Does Forest Hill Have a Hostile Attitude Towards Developers?

I’ve put this in local politics as I suspect Lewisham Council will be mentioned eventually. Anyway, surrounding Forest Hill one of the nation’s biggest housebuilders, Crest Nicholson, has built two large blocks of flats in Lower Sydenham besides the station and in Upper Sydenham on the corner of Wells Park and Sydenham Hill. Barratts have built a large development behind Catford Bridge. Loampit Vale has been drastically transformed for the better by Barratts. Yet, besides the Ballycommon project off Dartmouth Rd, Forest Hill never sees any interest from the big boys in construction.

For Forest Hill’s Dartmouth Road to pose any respectable threat to the prosperity of Lordship Lane, then the Kingswear Estate on Dartmouth Rd should be earmarked for complete demolition in order to make way for retail and living space that fits and respects surrounding buildings, like the re-build of Sydenham Girls’ School. This can only be done by a recognised player that isn’t going to face a raft of campaign groups whose members harp on about the need to bring more investment and money into the area, yet when interested parties propose demolition and construction of the infrastructure needed to accomodate and service said increase in trade and wealthy newcomers, they’re up in arms. Obviously the likes of Crest Nicholson and Barratts would crush local opposition groups in court but the latter has an enormous wealth of sentiment and respect in the bank that could tip the odds in their favour when it comes to appeal. Do you, personally, object to Forest Hill having a nationally-recognised builder operating amongst us?

Where could Barrats and Nicholson build in Forest Hill?

Not clear what you’re asking. Large construction firms generally need a large piece of permissionable land they can buy relatively cheaply, and there aren’t really any sites in Forest Hill.

You can’t just pick an estate to demolish because you don’t like the way it looks - they are people’s homes and they may like it more than you think

What a waste of money. All the residents of Kingswear House would be moved away from family and friends, so you have something nice to look at. The new flats will be sold to Asian investors who would not rent them out as they would naturally appreciate value, or if they did rent them they would be at an extortionate rate to Lewisham Council. And why do we need more shops? The plethora of empty shops we currently have already make the place look like a shitehole.

Depends what they’re gonna build. The new purpose built flats on Wells Pk / Sydenham Hill look nice, but I doubt they’re really going to be that affordable. We’ll see though - the view looks tempting.

I do think the fact FH straddles the A205 makes access a bit of a nightmare for demolition and rebuilding, but if they can make office blocks disappear on Bishopsgate then they can do it here.

Next question, where’s ripe for demolition? And once demolished, is it practical to build something modern without conflicting with the existing style?

One small example, there’s an abandoned house on Rockbourne Road that’s probably worth £800k if it’s rebuilt or fixed, but to deviate from the rest of the road would end up looking weird and I think planning would reject it. I can’t really think of anywhere that’s particularly ripe for redevelopment.

It may not be a large enough site to be profitable and is probably logistically challenging but I remember seeing some promising proposals from local architects for redeveloping the station forecourt and car park and on the Dartmouth Road side. I’ve always felt that it was a really under-utilised space, particularly when there’s a much larger station car park a short distance away on the Perry Vale. It could deliver a fair few new homes without demolitioning any of the existing social housing and if done sensitively, make a really positive contribution to the town centre.

The Shifford Path estate could certainly do with bulldozing and rebuilding. While I appreciate people live there, they are very low quality homes packed together in a poor layout which could easily be bettered by a considered redevelopment.

They belong to L&Q’s shareholders, not the tenants themselves. If they can find a better use for the land then the tenants need to find themselves somewhere else to live. Pretty simple when you think about it.

Err - L&Q don’t have shareholders. They are a housing association. All their assets are invested in redevelopment with the main aim being to provide affordable housing (the only reason they develop market priced housing for sale is to enable this). Do have a look into facts before posting.

Non-executive board members of the group’s board all hold shares in the group. Please have a look into facts before replying.https://www.lqgroup.org.uk/_assets/files/view/84f4c87e-def3-4990-99c6-913cc4b26304/

They cannot ‘cash’ in these shares. The only remuneration they receive is their salary as Board members. Have you ever heard of housing associations and how they work?!

Come on folks, let’s stay on topic and be kinder to each other please.

Anyway, the building’s an ugly eyesore on the local landscape and should be flattened to make way for a more profitable development.

The ugly eyesores are the boarded up and unused shops standing opposite Kingswear House. They are just used as one big communal bin store and a place to dump old furniture. The reason I shop in Dulwich is not because there is a block of flats on Dartmouth road, but because the shops here are run down and uninspiring. You don’t have to walk past old stained mattresses between shops on Lordship Lane.