254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

The place for serious discussion, announcements and breaking news about Sydenham

Moderator: frenzarin

Post Reply
stuart
Posts: 3348
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 10:13
Location: Lawrie Park
Contact:

254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

Post by stuart »

Plans to build hundreds of homes on the site of a former Lower Sydenham social club are set to face Bromley’s planning board for an incredible sixth time. The Footzie Club is t'other side of the tracks just south of Lower Sydenham Station:
Stuart
alywin
Posts: 795
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 12:33
Location: Penge side of Sydenham

Re: 254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

Post by alywin »

"Buoyed by the win, the developers lodged their latest scheme – a tower ranging in eight from eleven stories to four stories with 254 units; consisting of 130 one bedroom; 107 two bedroom and 17 three bedroom apartments."

Sounds like that monstrosity they put in at Bromley South - is it on a similar scale? Is there anything of a similar size in the area?
stuart
Posts: 3348
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 10:13
Location: Lawrie Park
Contact:

Re: 254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

Post by stuart »

Follow up by the Newshopper. You may find one of the reader's comments interesting:
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/1876 ... ty-tycoon/

Stuart
JGD
Posts: 979
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward which includes Bell Green and is still NOT Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: 254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

Post by JGD »

A lot of interesting comments.

I pass the site frequently by car - is the land accessible or is it fenced off and thereby prevents access to the land by the public?

If it is fenced off what does the principle of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) infer or grant in terms of access to the land? In law, it would appear to grant the same level of protection as Green Belt.

This is an extract from the GLA planning report, GLA/3633c/01, dated 11 June 2018, titled Footzie Social Club, Lower Sydenham in the London Borough of Bromley, planning application no. 18/01319/FULL1. It is presumed this was for the last application which appears to be smaller and have only 8 storeys maximum.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... report.pdf
Strategic issues

Principle of development: The proposal is inappropriate development within Metropolitan Open Land and ‘very special circumstances’ have not been demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the openness of MOL (paragraphs 26-41).

Affordable housing: 36.2% affordable housing by habitable rooms, with a tenure split of 30% social rent and 70% intermediate. Subject to the applicant exploring grant in line with draft London Plan Policy H6, the scheme would qualify for the Fast Track Route in accordance with the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG. An early review mechanism must be secured via the Section 106 agreement, and details of the proposed rents submitted (paragraphs 45-47).

Urban design: While the scale of development has been reduced and the layout amended, the height, mass, and density would be harmful to the open character and quality of the MOL (paragraphs 49-54).

Climate change: Further revisions and information relating to overheating and cooling demand, heat demand and photo voltaic installation are required before the carbon dioxide savings can be verified. Any remaining regulated CO2 emissions must be met through a contribution to the borough’s offset fund (paragraphs 56-58).

Transport: The proposal is broadly acceptable from a strategic transport perspective; however, changes are required in respect of cycle access and parking, and detailed conditions / obligations required in relation to bus stop improvements, travel planning, delivery and servicing and construction logistics, EVCPs and residents’ on-street parking permits restrictions (paragraphs 59-64).

Recommendation

That Bromley Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 69 of this report, which should be addressed before the application is referred back to the Mayor.
In this report, the GLA adopted a view that the considerations had to be made by coupling together Green Belt and MOL principles.

In this paragraph we see how the GLA used this coupling to argue the case against development.
28 As set out in NPPF paragraph 87, inappropriate development should not be approved except in VSC. In accordance with paragraph 88 of the NPPF substantial weight must be given to any harm to the MOL and VSC [Very Special Circumstances] will not exist unless potential harm to the MOL by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. NPPF paragraph 79 makes clear that the essential characteristic of Green Belt/MOL is its openness and permanence. In determining whether or not VSC exist to outweigh the harm caused by inappropriate development on MOL, it is necessary to consider the impact on the openness and character of the MOL.
The report contains the counter-argument from the applicant.
MOL designation

29 The applicant has retrospectively applied the policy tests of London Plan Policy 7.17 used when considering whether to designate land as MOL in the preparation of a Local Plan and concludes that site does not meet any of the MOL designation criteria, nor any MOL purpose.
Is the coupling mis-used to give greater weight to the GLA argument by inferring Green Belt principles apply, where the land is not, in fact, Green Belt? It could be argued that the MOL matter is the real cornerstone of Bromley's and the GLA's case. They would not wish to see their interpretation of the land being designated MOL overturned.

It might seem that the practice and principles of coupling together MOL and Green Belt designations will raise their heads once more.

So experts out there - what do the principles of MOL grant to our community in terms of accessibility and quality and do these exist "on the ground" at this point in time. Has Bromley's Draft Local Plan completed its independent examination and has the site’s designation as MOL been confirmed. Does it define what this parcel of land's qualifying factors are in terms of it meeting the criteria of being designated MOL?

These points, amongst many other key issues related to the new application, may become crucial when laid before a Planning Inspector if and when the new proposal reaches that stage.
JRW
Posts: 380
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: 254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

Post by JRW »

MOL status doesn't require public access. It is is a way of keeping green space for environmental reasons, and prevent overdevelopment. It is granted when a plot has been undeveloped for a long time - pre 1945 at least, I think, but this land has, I believe, been open since it was farmland.
JGD
Posts: 979
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward which includes Bell Green and is still NOT Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: 254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

Post by JGD »

Thank you, Julia.
Growsydenham
Posts: 107
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

Re: 254 new homes for Lower Sydenham decision no 6

Post by Growsydenham »

stuart wrote: 2 Oct 2020 09:19 Follow up by the Newshopper. You may find one of the reader's comments interesting:
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/1876 ... ty-tycoon/

Stuart
Ridiculous populist coverage. Is it a surprise that a builder with the capacity to develop a large plot is wealthy? Would it be better to give the job to a local handyman with large debts?
Post Reply