Coldharbour Lane redevelopment
- Thread starter Mr. Lee
- Start date
aurora green
Tectonic
Bob said:
...and you dont think that's huge?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Planning alert: thread bump as 419-423 Coldharbour is on the menu again.
Following the redevelopment of the site east of Clifton Mansions, there is now a proposal to do the same sort of thing to the rather quaint single storey shops between Clifton Mansions and the "London Hotel" (former Temperance Billiard Hall).
will shortly become:
The housing is arranged as 9 units - by-passing the need to bother with social housing.
Additionally there will be a much needed 21st century style "house" on land part of the site in Rushcroft Road. A major enhancement clearly.
Anyone wanting to read the extensive gory details can find them here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=NIYAB0BOFIU00
This hasn't made the "Weekender" yet AFAIK.
Not sure what grounds there are for objection - although I have to say this development is not as vile as Metropolitan Housing Trust's adjacent redevelopment of Rushcroft Road/Vining Street done in the 1980s.
Following the redevelopment of the site east of Clifton Mansions, there is now a proposal to do the same sort of thing to the rather quaint single storey shops between Clifton Mansions and the "London Hotel" (former Temperance Billiard Hall).
will shortly become:The housing is arranged as 9 units - by-passing the need to bother with social housing.
Additionally there will be a much needed 21st century style "house" on land part of the site in Rushcroft Road. A major enhancement clearly.
Anyone wanting to read the extensive gory details can find them here:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=NIYAB0BOFIU00
This hasn't made the "Weekender" yet AFAIK.
Not sure what grounds there are for objection - although I have to say this development is not as vile as Metropolitan Housing Trust's adjacent redevelopment of Rushcroft Road/Vining Street done in the 1980s.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
It used to be that developments of 10 or more flats have to make provision for affordable.
The council had a run-in with the developer of Toplin House (old Refugee Council building Ferndale Road on precisely this point - refusing planning permission because they said the 9 flats were deliberately too big to avoid having to provide affordable.
Planning then passed a revised application on the site with 11 smaller flats - but still no affordable.
Reference http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MOL4MVBO67000
So your guess is as good as mine.
BTW in looking at that case I note that some of the administration of Lambeth Planning seems to now be outsourced to Crapita. That's a comfort n'est-ce pas?
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
It was pretty obvious that that single storey bit of the road would be developed at some point.
The only surprise is that it is not Lexadon. Or is it Lexadon?
The only surprise is that it is not Lexadon. Or is it Lexadon?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I don't think so - it is not the Lexadon architects, and they always use the same architect in my experience.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
According to the CIL form it's Richmond Grove Holdings.
Mean anything to you? Part of Golfrate perhaps?
Note the actual application withholds the applicant details saying it's c/o Savills.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
In their planning application, they claim to have overcome the reasons for refusal by scaling it all back a bit, and other tweaks.
Following on from this, it seems that the nine-unit arrangement is about what fits, rather than about dodging social housing obligations.
editor
hiraethified
Is that what you honestly believe?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The house bit has a strange plan. It's long and skinny going back from Rushcroft Road, then has two staircases - one at the front to bedrooms on 1st and 2nd floors, then another at the back to a 3rd bedroom. I concur with leanderman - the number is convenient, but is a result of the Rights To Light exercise.
BTW, I only count 8 units in the drawings - 1 house, 3 flats at 1st, 2 at 2nd and 2 at 3rd. Yet the description and supporting documents all count 9. There's a 2 bed flat missing somewhere.
EDIT: Oops, I missed the 4th floor
EDIT: Oops, I missed the 4th floor
Last edited:
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
By reducing the size of the building, which also reduces the number of flats.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Sorry to impute motives - but we've seen it all before e.g. Mauleverer Road (funded by HSBC incidentally).
Looking on the bright side - he couldn't have gone up another level, or he would have had an affordable housing requirement!
editor
hiraethified
Do you think that considerations about any possible social housing commitments might have played any part in their decision as to how many flats they intended to build into the space?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Only glanced at this but is hard to (rationally) argue that they are cynically reducing the number of units when they are including a studio, a one bed, and several 2 beds each only 5pc over minimum floor size. The one oversize unit is clearly so due to light issues.
Crispy I count nine units. 3, 2, 2 at front and two single units at rear of site.
Crispy I count nine units. 3, 2, 2 at front and two single units at rear of site.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
See my edit upthread.
editor
hiraethified
There's 1 x studio, 1 x one bedroom flat, 6 x two bedroom flats, 1 x three bedroom flat. Maybe I'm just too darn cynical but with Barratt's affordable-housing shirking antics at Brixton Square still fresh in my mind, I'm of the opinion that most developers will do whatever it takes to avoid affordable/social housing commitments. And the government/council lets them do it too.
It's a disgrace.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Why would you think otherwise?
editor
hiraethified
I thought that you might just be a little more cynical given recent weaselly developments like Brixton Square, that's all.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Is your concern about this proposal that it is deliberately wasting space in order to avoid more, smaller units?
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Fair enough. Brixton Sq was a disgrace. This seems marginal, at worst. The rules draw the line at nine units. Maybe it should be six or something.
editor
hiraethified
My concern is that yet another development is springing up in this area that will be totally unaffordable to locals so that, for example, kids who were brought up in the area won't be able to stay in the community.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
That Utopia London film about architecture - shown on Saturday at the Art Nouveau place in Atlantic Road - illustrated how architecture and community can creatively interface given political will and proper planning.
Something direly lacking in Lambeth (or indeed the whole country right now).
Obviously local ad hoc developments are not going to satisfy the need for social housing. That is the pity of the present sterile situation.
Something direly lacking in Lambeth (or indeed the whole country right now).
Obviously local ad hoc developments are not going to satisfy the need for social housing. That is the pity of the present sterile situation.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Maybe all developments of 2+ units should be hit with a social housing obligation in some form, such as a tax to pay for social housing?
Similar threads
