Lordship Lane Estate: Stop the tower block petition

[oliviassmith]

Say NO to Southwark Council?s plans to build an additional 6 STOREY TOWER BLOCK on Lordship Lane Estate

The Lordship Lane Estate Planning Team are now proposing a SIX-STOREY BLOCK to be built in place of the garages between Maxwell Court & Campbell Court.

This plan would mean that vital community space would be sacrificed:

?Views across the park and trees would be obstructed

?Estate grounds would be overcrowded

?Noise levels would be unacceptable

?Our beautiful green space would be ruined by an additional obtrusive path the council are also proposing

Make sure your voice is heard!

Other council estate residents have successfully challenged the council?s plans

to devastate their space.

So can we!

1. Sign the petition so that we can convince Southwark to reconsider their plans: https://chng.it/y9s7BjgF7w

2. Familiarise yourself with Southwark's most recent plans as communicated in their news letter here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ru5ioQ17lVcEQD1yGfdlQCOuQ4y2ZoVm/view

3. Submit your feedback to Southwark here: https://lordshiplane.commonplace.is/proposals/have-your-say-on-the-lordship-lane-estate

4. Use the petition letter to write to your MP here: https://www.writetothem.com/

Feel free to use our draft letter template: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s__KnpBVuD11taWsHbL_yBXXXV5MfeLt06iEeKbvywo/edit

5. Join the Facebook group to keep up to date: https://www.facebook.com/groups/862641537782360

[Angelina]

you might pass it off with overcrowding but loss of green space is a bit of s stretch given it's right next to dulwich park, the horniman and sydenham woods.

[Nigello]

Not signing - peopel need homes, especially council homes, and this is a place that is near to some very big and wide open spaces, including an ancient woodland. I appreciate there are other concerns but I still think that Londoners are aware of needs in the housing area.

[James_C]

I really do not see any issues with the proposed plans. Six stories is not that high and its mostly replacing garages (not green space). We need more housing and this seems very sensible.

[Nigello]

Yes, six or so storeys seems a practical and rational height for a Zone 2 building. Some of the four-storey buildings that were built in the late Victorian age are almost as tall as modern ones with more floors. Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, etc. all have those five/six storey blocks and look good with them, though I understand that this is a cultural and social convention that may not be easily introduced into the UK where we have smaller dwellings in terms of height.

[redpost]

I see no problem at all with this development, these homes are desperately needed and let's face it they are nicely located next to bus routes on LL and south circular with easy access to Dulwich Park and sydenham woods.

[rachp]

I?m not sure what the alternative is if we accept that more homes are needed- where is a good space to build desperately needed affordable homes in an urban setting?

[march46]

Replacing garages with homes is a good thing and to be applauded given the housing crisis.

[Bic Basher]

It was proposed to be a three story building, but Labour Southwark once again railroad another potty scheme where the proposed block of flats is an eyesore and doesn't match with the rest of the estate.

Southwark have a track record of attempting to add social housing by either building on green space or on spaces that are inappropriate.

I doubt residents of the estate would have issues if it was a three story design that blends into the surroundings and didn't spoil views of Dulwich Park for residents.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> didn't spoil views of Dulwich

> Park for residents.

I'm not a resident on the estate so feel free to discount this as YIYBYism, but surely we can't refuse to build housing just because it partially obstructs a view of the park for some residents...? Doesn't everyone's house spoil someone else's view to some extent?

[goldilocks]

surely even a 3 storey building would obscure the views of neighbouring leaseholders on the first 3 stories of the existing buildings

[rachp]

Whilst the points of objection on the original post are understandable on a human and personal level (it would be really upsetting if you had got used to uninterrupted views of Dulwich Park, to then lose them, I get that) they do seem to be referencing facts of life that most residents living around here have to deal with (excessive noise from building works and lack of uninterrupted views over green spaces being the two most notable ones)and are outweighed by the greater issue of people who have no permanent home.

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> It was proposed to be a three story building, but

> Labour Southwark once again railroad another potty

> scheme where the proposed block of flats is an

> eyesore and doesn't match with the rest of the

> estate.

>

> Southwark have a track record of attempting to add

> social housing by either building on green space

> or on spaces that are inappropriate.

>

> I doubt residents of the estate would have issues

> if it was a three story design that blends into

> the surroundings and didn't spoil views of Dulwich

> Park for residents.

[Angelina]

You could petition them to build something in line with the current builds but unlikely you will stop a development altogether.

I suppose at least replies on here have indicated the pro views which may help you know which battles are worth fighting.

[FabJP]

Housing is needed. Council housing is needed. hope it gets built

[Bic Basher]

FabJP Wrote:

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

> Housing is needed. Council housing is needed. hope

> it gets built

Housing is needed, but it also needs to reflect the area it's in. Southwark under this current administration have continually attempted to dump on residents of the Lordship Lane Estate, first of all with their dire LTN scheme which has increased pollution on the estate with the added traffic along Lordship Lane and then changed their mind over a three story block which I was in favour of for a six story block which is a blot on the landscape.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the council are basically saying to residents that we tell you what's going to happen rather than consult with residents properly over both schemes.

[Angelina]

I can understand that

[edbloke]

Sure I?m not a resident on the estate, so the issue isn?t personal to me, but I think it?s a modest proposal and good reuse of an existing underdeveloped land. The proposal matches the height of Campbell Court but is a quarter of its length. Under planning policy, no one has a right to a view, nor a right to not be disrupted by the noise of others getting a home built during reasonable working hours. Neighbours only a right to light. Studies in the submission will be required to confirm the impact of this.

If all surrounding buildings were three stories, the argument against this proposal would be stronger. In this context though, with so much green space all around and the desperate need for more council homes, I support it.

[Bic Basher]

I wonder how many middle class people would complain if they had a six story block blocking their view from their ?500k house?

Why is no different for council tenants who are basically told to put up and shut up by people who don't need social housing in the first place?

A council estate development shouldn't be no different to objections to those who earn a lot more than some of ED's poorest.

[natty01295]

Signed the petiton √

[KidKruger]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> I wonder how many middle class people would

> complain if they had a six story block blocking

> their view from their ?500k house?

>

> Why is no different for council tenants who are

> basically told to put up and shut up by people who

> don't need social housing in the first place?

>

> A council estate development shouldn't be no

> different to objections to those who earn a lot

> more than some of ED's poorest.

?500k house ?!

You mean back in 2010, right ?

[Sydney Carton]

Southwark says half the development will be social housing, presumably the bottom half, the lower floors with no park views. So the upper parts will be very desirable apartments, which will go for top dollar.

Might the council at some later stage revise the 50 per cent social housing downward? They might well and employ the 'to help offset costs' argument. Knowing Southwark it's probably already factored in

Are you therefore in favour of Southwark being a private property developer using council land and money to build luxury flats?

[Angelina]

No that?s a game changer

[Penguin68]

Are you therefore in favour of Southwark being a private property developer using council land and money to build luxury flats?

Actually, and I'm not saying this is the case here, but if Southwark was using income from the 'luxury' flat owners to pay for the costs of building the social housing (i.e. Southwark gets appreciable amounts of social housing for no net cost to the council tax payer) I would be relatively relaxed. Increasing social housing availability at (effectively) no cost seems a win:win. Particularly at a time when economic constraints are significant on councils. Of course there needs to be a balance here - commercial property developers, when they are obliged to include social housing within new developments tend to include the minimum they can get away with, whereas I would expect a council to be looking for no additional profits from the private housing over and above meeting the costs of the social housing.

[ianr]

Angelina wrote:

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

> No that?s a game changer

What are the specific facts that make or would make it a "game changer" for you?

[Sydney Carton]

Can they be trusted to bring it in on time and budget? Probably not so at the end of the project they'll be scrabbling around looking for cash and that's when the 50/50 will suddenly become 60/40 or worse. And if they sniff a profit, well...