Empty building/office on Crystal Palace Road

[Melph91]

Hi all,

Does anyone know whether the big blue office building with loading bay on crystal palace road is vacant?

As far as I know it's not had anyone working from within for many years. Are there plans for development?

I did try to call the number for Jones lang lasalle on the outside but they don't seem to have it on their records.

[Jeremy]

Think they're going to build flats there. There was a thread about it a while ago... usual complaints about parking spaces, etc.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes, it's being turned into flat unfortunately. It's a shame.

[Melph91]

What a waste! :(

[tim hill]

were is this place in C,P,Rd , the one near the swimming baths ?

[Melph91]

Yes that's the one

[Jeremy]

Somebody would complain, whatever was built there. At the end of the day, it would seem we have a housing shortage...

[mikeb]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1220753,1221353#msg-1221353

Not sure parking was the main concern

[Jeremy]

It was certainly one of them.

[James Barber]

The planning application for this site will be decided next week Tuesday 3 February.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=4805

The full planning applicatino can be seen here: http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9553144

Cllr Rosie Shimell and I requested the decision be called-in and decided by planning committee. WE have fomally objected to the scheme...

The proposal is 22 homes:

? 9 one bed flats

? 6 two bed flats

? 3 three bed flats

? 4 four bed town houses.

Council officers have recommended it be approved.

We think is't an over development - it breaches the maximum density levels for the area.

Undoutedly it will cause extra congestion and despite proposing 44 under ground car parking spaces will attract visitors who will add to the existing parking pressure.

[mikeb]

Developer's summary of feedback here.

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/373009_1.pdf

Nice to see the EDF getting a namecheck though I don't think the summary of responses on page 3 really reflects the responses on page 12.

James, maybe worth noting the developers' history of trying to renegotiate s106 agreements after the event... see #53 here

http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(S(0jvmmq45oktuyd55cs22ct45))/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=581&MId=6891

They also seem to have taken on a new planning adviser DP9.

[Otta]

Why is it a shame / waste? London needs homes, homes are going to be built.

The only shame about it is that they will be homes that your average working people won;t be able to afford.

[Melph91]

It's a shame because good office space is hard to come by too. It could have been a building which created long term job opportunities or a school to target the current shortage in the area.. rather than attracting more people who's children will need schools etc etc you see where I'm going.

That said, a 4 bed townhouse sounds nice.

[solar]

It is already very difficult to park near there as it's next door to the leisure centre. Adding extra homes will make the situation worse.

[Jeremy]

I doubt there's much demand for large amounts of office space in what is essentially suburban south London. Small offices for up to ten people, maybe.

There are already other schools under development nearby... Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Bellenden Road, and probably Dewar Street.

Realistically I'm not sure what else people were expecting to be built on this site.

[Otta]

If office space was needed, wouldn't the building have been in use all these years?

Don't think the site would be anywhere near big enough for a school, and as Jeremy says, there are schools popping up in other locations.

Wasn't there some talk of underground parking, or did I imagine that?

[James Barber]

The site is a warehouse. The previous business occupying the site needed 18 wheeled lorries several time a week.

A warehouse of this size on a residential road doesn't work.

The plans propose 44 underground car parking spaces. Seems OTT. But I still think it will add to parknig stress as visitors won;t park underground.

Should have good cycle parking.

If you think this is good or bad tell the planning officers.

[Jeremy]

22 homes, 44 spaces... sounds like a lot. But better too many than too few.

[Ellem86]

London's in desperate need of additional housing and I also agree that too many than too few is better.

[uncleglen]

Concrete jungle.....

[Albert Fegg]

Exactly how is London 'in desperate need of additional housing'? London is in desperate need of additional transport infrastructure to cope with the spiralling population growth that all the (for profit) property development is adding to. There's a lot of singing and dancing about how positive all the current transport improvement is but it's nowhere near enough.

All of this while a significant amount of high-end property is bought as an investment and sitting empty.

We're struggling to get on a bus or train now, how are we going to in the future? The London Bridge development looks like it's going to provide us with less of a service than before.

I can see the benefit of more affordable housing obviously, however the fact that this extra housing is situated in East Dulwich would probably render it fairly unaffordable from the off.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Commercial property is constantly being labelled as 'no longer viable' and then converted to flats. The thing about the viability of a business is that it is highly dependent on the rent being asked for the property it leases. If there wasn't any prospect of change of use being granted, then the market would find the right price for a commercial unit, the point at which the business would be viable. The truth is that there is significantly more money in residential property.

During a recession say, many businesses may find that they are 'no longer viable'... but that's not to say that 5 years on a similar one may well be. But once a commercial property has passed over into 'private residential' it is rarely going to travel back the other way again. What this means in practice, is that over time, we get lower and lower amenity to housing ratios. Amenity ends up reflecting demand as it was during it's lowest level in any given area.

The reduction in the number of cheap commercial properties is a barrier to entrepreneurism. It's leads to clone high streets, lack of creativity, lack of dynamism and an unbalanced economy.

Councils can't bear for there to be boarded up shops or offices (and property speculators play on this), but sometimes leaving a property empty can be preferable than loosing it's commercial potential for ever.

[????]

NIMBY city - we've got a fooking housin shortage in case people hadn't noticed

[mikeb]

Very good point RRR. Reminds me a little of the discussion of the viability of Dulwich Hamlets FC on its current ground and the move to overturn the restrictive covenant limiting the property to sporting / educational purposes so that it can be redeveloped as housing.

[????]

Not really. DHFC is a functioning, presently thriving, historic, community entity with much local physical and emotional support, see hardly any similarity.