses

Post by Pally »

I don't see any evidence that objections are always about social/council housing! Nor anything suggestions that the objections in this case are linked to "Nimbyism" !!! I do think there neds to be very careful and measured consideration to ensure balance between providing more housing and maintaining old buildings/a pleasant environment etc etc!! Neither should completely override the other and sometimes there needs to be a level of realism/pragmatism!

Pressure on services also needs to be taken into account ...not to stop building/conversion but to ensure appropriate investment in those services at local level to support demand because of the building/conversion ...and sadly in the present financial climate that just doesn't happen
Post Reply