|Posted on Monday, 28 May, 2007 - 10:41 am: |
Does anyone know when the building of these flats is due to start? (is it the Finches site?). There was a thread ages ago, I know. It does seem a while since anything happened.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 09:23 am: |
I've been thinking this too. At the public meeting last year I overhead one of the developers telling one of the site owners that they could start doing something (can't remember what) in January. But the site still seems to be intact and the car audio shop is still open. I've thought about asking the shop owner when he has to vacate the premises but haven't plucked up enough courage yet!
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 09:28 am: |
I was urprised to see demolition of a local site begin before planning permission ad been approved. The planning officer told me that planning permission was not required for demolition of an industrial site. Possibly this is what could happen first.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 09:55 am: |
I think this is the link for the planning permission application:
Planning permission has not been granted.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 10:16 am: |
If you follow the above link and click on the documents tab on the website you can see what activity has gone on.
Can anyone confirm if the ski / sports shop is going? I can't quite tell from the plan.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 10:37 am: |
Thankfully it looks like it's staying.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 11:16 am: |
Planning permission was granted last year, in November or December I think. Yes, the ski shop is staying.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 02:14 pm: |
Yes, there was an extensive previous thread on the issue, and I'm sure the outcome was that objections were taken into account and changes made to the plans, but the application was granted. It's just been nearly six months since then and nothing's happened.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 02:16 pm: |
Here's the link:
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 03:39 pm: |
I heard that there was a resolution to grant planning permission subject to signing the S. 106 - I assume the Council are still trying to extort Berkeley for further goodies, you never know if they push hard enough we may get a new station out of them!!!!
|Posted on Thursday, 20 September, 2007 - 06:18 pm: |
They now have these advertised on they website, no price yet.
|Posted on Friday, 21 September, 2007 - 01:58 am: |
How strange that Berkeley Homes highlight how close the flats are to the South Circular, when a key characteristic of this new community is that they will be pedestrians and/or cyclists, and not car owners.
Berkeleyhomes: "..... and just a short distance from the A205 South Circular this scheme is extremely well connected for travel into London and surrounding areas."
Planning application: "70 apartments ....<snip>..... 19 car parking spaces, 72 bicycle spaces".
|Posted on Friday, 21 September, 2007 - 12:11 pm: |
Perhaps the reference to the South Circular is for the benefit of the 72 cyclists?!
|Posted on Friday, 21 September, 2007 - 01:12 pm: |
By the way: The Print Factory. What? Where?
|Posted on Friday, 21 September, 2007 - 01:28 pm: |
Yes, I couldn't work out where it is either.
|Posted on Friday, 21 September, 2007 - 01:29 pm: |
Do you mean The Printworks?
|Posted on Friday, 21 September, 2007 - 01:31 pm: |
Do you mean The Printworks?
|Posted on Friday, 21 September, 2007 - 01:33 pm: |
Does anyone know who's selling the private (non key workers) apartments on the site?
|Posted on Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 - 09:31 am: |
Work appeared to be starting on this site this morning.
|Posted on Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 - 09:52 am: |
Thanks "Forester" about time, they have a lot of work to do and they are already marketing it.
Does anyone know how long these things take?.
|Posted on Saturday, 29 September, 2007 - 01:26 am: |
"Ensure that the development of the Perry Vale site is supported in environmental terms by high quality landscaping of Perry Vale and the pavement adjacent to the embankment and a suitably attractive finish on the embankment wall possibly some kind of high quality cladding or planting"
This is from the urban design framework (../9/1789.html"#cccccc">
|Posted on Saturday, 29 September, 2007 - 12:16 pm: |
It is good these flats are for non car owners. Saw boards up last couple of days.
|Posted on Saturday, 29 September, 2007 - 01:00 pm: |
But there is no real way of enforcing' non car ownership' no matter what the boards or in fact the lease says. This is an urban myth outside of CPZ areas and even then there is no way of checking up when people apply for permits. The consequence is usually increased pressure to park in surrounding areas. What needs to happen in new developments is that on site parking is provided on site, and the density and land price adjusted accordingly.
|Posted on Monday, 01 October, 2007 - 11:58 am: |
Ewan McColl used to live in Beckenham. Of course Salford was his dirty old town...
|Posted on Monday, 01 October, 2007 - 01:08 pm: |
I would imagine most of the close surrounding areas will be resticted in some way. I appreciate your comments but up to council, if they introduce more CPZ's to ensure only residents with CPZ outside their house claim. Does not seem rocket science.
|Posted on Monday, 01 October, 2007 - 10:39 pm: |
The argument used by the developers is that Perry Vale around the site has yellow lines and Hindsley Place already has a small CPZ. It is possible that residents will park on Church Vale, which is currently mainly used by commuters. But the theory is that people do not want to park two streets away from where they live, so naturally they will choose not to have cars (or those that do will get one of the few parking place on site).
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this analysis, but since most of the closest roads are mainly used by commuters there is space for the residents to park without causing massive inconvenience to their neighbours. Time will tell how accurate this is but I don't think it will be necessary to have a CPZ on Church Vale or Westbourne Drive.
|Posted on Monday, 01 October, 2007 - 11:01 pm: |
I like the ad in the posh magazine that we have delivered - just the place for the 'urban' professional. An even quicker service to London when the tube arrives - funny, I thought that the service would deteriorate in preference to linking up with docklands, N London etc. Anyway no doubt Foreest Hill Centraal (I'm thinking coffee shops, van-der-waalk and Kraftwerk here) will make things even more cosmopolitan - by definition surely most of inner and middle London is cosmopolitan. Not counting our storm troopers in LB Bromley by the way. Thinking of this there is also an article in the same posh mag about a 15 year old who seriously rates FH as a place to live. That is most excellent, but why do you need to go school in Orpington then young lady?
|Posted on Tuesday, 02 October, 2007 - 11:31 am: |
Because the school is better?
Does seem a long way to go, though.