Proposal to demolish houses and build flats on Taymount Rise

Just raising awareness here that there is a proposal to demolish two houses and their garages at the top of Taymount Rise and build a block of flats on the site of the houses and their gardens.

www.taymountrise.co.uk

I’ve gone to the link and given my opinion.

2 Likes

“Reduce the reliance on private motor vehicles by providing secure cycle parking and a car pool scheme to the residential units to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.”

“All of the proposed apartments will be wheelchair accessible or adaptable”

I look forward to seeing the wheelchair users cycling up the hill to their accessible flat.

12 Likes

At least they will all have EV charging points.

1 Like

That is good but the topography of Taymount Rise means there is limited space for many more vehicles, electric or hired.

1 Like

Someone on an eBike overtook me on the way up Horniman Hill on the circular yesterday doing a decent speed - seems like those things will haul you up a hill at 15 mph no sweat (literally) and if anything they need proper secure parking as they cost a couple of grand too.

I quite like the design although I think the green colour scheme highlights look a bit naff. I’m sure we’ll get something similar on the old Fairlawn nursery site soon too.

I assume the green is meant to echo the green windows of the next door Taymount Grange.

We should be looking at making these car free developments except where accessibility is required rather than promoting EV cars. EV cars still create pollution, still make loads of journeys, still clog up our streets with traffic and parking. I am sure the local residents won’t look for a car parking space, not find one and think, it is awful that I can’t park my car but isn’t it great that there are EV cars parked using the spaces.

1 Like

This was my point when I put my comments on the linked proposal

1 Like

Exactly. I don’t want to be THAT person but we already suffer from parking related woes at the top of the hill including pavement parking, missed bin collections because badly parked cars prevented the lorry from turning safelty in to our drive and at least twice our front wall being damaged as the bin lorry tried to avoid badly parked cars on the roundabout.

Lewisham have added some double yellow lines but people just ignore them.

I know they say the development will encourage alternative transport but I am not sure how they will prevent residents from owning a car. Plus all the extra delivery and trades traffic 21 more flats will create.

2 Likes

Meanwhile, back in the real world; by jumping on the eco bandwagon the developer gets to make lots of extra money cramming more dwellings onto his plot without having to bother with any of those nasty unprofitable parking spaces and to hell with the inconvenience to other local residents.

3 Likes

Is ‘London needs more housing and fewer cars’ controversial? Storing your private property on public roads for free is already a privilege - perhaps Taymount should become a CPZ like a lot of the streets in the area? Interestingly my kids have taught me that booking an electric zipcar on my street is actually a thing. That’s what they do: zoom about in eGolfs once or twice a month and they seem brilliant. My car mostly sits outside my house gathering dust. Seems like there are better solutions that won’t ‘inconvenience other residents’. In fact now’s a great time to sell your used car - mine’s up 15% from when I bought it used already, 2 years ago.

Perhaps people just need to lower their expectations in terms of accessible private car storage and start to share a bit more and drive a bit less.

3 Likes

Completely agree. Taymount Rise would be a much nicer and safer road without cars cluttering up both sides of the road.

1 Like

I understand why the residents of Taymount Rise (I am one) and those who want to see a general reduction in the use of motorised transport don’t wish to see provision for car owners in new residential developments. But what about the energy that is going to be used by 21 properties as opposed to 2?

I often read on this forum how parked cars impact on the use of the pavements on Taymount Rise. I would suggest, somewhat nervously, that the large trees lining Taymount Rise actually have a bigger impact on using the pavements than the cars. Even on the rare occasion there are fewer cars parked on Taymount, the majority of pedestrians still use the road.

Hopefully ‘alternative transport’ doesn’t mean relying on our trains at the weekends.

Maybe I’m just an old cynic (? realist) but with our unreliable public transport, steep hills, time and general laziness etc making cycling or even walking unfeasible for many/most people it’s going to take a lot more than a few car-free developments to get people to ditch their cars and reduce the numbers on our roads.
In my opinion it will take something really radical like a legal limit of one car per household and very expensive licences for any additional ones to make any appreciable difference and until that happens developers should be obliged to provide adequate off street parking; which they may well have to from next year since the obligatory EV chargers Boris announced will need a parking space next to them.

1 Like

Is it that way around, or will it be that if parking is provided it needs an EV charger, and so developers will be less keen to add parking at all?

I don’t know to be honest, but the question might be can they avoid installing the chargers by deliberately not providing parking.
After all, if the EV dream is to become a reality the country will need many thousands more chargers and every one not installed by developers will have to be paid for from the public purse.

Is the EV dream not a nightmare, creating a load of smug motorists who will cause as much traffic, congestion and parking as existing motorists, more replacement than reduction?
Yes, less pollution but not none and we probably need to wait to determine whether the heavier batteries increase Brake Abrasion Dust (BAD)/cyanide particles on local streets.

I think we all know that free parking increases car ownership and their use while the council struggles to make money out of parking while other councils earn millions. Lewisham doesn’t seem to understand that running CPZs is a business and no commercial car park would give massive discounts to the wealthiest. If you drive an electric Tesla, costing £50k you will pay less than somebody driving a diesel banger worth £1k whereas a business would say you pay for the space you use. The congestion zone is phasing out the clean vehicle discount as it wants to make more money for TFL to subsidise public transport.

Lewisham could introduce a borough wide CPZ and reduce car ownership and traffic without wasting money on free parking/traffic displacement schemes while raising revenue to improve the streetscape for all users including school children, pedestrians and cyclists.

1 Like

Except that The London Plan 2021 Policy T6 sets out for many areas of inner London that car free development should be the starting point for all development proposals in places that are well connected by public transport.