I don’t think they will get rid of the current building, the area from the map view shows it to be next to Miriam Lodge.
More people should’ve been notified about this consultation by the owner of Miriam Lodge, who is proposing this substantial development.
Direct neighbours to this proposed development weren’t informed about this so thanks Michael for putting this on this forum. I imagine neighbours who weren’t informed will be annoyed to that they hadn’t been notified and have missed this development’s consultation.
The consultants were not able to provide density figures or figures for social housing provision but recognised that Lewisham aim for 35% social housing. Most of the 43 flats, including 11 family units (3+ bedrooms) would be sold on the open market.
They have included underground parking for 30 cars and about 60 cycle spaces (possibly all stored outside). There is a car lift to get into the garage and a pedestrian lift to get out.
The new buildings range from 3 to 5 floors and are in line with the replacement for the police station, despite being closer to 2 storey houses.
A number of residents expressed their concern about the mass of the buildings and issues of overlooking and impact on daylight as well as overly dense development in a location that already has some of the highest residential density in Forest Hill. I expressed my concern that there would be another application for the other side of Miriam Lodge, just as there had been a few years ago. Overall the density in this location is becoming really high, with little amenity space for residents.
There are obvious ways this development, if it goes forward to planning could be improved:
- Lower height close to terraced houses and gardens
- Living wall on blank walls facing existing houses
- Cladding on Miriam Lodge to lessen the impact (as had been proposed for the previous development on the other side)
- A car free development (like the former police station) could be considered but would there be any way to make this happen?
- The developers claim to have a daylight assessment that shows that levels of light are good. If they have achieved this in the shadow of Miriam Lodge then I’ll be impressed.
Michael: I fully agree with your point regarding density - it’s very crammed and the developers are obviously trying to maximise the potential income from this - 3 extra blocks of flats is a lot on that site especially being so close to all neighbours’ boundaries.
Also: did they also mention to you that they were exploring the possibility of demolishing Miriam lodge and continuing with this development on the rest of the site? If so, could they look at this project as a whole site instead of doing it bit by bit?
Another consideration: With vulnerable people living at Miriam lodge - they would be using the same road exit/entrance (from Dartmouth road) as families and residents of this proposed development- has this impact been considered?
No plans to demolish Miriam Lodge, but you are probably aware that there was a proposal to build another block next to Miriam Lodge on the south side. These were rejected for a variety of reasons.
I believe that it is acceptable for vulnerable people and families to use the same roads. I’m not sure how this would be any additional problem beyond what existing neighbours have.
I’ve created a topic in our opt-in “Ethikos” category for a more general debate on this issue, due to the nature of Miriam Lodge.
Advance warning - replies here may be moved to the discussion in Ethikos if they relate to general ethical issues as opposed to the immediate facts of this development.
The possible demolition of Miriam lodge and extending this development to the rest of the site in the future was mentioned by the architect yesterday to a few of the neighbours. Hence my suggestion it would make sense that they look at developing this site now as a whole.
Either way these new architects looked like they were a lot more thorough and sympathetic to maintaining the area’s characteristics than the previous architects who proposed the monstrous rejected extension on the other side of Miriam Lodge.
That’s the best news for Forest Hill that I’ve heard for a while!
Michael, why as a car owner and person who regularly drives over to park on the congested streets round the library would you want to make life even more difficult for yourself by reducing the amount of parking available?
What about the impact to the local residents if all new developments have no consideration that people want cars but existing residents struggle to park their own cars at present?
It is very virtuous to have car free developments but common sense normally dictates that people in these developments especially families will want cars.
I certainly think it is worth considering car free developments where they can work. I’m not entirely sure that this is the best location but worth considering.
I park in the area when i know there are parking spaces. Mostly i walk as it is almost as quick and avoids the parking issues. I never have problems parking in the area after 7pm. But i appreciate that residents find it much more problematic, especially earlier in the day.
I also don’t trust developers who include underground parking. It rarely gets built in our area and is just used to get through planning before removing it from the scheme. I think this happened with the Printworks most recently. Personally i would prefer to properly understand what will be built rather than a scheme getting approved but something less good getting built. And it also amazes me how many garages (including my own) haven’t seen a car in them for decades. People prefer parking in the street than in garages or in underground parking with car lifts to get in and out.
I personally wouldn’t trust any underground parking only accessible via a car lift. When the inevitable happens in a couple of years time, you need to have real faith that the service company gets that lift fixed quick, otherwise your car might not be seeing the light of day again.
It is a concern to hear that the provision of underground parking was not fulfilled by other developers.
With the limited parking on Dartmouth road and the roads around this proposed development - it is important to consider that if this development wants to attract families, many of these will have cars and will want to park them as close as possible to their home.
Plus when you take into consideration the new residents of the Old Police station’s block of flats (which has planning permission to be built right next to Miriam lodge - and was approved with the provision of only 2 disabled parking places), this signifies an immense increase in residents parking on adjacent roads.
I don’t trust developers plans, call me skeptic!
I think the public should get what the public wants
Sorry for the music again
Hope you are well.
I was hoping you could help.
Has there been any further progress with the developments of Miriam Lodge? We are close to placing an offer on a house within reach of this development and now have concerns having just spotted your post in September.
Do you have any more information at all?
I haven’t heard anything new and i don’t think there has been a formal planning application made yet.
Ok thank you for letting me know x
Has anyone heard any more on the proposed development (called Dartmouth Mews) on the land next to Miriam Lodge at 185 Dartmouth Road?
It would totally overlook the surrounding houses and ruin privacy, especially for 165-173 Dartmouth Road SE26. Based on the plans I’ve seen part of the proposal was for a 4 story block right at the end of the gardens to 165-173 Dartmouth Road – only 20m from rear of the houses and much taller!
The Sydenham Police Station development is already going to massively impact light to the gardens as it is – on that point I’ve just seen that planning has now gone in for the demolition of the police station which should start in April (http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_94304) with the timeline for the flat build to take 18 months.
Any news would be great.
Thanks Chris - the post was closed hence me starting a new one, but glad it could be joined up!