Thanks for this - I've had a look through and I'm afraid I'm on the side of build. Looks a really interesting development that will be good for the area, both for the retail and jobs but also by clearing up what is a messy bit of the area by the station.
I'm all for it, I think it will be great for the area.
Yay Poxy, but it's still a yawn.
I'm for it too. Am interested to see that the scheme allows for the future introduction of a western access to the station - I assume to Goodwin Street and on to Fonthill which would be good.
The developer does seem to be playing the 'habitable rooms game' though which serves to minimise overall affordable housing but that is for the planning officers to thrash out really. To see what I mean, have a look at this example layout for the three-bed units. On the left the open market unit has no wall between the second and third rooms. Or this will be a 'sliding wall'. As such, this unit shows up with one less 'habitable room' - the unit of calculation for affordable housing in this application. Note that the affordable unit does not have this 'feature' and therefore has more habitable rooms per unit, reducing the overall 'required' number of units. Get it?
The scheme is closer to 14% calculated by unit, rather than 20% by habitable room.
However, you don't need planning permission to play around with internal walls. So once it has been built the developer can offer to put in a full wall for the buyer to take it up to a 'proper' (and properly priced) three-bed.
A happy coincidence for the developer is that this approach will also reduce the stated density of the scheme (habitable rooms per hectare). This is not a big deal in the context of the scheme but it all helps.
Having said all that, affordable housing negotiations tend to come down to viability tests (as provided in this instance by GVA Grimley, but redacted by LBI so we can't really comment), rather than strict targets. Eyes wide open, Councillors...
Just on a pedantic note, this thread does not refer to the John Jones development but the nearby City North one, as I understand it. Can the title be changed, given that both developments may well be under discussion for the next several months and it could get confusing?
Good point. * This title has been edited. There are, as i understand, two developments - City North and John Jones. This thread is about City North.
The Croydon council building is lovely, allegedly taking its inspiration from the Pirelli building in Milan.
@ C&W - Does the Barbican count, and Trellick tower, or they not considered orbital? (Is fin-fin considered orbital?)
C&W, what local view of what 'skyline' is worth protecting?
I think the towers around Canary Wharf are cool, the Gherkin is cool. The Shard will be great. Tall can be good. Conversely, the locality of the station is squat and scruffy. Why build more squat and scruffy buildings? (if you follow the line of your argument)
Lets use the opportunity to make sure these are welcome additions, and not missed opportunities (like there are examples of in Croydon and elsewhere, granted)
And why wouldn't the towers be good for the community? More customers for the local shops and more choice of housing (including some affordable).
The "Towers" that used to be along Seven Sister Rd opposite the park on just got demolished recently to put back house at a better scale for the occupants ! The big pile of rubble that is down there is the old flats.
They were very badly built as I can remember stories when Madness did Finstcok that old grannies were getting stuck in the lifts because of the vibrations from people jumping up and down at the Concert !
re consultation, this is a difficult one as being a big development it will inevitably draw a lot of interest. Catchment is not proportional to the size of the application but it is an interesting idea. I wouldn't read anything in to whether you have been directly notified or not and the AAP boundary doesn't have anything to do with this. The local press notices and notices that they put up on lamp-posts are intended to create awareness and websites like this do a great job. I would have thought that the applicant would have made more of an effort but there you have it.
However, since you are reading this thread you are in a position to spread the word and make your own representations - positive or negative. If you do you might also be heard at the committee so this not just lip service, you really can steer this.
Can I make the following suggestions: 1. Please look at the application very carefully and identify exactly what you are not happy with. You are probably too late in the planning process to stop redevelopment altogether as the principle seems to have been accepted by the local authority in the AAP process. 2. Even if you have very strong feelings about this try not to sound too shrill or reactionary as this will turn off the sympathy that officers and members will have towards us as local residents. Firm and reasonable wins every time. 3. If you don't like the height, be specific about why - character of Fonthill, view from wherever. Suggest what you think an appropriate height/scale would be. 4. If you think that there is an impact that could be addressed through investment though do share it (with the planners or here). i.e. capacity of dentists, doctors, schools etc. Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act requires the developer to address these impacts before/during development and this often comes in the form of direct provision or financial contributions to existing services.
I would encourage everyone to use this opportunity to make this as good as can be, not to just try and have it thrown out. Of course it is your right to try if you want to but my reading of this is that the principle is already supported - now its about details.
Thanks for reminding me folks - I put in a very positive full agreement with the development. I think it will be really good for the area and have no problem at all with the height.
Small scale wind generation isn't very good. That would be the main reason.
The payback on domestic wind turbines, with the embedded carbon of manufacture, is pretty poor. You're better off reducing consumption through improved efficiency.
@JoeV: I gave that some consideration too. But keep in mind that the whole site is currently out of bounds, and a new road will connect Wells Terrace to Goodwin St (and thus Fonthill Rd) with a tunnel under the block. So the development will open up the area, not ‘separate’ it. And the block effectively runs parallel to the railway anyway, so I don’t think it adds to the separation.
@ Arky - I used to think that about lovely facades but I feel that the Queenswood medical centre in CE shows how badly this can be done. The old bit looks ropey and the new bit looks castrated.
@Tosscat – I haven’t seen it, no, and the internet isn’t assisting on this one. I accept it could be done badly… I just hate to lose the history, you know? I’d like to see some renders with it included so that we can reach a better conclusion.
@JoeV: Is your primary beef with the view from the park? I agree that it is the least attractive view, perhaps they could lose a story or two from it. But views from elsewhere shouldn’t be compromised at street level because of the surrounding buildings. I would suggest that if we reduced this to ‘positive transformation that this development could bring’ vs ‘reduced attractiveness of view from a particular part of the park’ then the former wins out. As to actual appearance – have a look at some of the end results from the same architects at the link Wideboy posted above – gorgeous, and a rare successful juxtaposition of old and new. That’s my take on it anyway. And it would be difficult to make that part of town worse, let’s be honest. Arky
So you disagree with the findings of Delva Patman Associates daylight, sunlight and shadowing report (W66 in the application)? Page 16-17 suggests only 3 properties would have windows that would be significantly affected, and then only for part of the day. Demolishing my neighbour’s houses would improve the amount of daylight I got, but there are other factors to take into consideration, sadly!
@ActionVerb – I have no doubt that they are trying to present the development in its best light, I’ve followed enough developments to have lost my naivety and know there is a difference between developer renders and the end result- though sometimes they look better! The current Rothschild development is evidence of that. But again, look at the examples of actual developments by the same architects on that thread – it’s subjective of course but I think they look ace, and there are similarities in style and materials. That’s all I have to go on. I wonder about the affordable housing too, but you can’t blame them for selecting the apartments that they would make the least profit on – sadly it can make the difference between these developments being profitable or not. I’d be curious to know which development in Farringdon you’re referring to?
@JoeV – sorry if I sound defensive. I’m an amateur too. But I do – pretentious though it may sound- try and maintain a rational, scientific mindset. While maintaining a healthy scepticism, the only evidence we have to go on – as opposed to speculation – is the professional report. Short of getting a second professional opinion, or identifying actual problems with the methodology of the existing report, that is all we have to go on. Community involvement and an open planning system is to ensure that we are not misled. If we found actual flaws in the report then I’d be the first on up in arms. But just saying “I think they’re wrong” without presenting evidence marshalled into a counter-argument is, I would suggest, insufficient. I'll look into the TH development - will I be able to easily identify which one you mean? Arky
Joe - OK I found the details of the TH development. Personally I hate the concept design, but I agree that the end result is even worse. Without more research it's hard to be sure, but it looks like major compromises were made when translating it to reality - I'm suprised some of those structures even got planning permission. Then again, it's a shithole around there anyway, they didn't have to worry about the surroundings. Arky
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!