New development opposition

[TJ]

I have looked over a few local developments and the general feedback and posts on the forum.

M&S / Iceland: The never ending saga and regardless of flats or offices, plenty of opposition

SG Smith / Village: Opposition

Upland road: Complaint about no-go-zone

Railway Rise / station: Appeal / English heritage referral?!

Police station / School: No resistance yet but I am sure a plan will change that. Complaints about future disruption already.

Hospital / School: As above.

I am sure i have missed a few smaller developments.

My point being, as was discussed on Radio 4 this morning, we are falling short of building about 100k homes a year in the UK. I am not suggesting a slash & burn approach, I visit China too often to see what the outcome of that is, but what I am suggesting, is that the local residents of SE22 & SE21 get a sense of perspective and realise that the alternative to squeezing as much as possible onto brownfield, is greenfield sites. We live in a lovely area, which is urban. We have plenty of open and protected green space. What we are talking about in all these developments is maximising use of existing developed land which is what the last 3 governments have all pushed for (to prove this is not a political point). I don't see what the issue with this can be, other than nibyism.

The housing needs to be affordable, not just in the social sense, but in a generally commercial sense. With this in mind, the developers are often running a pretty tight ship in terms of profit, and are trying to tread a very fine line between keeping planning happy and actually making a profit.

I would recommend, that as a community, we look at these proposed buildings and encourage them to be as developed as possible, (like M&S) in order to minimise the potential spread onto our open spaces.

[Jeremy]

TJ Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the developers are often running a pretty tight ship in terms of profit

Is this really true? Would have to question this statement. I think there's a lot of money to be had in property development.

[tomskip]

I think the main opposition to the development in Dulwich Village is to do with the basement excavations, which will be truly disruptive, require constant removals of huge loads of earth, noisy and time consuming. And, really, we are desperately short of affordable housing in London, not luxury houses like those proposed by SG Smith.

[BrandNewGuy]

The problem is with much current development in London is that it's not 'affordable' to those who most need it. Developers are not in the business of 'solving the housing crisis'. They realise that the normal 'laws' of supply and demand often don't hold in housing because of the impact of foreign buyers, access to credit etc. So they keep building and prices don't come down.

And developers like nothing more than people shouting, "Nimby!" every time someone objects to a development.

[MissKing]

I fully agree - I think all to often there can be an element of nimby-ism with objections to new developments.

That said, we are all custodians of our local areas and environments, and it is important to get involved in the planning process where we can.

But I agree - there really is a housing crisis, especially in London. I think it is a good thing if new flats can be built, and I'm not adverse to going up a few storeys here and there. On the high street for example, taller buildings would be totally fine.

We really do need to fit more houses in where we can! (And we also need to stop selling them off-plan to oversees investors!!! But that's another debate altogether... )

[TJ]

It is a housing shortage that affects everyone at every level, some have my sympathy, some don't!

[Loz]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem is with much current development in London is that it's not 'affordable' to those who

> most need it. Developers are not in the business of 'solving the housing crisis'. They realise that

> the normal 'laws' of supply and demand often don't hold in housing because of the impact of foreign

> buyers, access to credit etc. So they keep building and prices don't come down.

But the point is that they are still not building enough. Foreign buyers/immigrants, cheap credit, buy to let, internal movement to London, whatever are not the direct cause. Normal 'laws' of supply and demand are *exactly* what is going on here. Prices will only stay high when demand >>> supply. Build *enough* more and prices will come down, but that's not happening so the market will raise prices to try and achieve some semblance of equilibrium.

There is no economic gravity defying going on here.

[TJ]

All development is disruptive. We currently have crossrail going on and a northern line extension not far from us. These are removing vast quantities of soil, so a few basements is not that bad in comparison, and it will not last for ever.

tomskip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the main opposition to the development in

> Dulwich Village is to do with the basement

> excavations, which will be truly disruptive,

> require constant removals of huge loads of earth,

> noisy and time consuming. And, really, we are

> desperately short of affordable housing in London,

> not luxury houses like those proposed by SG Smith.

[BrandNewGuy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> But the point is that they are still not building

> enough. Foreign buyers/immigrants, cheap credit,

> buy to let, internal movement to London, whatever

> are not the direct cause. Normal 'laws' of supply

> and demand are *exactly* what is going on here.

> Prices will only stay high when demand >>> supply.

> Build *enough* more and prices will come down,

> but that's not happening so the market will raise

> prices to try and achieve some semblance of

> equilibrium.

>

> There is no economic gravity defying going on

> here.

But we have planning policy, government housing policy, credit regulations and so on because we don't just leave it to the market. I don't doubt that we need to build more in London, but there's much less profit in social and 'affordable' housing than there is in letting developers do what they want, which is where we seem to be right now (whether it be the Heygate or upstairs from M&S).

Bring in rent controls, protected tenancies, limits on buy to let, restrictions on foreign buyers, penalties for empty properties and more, and you'll certainly help tackle the crisis. I;m not suggesting do all of those things, but without any of them, I doubt the market will solve the housing crisis.

[Loz]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bring in rent controls, protected tenancies, limits on buy to let, restrictions on foreign

> buyers, penalties for empty properties and more, and you'll certainly help tackle the crisis. I;m

> not suggesting do all of those things, but without any of them, I doubt the market will solve the

> housing crisis.

Apart from limits on foreign buyers (and good luck defining that one) and penalties for empty properties (an extremely small percentage of properties), none of those measures do anything to reduce the primary factor - that more people want to live in London than there are houses. Those measures are, at best, just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic and at worst will have side-effects that will just exacerbate the situation.

Only a fast, wide-ranging house building programme or a programme of moving jobs out of London will achieve a solution.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Agree with BrandNewGuy - Developers, given free reign will build 'luxury' flats over affordable homes, because it's where the profit is... not least because they can be marketed to overseas buyers. Where there are domestic restraints on supply, but huge latent demand from an international market, as with London housing, you either let the market set a high price, (which will leave UK citizens on an average income forever priced out of the Capital), or you regulate the market to ensure that London remains a diverse, characterful and vibrant city

[BrandNewGuy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> none of those measures do anything to

> reduce the primary factor - that more people want

> to live in London than there are houses.

Not giving people what they want is not quite a 'crisis', though. We need measures for people who live here now. There's nothing wrong with government intervening to reduce the desire to move to London - one way, as you say, is a programme of moving jobs out of London. There's no need for a Khmer Rouge-style forced march, but large organisations such as the civil service and the BBC have taken steps in that direction already. And incentives can be given to business to shift productive activity elsewhere. I'm not sure of the Tories intentions with regard to HS2, the 'Northern powerhouse' etc, but in principle I approve.

I work for a small consumer magazine publishing company and there's absolutely no reason why we should have to be in central London, apart from inertia and the wishes of senior management. Ultimately, and ironically, it might be the market that decides, in that skilled young workers won't be able to move to London because of affordability, so employers will be 'forced' to move elsewhere.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Agree with BrandNewGuy - Developers, given free reign will build 'luxury' flats over affordable

> homes, because it's where the profit is... not least because they can be marketed to overseas

> buyers. Where there are domestic restraints on supply, but huge latent demand from an

> international market, as with London housing, you either let the market set a high price, (which

> will leave UK citizens on an average income forever priced out of the Capital), or you

> regulate the market to ensure that London remains a diverse, characterful and vibrant city

If you have 15,000 people and 10,000 apples then you can piss about with 'solutions' as much as you like, but 15,000 people are not going to all get an apple unless you get more apples.

[Earl Aelfheah]

in your analogy, what one may choose to do, is to limit the amount of apples any one person may take... so as to prevent all the apples going to one person. Further more, you may decide to slice a number of the apples up so that everyone may at least have a small piece.

[Earl Aelfheah]

...also, it assumes that there is capacity to increase the number of apples such that you may satiate demand and that that demand does not itself increase with the introduction of more apples.

It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if they're all grabbed by someone who is already sitting on a sackful of the original ones.

[BrandNewGuy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you have 15,000 people and 10,000 apples then

> you can piss about with 'solutions' as much as you

> like, but 15,000 people are not going to all get

> an apple unless you get more apples.

Society is under no obligation to leave aside all other considerations in order to 'provide' all those 15,000 people with apples.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I strongly believe in the power of markets and incentives. However, I am not a market fundamentalist and neither is any serious economist. The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...also, it assumes that there is capacity to

> increase the number of apples such that you may

> satiate demand and that that demand does not

> itself increase with the introduction of more

> apples.

>

> It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if

> they're all grabbed by someone who is already

> sitting on a sackful of the original ones.

And if that was the case, I would thoroughly agree with you. Because that is when regulation would absolutely work and be a problem solver. But at the moment that is not the main issue. There primary issue at the moment is that there are just not enough apples.

[DulvilleRes]

On TJ's post in relation to the SG Smith development, no one that I've seen or spoken to who is opposing it is anti development on the site - they just want the right one. The proposed one is disastrously wrong on a number of levels.

1. It is for fundamentally a string of ?2 million each plus houses. Not many people I know can get anywhere near that figure, so with bank rates near 0% interest, and property going up by up to 15% a year, I suspect we'll all be looking at a road full of investor safety deposit boxes, not family homes. The Dulwich Estate tried to get their proposals through without any component of social/ affordable housing - it was only pressure from local residents that has put a token element in.

2. It has a huge basement for underground car parking - with good public transport out of Dulwich, and ample on street parking, who needs that? It is completely out of keeping with both the area and 21st century environmental realities.

3. In terms of your Chinese comparison TJ, it rides roughshod over the heritage of the site, involving demolishing a rare bit of 18930's architecture, and needlessly moving a much enjoyed grade 2 listed monument. It is also a missed opportunity to return the site to its true historic residential footprint of smaller ( and thus more affordable) properties.

It is going to housing committee during the school holidays, but still time to view it/ comment on it: it is on the Southwark Council planning website ref ref:14/AP/3104.

[TJ]

I believe larger families are also struggling to find housing stock that is suitable in London, simply because so much development is geared towards flat or smaller developments. The price is driven by demand as well as location. I applaud the estate for considering the minority (regardless of how rich they are).

As I said earlier, the housing shortage affects everyone. The need for basement garages / storage is a personal one there is no point discussing as each has their own needs. Personally, I would quite like a man cave.

[Loz]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> 2. It has a huge basement for underground car

> parking - with good public transport out of

> Dulwich, and ample on street parking, who needs

> that? It is completely out of keeping with both

> the area and 21st century environmental realities.

Public transport to Dulwich Village is pretty dire. It's the P4 and that's about it.

[chazzle]

TJ - I think this is a valid question to ask - people do need places to live and I know my daughters are paying a high price to rent privately. One general point - you've identified four developments (and possibly two more) that have raised a lot of opposition on here. These are not the only developments in SE21 and SE22. It's unlikely that people will come on here to make supportive or neutral comments about a development.

More specifically on Railway Rise, there are two developments: one stalled at the site of the former Garden Centre and the other a rejected, but soon to be revived plan to knock down two Victorian (c1866) railway cottages. So one of these is a brownfield site, but the other is very much occupied.

I may get a bit ranty here, so you can skim or ignore. When the developer came to us (in 2006, initially) about the Garden Centre plans, we did not oppose them. So no nimbyism there. He made the point that the Garden Centre was closing anyway and it would inevitably be used for housing. He said the plans would go through and that he had carried out a light survey etc which had said it was fine and well within limits. Having looked in detail more recently, we found this was a little economical with the truth. He was also keen to tell us that he had arranged to have the library there in lieu of social housing, so the residents would all be well off people working in finance etc. He misread us there, but the point is that I don't think his main intention was about addressing the shortage of affordable housing. Anyway, nearly a decade on and St Aidan's had failed to make any progress at all with that development, so they sold it and bought two of the railway cottages. The developer said that he had no intention of demolishing these charming cottages, and it wouldn't be worth his while anyway as they were worth more than what he could build there. Yeah. Well, after a very stressful few months those plans were wholeheartedly rejected by the community, with unanimous support of the local Councillors. But, he's back again in talks with the council planning officers about a sketch plan that we're not allowed to know about because, it's not a formal proposal yet and we'd probably only kick up a fuss and we have to be kind to the nice developer. OK, I made the last bit up, but I'm older and more cynical now, and more rantier.

[first mate]

TJ,

i think the nimby charge is a little easy and lazy. The objections are generally considered and based on detail in the application, not wholesale rejection of more housing or indeed applications, because we want to keep our local 'yard' exactly the same, preserved in aspic. I think we need to wise up to the general developer MO and I apologise now to the decent/ ethical developers out there. The issue is balance and proportion and since views on that will differ it is worth the debate and scrutiny, before it's too late.

We regularly see developers playing the planners, and doing all they can to maximise space for profit, simultaneously avoiding any responsibility to the community in terms of social housing...Heygate a relatively local case in point.

Some will argue that developers have every right in a free market to pursue pure profit, others that reasonable profit must be balanced with ethical considerations.

If the local community does not fight for the interests of its local area then who will, the developers, the planners?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...also, it assumes that there is capacity to

> > increase the number of apples such that you may

> > satiate demand and that that demand does not

> > itself increase with the introduction of more

> > apples.

> >

> > It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if

> > they're all grabbed by someone who is already

> > sitting on a sackful of the original ones.

>

> And if that was the case, I would thoroughly agree

> with you. Because that is when regulation would

> absolutely work and be a problem solver. But at

> the moment that is not the main issue. There

> primary issue at the moment is that there are just

> not enough apples.

With properties being bought and left empty and relatively low price elasticity due to latent demand from a huge overseas market, I would say it broadly is. Out of interest, do you support deregulation of the housing market?

[DulvilleRes]

Loz wrote

Public transport to Dulwich Village is pretty dire. It's the P4 and that's about it.

Aren't you forgetting North Dulwich Station, a 2 min walk from the proposed SG Smith development? Up to 14 trains an hour in both directions. And the 37 bus, with decent tube connections at Brixton. I don't know who drives into central London to work, and only a couple who drive elsewhere. Interestingly, one of the many errors and omissions on the Dulwich Estate/ SG Smith planning application to Southwark Council is the fact that it rather skated over the public transport links, presumably to try and bolster the spurious case for a huge underground car park.