Proposed Development - The Sidings, Railway Rise, SE22

[scarlettbanks]

Also not nice for the school kids to have the noise of building work, and then to have flats overlooking their school

[Earl Aelfheah]

The plans look OK, but there is a bit of a lack of detail. I have no problem with student accommodation, there is quite a lot just up the road in Campion Hill, which suggests there is demand.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[micromacromonkey]

I was just thinking the other day stood on ED station platform that this site was ripe for development. If I was a resident of the recently developed Featherstone Mews though I'd be somewhat aggrieved having a 7-story development right next door. (Has anyone seen that website btw? Rather odd CGI walk around ED.)

Such guff spouted on the developer's website about all the students moving out of their big family houses just as fast as their legs will carry them, apparently causing some trickle-down benefit to local families. Students are people too though, and if there is a genuine need across London then they have to go somewhere. I am however dubious that Melbourne Grove will suddenly be full of all the shops that they imply it will. More like another 6 takeaways (if my student experience is anything to go by).

Looking at that site, compared to surrounding streets it's difficult to see how you'd get many family houses in, but perhaps people in this country need to get used to a more european way of living (i.e. apartments). The developers still wouldn't make as much money though.

[Diogenes]

3 hours ago, micromacromonkey said:

I was just thinking the other day stood on ED station platform that this site was ripe for development. If I was a resident of the recently developed Featherstone Mews though I'd be somewhat aggrieved having a 7-story development right next door. (Has anyone seen that website btw? Rather odd CGI walk around ED.)

Such guff spouted on the developer's website about all the students moving out of their big family houses just as fast as their legs will carry them, apparently causing some trickle-down benefit to local families. Students are people too though, and if there is a genuine need across London then they have to go somewhere. I am however dubious that Melbourne Grove will suddenly be full of all the shops that they imply it will. More like another 6 takeaways (if my student experience is anything to go by).

Looking at that site, compared to surrounding streets it's difficult to see how you'd get many family houses in, but perhaps people in this country need to get used to a more european way of living (i.e. apartments). The developers still wouldn't make as much money though.

The Featherstone Mews CGI is impressive! I wish the area actually looked as polished! Perhaps soon with all these developments…

The Featherstone promoters won’t be happy about the Sidings for sure. Kinda ruin the luxury experience a little. Neither will the promoters of 2 neighbouring projects: 2A Melbourne grove and the Railway Rise. In fact, to put it mildly, I don’t see anybody in the area cheering the new 7 storeys buildings.

And good point regarding shops: commercial reinvigoration is another part of the sales pitch that feels disingenuous. The student population is not exactly the target audience of local shops… no cheering there either.

[Zak]

At the beginning of this thread  someone asked  if there would be any social housing or just affordable. 
Affordable rents are defined as 80% of. Market  rents ( which may still not be very affordable), whereas Social  rents are 40-60% of market rents. 
It’s probably going to be quite expensive! 
 

[Nigello]

It’s hard to deny that housing of all kinds is needed, and fast.
 

If people want (not necessarily need) all manner of (non-essential) services then more space has to be given over to a variety of accommodation to help bridge the big gaps and that may mean reducing space between developments, building higher, etc. 

So, if you’re upset by the planned development then at the very least consider asking yourself whether you and your habits could possibly be contributing to it. 

[Penguin68]

Other than Kings Hospital there are no (close) university or tertiary teaching sites close by - is this the best place for student accommodation given demands locally for long-term housing for e.g. families? Southwark is finding places for the homeless in Croydon - could they not use this sort of development for places closer? I know that these sort of tenants are not nice little earners for developers, but maybe a site such as this should be considered for council intervention. I am all for more housing locally, but I am not sure that a need for student housing locally trumps other housing needs. Students moving away from home to study won't necessarily free up space where they have left from (they may return home during and after their studies, ours did) - indeed graduates back living at home because they can't find anywhere else to live is a story of our times. It's not the building I object to, we need more housing, it is the intended use of that building I feel is problematic.

[Soylent Green]

Could the student accommodation have anything to do with the face that King's Champion Hill halls of residence are having to remain empty because of problems with the Glenfell type cladding?

[Penguin68]

That certainly would explain a short term need. But this will take time to build. Surely the Halls of Residence issue will be sorted before the student rooms are available here? 

[alice]

I think trying to link this student accommodation to Kings and other righteous organisations is spurious. The developers would have mentioned it as a plus in their  plans.  How far the council will insist on the 35% social rents is as yet unknown. 

[tropica]

When I was at Kings college (Strand/Waterloo bridge) I caught the 176 door to door each way every day. Cheap and convenient to get back to home in ED so I can see the appeal for students.

[LurkyMcLurker]

The choice to build PBSA has nothing to do with trying to find space for students at local universities like King's.

PBSA, Coliving, and BTR developments generally concern themselves with their proximity to local transit within larger cities. While East Dulwich isn't the best connected station in the city, it's good enough and the development is in a prime location. Combined with the massive demand for PBSA, it's no wonder the majority of the development space will be dedicated to students.

If any element of this development should change it should be dropping PBSA and building more homes that can be purchased.

 

[alice]

There are currently over 400 properties for sale within 1/4 mile of SE22.

The shortage right now is of social rent homes.

[northernmonkey]

I agree Alice - there is a massive need for affordable rent homes - and not 1 bed either.  

From the proposal I think that it is 18 x4 bed homes, 12  x 3 bed homes and 11 studio flats (affordable housing - though Alice's point on this remains that its 80% of market rent in all likelihood so unlikely to be covered by housing benefit).  3 and 4 bed homes are very much needed, studio flats less so!    In return for this tiny amount of semi - affordable housing the proposal is to have almost 400 students in a 7 story block which will tower over everything else in the area and also has a roof terrace.   Given that there is no university nearby all 400 students will need to use local transport options and there will be a significant impact on the local infrastructure of term time only students. 

The main point I keep coming back to though is that the area needs affordable family housing and students don't pay any council tax so it looks like a lose lose situation for everyone except the developers. 

[first mate]

To the last point re need to use transport, it'll be justified re Lime hire e-bikes and scooters.

[Diogenes]

On 04/12/2023 at 10:32, northernmonkey said:

I agree Alice - there is a massive need for affordable rent homes - and not 1 bed either.  

From the proposal I think that it is 18 x4 bed homes, 12  x 3 bed homes and 11 studio flats (affordable housing - though Alice's point on this remains that its 80% of market rent in all likelihood so unlikely to be covered by housing benefit).  3 and 4 bed homes are very much needed, studio flats less so!    In return for this tiny amount of semi - affordable housing the proposal is to have almost 400 students in a 7 story block which will tower over everything else in the area and also has a roof terrace.   Given that there is no university nearby all 400 students will need to use local transport options and there will be a significant impact on the local infrastructure of term time only students. 

The main point I keep coming back to though is that the area needs affordable family housing and students don't pay any council tax so it looks like a lose lose situation for everyone except the developers. 

A good point regarding council tax…

As I understand it, student housing is a way to make the project financially viable (a questionable argument considering the 3 other local residential projects in progress)… except that this would come at the expense of the whole neighbourhood (no council tax, no meaningful contribution to local services / economy compared to other dwellers + noise, crowding and other nuisances).

I am not saying we shouldn’t do our part… If it means having 50 students on that site (which, again, would be very sub optimal) on top of family homes / affordable homes, so be it… but 400 students? We are talking about a student campus in a small family neighbourhood without any local university. That seems ridiculous and it appears to be driven by financials … In other words, the neighbourhood would essentially be subsidizing the developer’s / land owner’s profits (not mentioning the impact the suddenly prevalent student community would have on the immediate neighbourhood). That just does not feel right.

[GinSpark]

I notice that there is no parking allocation given at all anywhere, even for the ‘family’ accommodation. Have the developers chosen to build majority student housing on the site to get around allocating any parking?

The argument about freeing up HMO’s for families is redundant. What’s to stop landlords purchasing the ‘affordable’ 3 and 4 bed homes on the plan and renting them out as HMOs?

The developer’s priority will always be maximising their profits rather than meeting the housing needs of the community. I'm not against development on this site, but I think the current plan is unsuitable.

 

[alice]

Why would families need car parking? It’s right near station and many bus routes. I can’t imagine landlords buying such properties to rent as HMOs there would be no profit in it and too much work to make them fulfil HMO regulations

[pecksniff]

Feedback from the Public Consultations held in November have been published. There only appears to be slight amendments. 

https://thesidings.whatyouthink.co.uk/feedback

More Public exhibitions have been arranged for Thursday 4-7pm 7th March and Saturday 11am to 2pm 9th March United Reformed Church (corner of East Dulwich Grove and Melbourne Grove in the Parlour). 

 

 

[CPR Dave]

That site must be enormous.

Not sure student digs and families with 3 year old kids are generally a good mix.

I see also that Jewson have moved into the other timber yard next to kwik fit already.

[pecksniff]

Just a reminder the next  public exhibition regarding this proposal takes place on Saturday  9th March  11am - 2pm at United Reformed Church (corner of Melbourne Grove  &  Tell Grove in the Parlour, near Link Age). 

[CPR Dave]

On the car parking point I don't thunk the council will allow a development to have parking and also residents are required to accept that they won't be allowed a parking permit anywhere.

[ED_moots]

The application has now been notified and the local community have only 14 days to respond to the proposal consisting of over 100 documents. Almost impossible to digest the proposal and fairly assess its impact. PBSA should have separation from residential homes, this does not. As many have pointed out, there's no demand for student housing round ED. Also, it's huge. Will tower over the school and surrounding area. There seems to be no direct link or partnership with any university so this looks to be a giant investors HMO. More decent homes would be a much better use. If you want to comment or review the docs the link is here. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=SHWOSNKBJXR00

[Sue]

5 hours ago, ED_moots said:

The application has now been notified and the local community have only 14 days to respond to the proposal consisting of over 100 documents. Almost impossible to digest the proposal and fairly assess its impact. PBSA should have separation from residential homes, this does not. As many have pointed out, there's no demand for student housing round ED. Also, it's huge. Will tower over the school and surrounding area. There seems to be no direct link or partnership with any university so this looks to be a giant investors HMO. More decent homes would be a much better use. If you want to comment or review the docs the link is here. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=SHWOSNKBJXR00

I'm not particularly in favour of this proposal, but what is the evidence that there's "no demand for student housing around ED"?

Surely there's no demand for it because there presently isn't any?!

Students have to live somewhere, Kings is a teaching hospital (I think) as is the dental hospital (I think) plus East Dulwich has reasonable transport links into central London and this site is near both trains and several bus routes.

[TES]

Precisely - there's huge demand for student housing in London, and right next to a train station within walking distance of shops and leisure facilities seems perfect. See  https://www.cityam.com/is-there-enough-student-housing-for-the-next-cohort-of-school-leavers-in-september/ 

 

But guess what, it doesn't stop there, there's actually huge demand for all housing. The failure over many years to build housing is pushing UK productivity down and exacerbating the cost of living crisis. Of course it's fine to have an opinion that a building is too big, or whatever, but at the end of the day we don't solve the housing crisis without building more houses. So it's either brownfield spots like this former warehouse, or it's densifying existing residential (i.e. knock down and rebuild), or it's building on greenfield. I struggle to see how London meets the housing needs of the next few decades without plans like this one.