-
-
Latest Discussions
-
By the_hermit · Posted
There are excuses like this everywhere people want to build anything, which is why the UK economy is in such a state. Each individual project holdup like this (and the mast on Dog Kennel Hill) seems small in isolation but the compound effect of it UK-wide is why we are so unproductive and why there is no money for anything else like the NHS, fixing roads, collecting bins and so on. I'd be interested to know how the zoning rules (which of course can be changed!) compare to other much more liveable cities in northern and central Europe. I doubt cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Zurich etc have inner areas like Darrell Road (to pick an extreme example) with bungalows! The "confidence to move into" argument is just pulling up the ladder. Before East Dulwich was built it was presumably green fields? Should East Dulwich residents have right to preserve everything in aspic to disadvantage over the generations that follow? -
By James Barber · Posted
Hi Hillbilly, Your obviously correct that the committee members must consider the scheme in the context of planning laws, Southwark Policy documents. Those policy documents are clear the site should be considered suburban. As a Councillor when this was decided I can assure we considered this site and all others in the then East dulwich Ward and the Dulwich Community Council area. Ignoring that as the officer report does unconvincingly in my view would be a poor decision. The officer report states I believe highly inflated economic benefit of students to help justify the scheme. I have a student currently and they really don't have the sums being talked about and nor do their network for friends. The council officers report states students will move in at the academic yea start over two weekends/4 days. 360 students will suggest worst case 360 cars. Unlikely to be perfectly balanced hence 50-100 vehicles per day. The proposed building top 2-3 floors look like metal cladding and not the local vernacular of bricks and tiled roofs. The top two stories and roof enclosures will be invisible for some distance. I don't think it unreasonable to call that out of character for the area. I think it would be hard to argue it would be in keeping. Yes, we have a housing crisis. But we have falling student numbers. The site could be used for more regular homes that the proposed 53. Southwark has the highest number of unoccupied homes for a borough. Southwark Council fixing that and they have plenty of powers to really dent those figures. The development will have a huge negative impact on the neighbouring streets in dominance of the proposed structures parking pressures, etc. Your username suggests you wont be one of those affected. Nor will I directly. But I hate to see injustice from a poorly thought through scheme. If you feel strongly you could attend the Planning Committee Tonight as supporter. Hi malibu, Far from. The homes completed on Bassano and Hindmans were sites I proposed to the council for them consider for new council homes. I have campaigned for the council to approve schemes with 35% social housing for many years. I dare not comment on people football team :-0 Hi the-permit, Southwark has zoning for density to protect the character of areas and to protect peoples confidence to move into, purchase and live and put down roots in areas. East Dulwich is under Southwark planning rules suburban. In the north of the borough the density rules are much higher. Yes they could. developers quite often get approval for a size of scheme. Sit on it and then come back for the same site but more. It might be a new feasibility study to say they can no longer afford that much social housing, etc. Classic developer gaming of the system. We don't yet know the pricing of the student accommodation but the Champion Hill student accommodation when open was priced around the £200 pw mark. Some is proposed to be discounted, but likely that will inflate the mainstream pricing. You have to be a rich student for such prices. It resulted in mostly foreign students affording that. Any developer is likely to set their pricing close to this. For transparency I live on Champion Hill. -
So you are against affordable rents and ownership for those on low incomes, key workers etc. Who is going to clean our buildings, serve in our shops, and look after us when we are old or ill? Some state intervention, particularly social housing, extremely welcome. Sorry if I have misquoted you. Meanwhile with the quality of football I'm surprised that DHFC aren't considering relocating to Peckham Town FC. -
By the_hermit · Posted
https://ukfoundations.co/ They highlight the most important economic fact about modern Britain: that it is difficult to build almost anything, anywhere. This prevents investment, increases energy costs, and makes it harder for productive economic clusters to expand. This, in turn, lowers our productivity, incomes, and tax revenues. In many cases today, as many of 40 percent of a new development’s homes must be subsidised for ‘affordable’ renters instead of being made available at market rates. These requirements function as a tax on new housing (and so local objectors often support them), redistributing income from every other private tenant to a lucky few. Countries with expensive rental housing also see movements for rent controls, and punitive rental regulations, like giving every tenant the permanent right to live in the property they occupy.
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.