Saturday 10 June 2017

Eight-storey block proposed for New Cross site

A planning application for an eight-storey block of flats in New Cross is threatening to overshadow neighbouring houses and threaten the productivity of one of the area's few allotment sites.

Developers have submitted a planning application to build 26 residential units on a scrap of land sandwiched between the end of Royal Naval Place and the railway line. A block of eight storeys will impact daylight and sunlight to the terraced houses on Amersham Grove as well as blocking out a substantial amount of the sunlight that the allotment site currently enjoys.

The proposed development takes up nearly all the space on the site, representing a gross over-development of the land, in my opinion. The council's (independent) design review panel agrees; original proposals were for much higher blocks which have since been reduced, but the panel noted that even with the changes this represents a very dense use of the site.

A cynic might say that that eight storeys was always the plan. Start high so that you can offer 'concessions' and get down to the height you actually were aiming for. Bargaining is a way of life round here.

Unless you've walked down Amersham Vale from New Cross Station towards the Old Police Station, you've probably no idea where this site is.

At the moment it is used for storing haulage vehicles, and I can't imagine it's pleasant for residents of the small houses opposite having these huge trucks swing in and out of the tiny street every morning and evening. The land could arguably be usefully employed for housing, and its proximity to New Cross station makes it ideal for a car-free residential development.

But the height of the block and density of the development should surely be questioned by planners? Even the housing development planned for Amersham Vale is only five storeys high, and if this proposal ('Hereford Place') is approved, the size and visual impact of the block would be completely out of scale and context in this location.

Residents on Amersham Vale (shown on the right of the picture above) will lose daylight and sunlight to their gardens and properties if this development goes ahead.  Allotment holders are also voicing concerns that their plots will be completely overshadowed by the new building, which is on the west side of the allotments. The waiting lists for Lewisham's few remaining allotment sites are famously long - eight or nine years is the current waiting time apparently. Allowing developments that make plots unviable is surely not a good idea?

In my opinion the council should be making efforts to improve facilities that support healthy lifestyles - growing your own food promotes healthy eating, not to mention the physical exercise and mental health improvements that come from maintaining an allotment. They offer social contact for plot holders and strengthen community links, not to mention creating natural habitats for birds, insects, bees and so on.

Objections and comments can be submitted to - the planning application is here


Anonymous said...

Surely the focus should be providing homes to address the escalating housing crisis, instead of ensuring that those already do have a house to live in have their sunlight protected? I agree a healthy lifestyle should be promoted but not at the expense of others not having a home to live in at all.

discoaddict said...

There's over 2000 units being put up in the surrounding half square km, I think that's plenty, bad developments that have a detrimental effect on the many not benefit the few (Copyright JC) should be objected to, why not, it's our right. I have one of the allotments and our land has no rights of objection because it belongs to the council and they can do what the hell they like to our light. The haulage guys are ok, they keep an eye on our allotments and they are reasonably friendly.

Anonymous said...

re: discoaddict

"For the many not the few" is a quote from the book "Saving Capitalism" by Robert Reich. the phrase has also been previously used by Blair, Cameron and May. So it's hardly "copyright JC". I would suggest his naivety and ignorance is only paralleled by yours.