Development in Kirkdale/Willow Way/Dartmouth Road triangle
-
Robin Orton
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: 9 Sep 2008 07:30
- Location: London SE26
Development in Kirkdale/Willow Way/Dartmouth Road triangle
Pat Trembath (in Michael Abraham's absence) gave an interesting, although rather rushed, presentation about this at the Forest Hill ward assembly this afternoon. Proposals are being worked up for changing the planning status of the area from industrial to mixed use, to enable new housing, plus hopefully community assets such, for example, a GP surgery, a primary school or a 'community space', to be built (by a private developer). Details will be made available in due course and there will of course be full public consultation.
Re: Development in Kirkdale/Willow Way/Dartmouth Road triang
You beat me to it, Robin, although the subject line I was going to go for was "An end to planning blight", this being a phrase Pat used in her presentation to describe the consequences of the site's current designation as a "Local Employment Location"
Maybe the presentation was a bit rushed, but I found it very encouraging, and in follow up questioning, I think Pat & I were agreed that this represents a fantastic opportunity, not only for the area, but also for a single developer with the capacity to develop the site coherently in accordance with the proposed new mixed use planning designation. It hardly counted as valid there and then community endorsement, but the feeling of those there seemed to be along these lines, although I have to respect your expressing reservations which others may have also felt. Obviously some existing businesses on the site may not be able to find a place there as it might be redeveloped, but they might, and I see no reason to think the eventual benefits will outweigh such costs.
I do have a second order reservation, however, which is how the site had come to suffer from this planning blight in the first place, and whether we are perpetuating these mistakes, albeit not, I would imagine, on this site. In case the answer is not obvious, it is because with have an insufficiently flexible planning system. But even now, on the adjoining Windmill site, we have imposed on ourselves, I think, the requirement that it continues as a pub.
We learned today of the post graduate architecture students who had worked on this project, but, very properly, without coming up with specific designs; the main recommendation, which most of us will agree with, being for a change of planning use.
Why did this need architects? Are planners incapable of seeing their own ill-consequences?
Maybe the presentation was a bit rushed, but I found it very encouraging, and in follow up questioning, I think Pat & I were agreed that this represents a fantastic opportunity, not only for the area, but also for a single developer with the capacity to develop the site coherently in accordance with the proposed new mixed use planning designation. It hardly counted as valid there and then community endorsement, but the feeling of those there seemed to be along these lines, although I have to respect your expressing reservations which others may have also felt. Obviously some existing businesses on the site may not be able to find a place there as it might be redeveloped, but they might, and I see no reason to think the eventual benefits will outweigh such costs.
I do have a second order reservation, however, which is how the site had come to suffer from this planning blight in the first place, and whether we are perpetuating these mistakes, albeit not, I would imagine, on this site. In case the answer is not obvious, it is because with have an insufficiently flexible planning system. But even now, on the adjoining Windmill site, we have imposed on ourselves, I think, the requirement that it continues as a pub.
We learned today of the post graduate architecture students who had worked on this project, but, very properly, without coming up with specific designs; the main recommendation, which most of us will agree with, being for a change of planning use.
Why did this need architects? Are planners incapable of seeing their own ill-consequences?