Planning application - Wingfield St/Howden St area - are you aware of it?

[AZH]

There is a planning application made to put 23 housing units on a very small patch of land in between Wingfield Street and Howden street near Bellenden Road, SE15. If you live in this patch it will have a direct impact on you in terms of increased vehicles parked, traffic, and potentially noise, plus other considerations. There is no affordable housing in the scheme. Houses adjacent to the site will lose privacy. We need housing, but possibly not with a scheme like this. You may have different views.

Details about the scheme are available on the Southwark planning website and for a short period your views can be heard so log on to make them known. The plans are also available to view via this portal.

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/

Enter reference number 18/AP/1256

Then enter a comment if you have one.

[rupert james]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As Southwark want housing at any cost this has the potential of being passed.

I wish you luck in opposing the planning application in its preset form.

I know Wingfield Mews how do they expect the small access way in to the Mews to cope with the population of 23 housing units.?

No wonder 2 of the current residents from the 4 have put their houses up for sale. After living in a civilised back water when this is done it would be like living on a very busy motor way.

Hope this is advertised so people in the area actually get to hear of this and like many other things it is not left to be ignored.

Good luck to those selling.

[AZH]

Thanks for your supportive words Rupert.

I live in one of the houses backing directly onto the scheme! Not much fun to be dealing with this. I suspect the grounds a similar development of only 3 houses in the identical sister site of Nutbrook Street mews was rejected about 2 years ago:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s58757/Report%2033%20Nutbrook%20Street%20London%20SE15%204JU.pdf

[fishbiscuits]

I'm not a fan of the design... they look rather cramped. Although 500 sqft is kind of OK for a one bed flat, with two flights of spiral stairs, it's going to feel very tight.

I do suspect that given the small size, relatively few occupants would be car owners.

[AZH]

I can see a bit of an issue with fire safety as there is no escape route for most residents to get off the site, or any room for fire brigade to fight a fire from outside 3 of the 4 sides of the development, or get more than one engine close to the site.

For me this all raises the question of whether there is a neighbourhood planning forum in the area. If anyone knows of one established or in the process of being established, let me know.

[Pugwash]

Why not test out the councillors knowledge etc and their willingness to local residents.

[spider69]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

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

> I'm not a fan of the design... they look rather

> cramped. Although 500 sqft is kind of OK for a one

> bed flat, with two flights of spiral stairs, it's

> going to feel very tight.

>

> I do suspect that given the small size, relatively

> few occupants would be car owners.

What has being a small size got do do with owning a car?

Southwark want more housing and less cars on the road so I suspect that this will be passed if no parking provision is made.

Even if half the units have a car where will they park?

Hope the incumbent residents see this planning application off or radically amended.

[charity007]

will this affect residents along maxted rd and also waghorn?

is this where the old printers were - where the artists operate currently?

[fishbiscuits]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> What has being a small size got do do with owning a car?

One bed flats = people without kids = less likely to have cars. It's my theory, anyway. You don't have to agree with it.

I really doubt this will get through planning, but even if by some miracle it does, parking in this area is not really all that bad at the moment. The old Bellenden school redevelopment is really the one to watch... now that really IS a big site.

[AZH]

No don't think it's the artists site. Until recently it was a metalworks, but now seems silent. But it will affect residents on Maxted Road - those in Maxden Court flats back onto the site. Waghorn Street should be less directly affected other than noise and traffic.

I do think there is a major issue with traffic on these streets, with Maxted and several other streets especially used as a cut through, the biggest problem being high speeds in a neighbourhood packed with children. It's been good to see some traffic calming measures coming in. Parking is a nightmare during the week - often no spot within a street of the house. Weekends better as less people coming into the area via car for work I guess.

[intexasatthe moment]

AZH looking at Southwark's planning portal it seems that the Nutbrook St application for 3 houses was not rejected but granted .

See the decision notice here http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/5181&system=DC

With regard to access for fire engines IME this is routinely accepted by planning depts as not needed if fire hydrants and sprinklers are installed . So installing a fire hydrant near the building means that the fire brigade can deal with a fire even though they can't get an engine next to the building . ( my understanding ,happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable )

[intexasatthe moment]

If I were you I'd look through Southwark's Residential Design Guide Supplementary Design Guide

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=5

It contains lots of requirements which I think are not met in this application eg

For major residential development (those over 10 units) does the development?

? Have at least 60% of units suitable for three or more occupants containing two or more bedrooms)?

? Include studio flats? If so are these limited to 5% of the total number of dwellings? Note that studio

flats are not considered suitable for affordable housing provision.

? Include a minimum of 10% of units that are suitable for wheelchair users in line with guidance set out

in section 2.10 of this SPD?

? Provide the minimum amount of family homes with direct access to private outdoor space as set out

in sections 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4?

I always find it difficult to find the most up to date Southwark documents but think this still applies .

Feel sure that this application won't succed in it's current form but will be signficantly ammended .

[intexasatthe moment]

IME objections re parking and increased traffic will carry little weight .

There is a need and desire to reduce use of cars and the site has great access to bus and trains . So I wouldn't devote too much time to that in objections .

In the covering letter there is discussion of what constitutes a building .I don't understand ( and haven't tried ) to understand the point being argued but assume it's significant and a grey area .

Copying below for those with more knowledge to comment

"Two question arise:

a) The first is whether the word ?building? contained in paragraph P.1(d) includes part of a building. If it does, the fact that the ?building? being proposed under Class P is part of a larger building would be irrelevant; in these circumstances, so long as the part being considered is below 500 metres, the criterion would be satisfied.

b) The second issue is whether, if the word ?building? means only a single, whole building and not part of it.

Whether ?building? within paragraph P.1(d) includes part of the building

In my view, the phrase ?building? in paragraph P.1(d) includes part of a building. It requires, therefore, that the part of the building being proposed for use under Class P be below 500 metres. As a result, in this case, paragraph P.1(d) is not contravened. My reasons are as follows.

First, paragraph P.1(d) must be read consistently with both the 2015 Order as a whole and the permission granted by Class P. ?Building? is defined in the Order (as it is in s. 336(1) of the 1990 Act) as including part of a building. On the face of it, therefore, Class P is capable of applying to part of a building. There is nothing within the wording of the permission in Class P to suggest that a different approach is taken in that Class. Indeed, that is consistent with the position on an application for planning permission under s. 62 of the 1990 Act. Applications for a material change of use can made to change the use of part of a building (for example, a dwelling house or flat into two separate flats). Moreover, other classes under Part 3 (see, for example, part M) patently allow for applications to be made which would change the use of part of the building; they use the phrase ?the development (together with any previous development under Class M) would result in more than 150 square metres of floor space in the building having changed use under Class M?. Part 3 clearly envisages that a permission will extend to part of the site.

Since the permission itself is granted in respect of part of a building, paragraph P.1(d) would have to be

5

construed as applying a different and more restrictive definition of ?building? to the main provisions within Class P. In my view, that is unlikely. Indeed, the definition within the 2015 Order of ?building? specifically excludes the inclusion of part of the building in respect of certain Classes and did not take that opportunity in respect of either paragraph P.1(d) or Class P as a whole. An alternative would have been to make clear that the paragraph related to a whole building only rather than part of the building ? that step was not taken.

Class P?s provisions are, therefore, capable of operating in respect of changes of use of part of a building as much as a whole building (e.g. the use for warehouse and storage for a particular period). As a result, in my view, if the change of use in question relates to part of a building, paragraph (d) applies its restriction to the part in question. "

[Jim1234]

I'm guessing all those that oppose this are home owners? Nimbys.