Thanks Woody for those interesting thoughts. I had not realised that the buildings were allowed to become derelict under the developer's ownership; that is interesting.

I will look again at the plans in detail. Take your point about overdevelopment. One residual concern I have would be the alternative for the land. We are assuming that there is a binary choice here - either the land is developed by the present owners or it stays as woodland. But there might be an unpalatable third option. What if the land is sold to the council and the Tyson estate is extended? Same overdevelopment problem, but 100% social housing and the potential to exacerbate the problems linked to the existing Tyson estate. I am not in any way trying to talk down to the people living in the estate but it's a simple fact of life that a minority on estates tends to make life miserable for the law-abiding majority. Or in a best-case scenario, if the area was turned into a park or public area, would this simply become the new hangout/troublespot on Tyson Road and a no-go area for the public?

In terms of trying to rid Tyson Road of its trouble hotspot status, while I agree that this is primarily the responsibility of the police/council and not the developer, why not make it the responsibility of the developer to the extent that they do get approval! It would also be in their interests. If, as you say, the target market is young professionals (which makes sense), having an aggressive/surly group of teenagers standing across the road when arriving for a viewing would not be a great start! I am not sure what could be done here - lighting? CCTV? paying for extra patrols? putting in a large flower garden??