Berkeley Homes 27 Storey flats in centre of Peckham - sign the petition

[heartblock]

Maybe other builds should be completed first..such as the diabolical mess on East Dulwich Grove - with demolished buildings and a half-built School

[letfordj]

It seems a perfectly reasonable place for a tower block to be honest. We need more flats so better there than somewhere unsuitable.

[Jules-and-Boo]

It’s too tall. It should be in keeping with the area.

[ryeme]

New homes yes. High Rise yes- and there are plenty of tall buildings around there. But 27 storeys?!!! Seems excessive and profit driven only. What kind of community is that going to be? And what impact on the ground? I havent seen the plans and may include some lovely civic space- but could just be horrid wind tunnels...

[Bic Basher]

Penge has similar issues where a housing developer wants to knock down the Blenheim Shopping Centre and the multi-storey car park with flats and a tower block on the site with limited retail space with 15 car park spaces for residents.

[first mate]

It is a well known developer formula and cannot believe some on here are okay with that.

[Spartacus]

Unfortunately with building costs so high , land prices at a premium amd in short supply along the requirement to provide 35% affordable housing then tall buildings are the only way to make big developments of new homes financially viable.

Economics are at play and if we want more homes then we need to make compromises. As pointed out earlier councils can't afford to build so development companies are the only real alternative left.

As this is a Peckham related topic should it be in the lounge and not in general ED issues ?

[Penguin68]

  Quote

  Quote

There is no measure for 'affordable'

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=3

 

This paper is dated February 2022 - that is to say before the Ukraine war, the energy price surge, the upswell of inflation, the surge in mortgage interest rates, the Truss mini-budget and so on. The 'affordability' levels quoted, as regards what will be affordable in 2-3 years time when the Berkeley Homes development is built and goes on the market therefore will be irrelevant as regards what available incomes people will then have for rental or mortgage costs, and indeed what the actual construction costs Berkeley Homes will have to pay to build the tower block. 'Affordability' is about the moment, not the future.

Had Southwark expressed affordability in non-monetary terms (as a multiplier on average wages, or the living wage, or the minimum wage for example) it would have made a little more sense, but they don't seem to have done that (It may be the basis of their figures, of course, but that's not clear. Berkeley Homes appears to be signing up for 35% of properties within the development to be affordable - but they are doing so not knowing what their costs will actually be, nor how the economy is panning out over the next, probably 3, years. It may be (it would have been at the end of 2022, compared with February 2022) that people's available income for housing (taking into account energy price rises and other inflationary items, including an increased cost of supporting a mortgage) would be less than assumed in February as a share of a 'given' income level. What was 'affordable' in February 2022 may well not be in February 2023 - if Berkeley Homes price at that level they will thus fail in their commitment, in this case not really through any fault of their own.

[Spartacus]

Affordability is set by the mayor of London, not local councils.

This link provides more information on what affordable housing is https://www.london.gov.uk/file/11941201 and whilst the latest version is not out yet it gives a good indication of how the scheme works.

Ultimately we need more housing and some of it has to be for the people who do the jobs that support our economy including nurses, road sweepers, bin collectors and shop workers. Saying no to a development ultimately hurts everyone in the process.

Asking for design considerations to be taken into account is fine but stop people having the same housing opportunities that most people in East Dulwich had or take for granted is not.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

There is no measure for 'affordable'

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=3

The 'affordability' levels quoted, as regards what will be affordable in 2-3 years time when the Berkeley Homes development is built and goes on the market therefore will be irrelevant...

 

You really need to read into the subject of fhe affordability requirement if it bothers you this much. Your suggestions that there is no definition of affordability or that affordability criteria can't take account of the timeframe for completion are simply wrongheaded.

 

  Quote

It’s too tall. It should be in keeping with the area.

What does "in keeping with the area" mean? More postwar lowrise rubbish? Or more Victorian and Edwardian lowrise terraces in various states of repair? Either way we won't get much new housing added.

[ed26]

Round-robin letter received this week regarding this. Main points are that the number of new homes is being reduced from 877 to 867. OK, not much change there, but....

"A reduction in the number of affordable homes from 270 (35% by habitable room) to 77 (12% by habitable room)"

That's a 72% reduction in the number of affordable homes.

I don't know a lot about this kind of thing, but it seems that just 77 affordable homes in a development of 867 is a massive pee-take in an area where a 1-bed flat is £400K+ if it isn't "affordable."

If you're interested, the application can be viewed at https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/ ref 24/AP/2074 and there's a lot of objections to the reduction in affordable homes.

The drop-in sessions are Weds 26th Feb (Peckham Library) and Mon 3rd March (All Saints Church) at 3pm. Full details attached.

24_AP_2074-FILE_COPY_-_NEIGHBOUR_NOTIFICATION_LIST-4005193.pdfFetching info...

[Dulwich dweller]

It's normal procedure to all of a sudden cut back on affordable homes or social,housing obligations. All housing is affordable if you can afford it,The developer pays the council an ' agreed ' sum ' towards social housing elsewhere. Often miles away from the new yuppie hutches and buy to,let's that are advertised as business ventures.

 

As with the new Heygate and most other new builds it will be advertised in glossy estate agent magazines overseas and sold off plan before the project is even completed. It stinks but the corruption is rife amongst the developers and councils. Its just another episode in the mass social cleansing of London.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I started this petition about 10 years ago in relation to the Heygate 're-development' (which was corrupt to the core imo). Unfortunately it didn't change anything. But the stats quoted are still shocking. Southwark ended up making a loss on the sale of a hugely valuable piece of central London land and turfed many, many families from their homes in the process. It's the same story - you have massive property / development companies, who manage to completely out manoeuvrer / run circles aorund councillors, often destroying communities and doing very little to make properties more affordable or address the housing crisis. Rather, they add further 'heat' to an out of control, international 'property investment' market. We need more council housing - high density, but mid rise imo.