The Thurston Road Redevelopment

Occasional BC visitor Rational Plan has found these images for the planned Thurston Road development:

The building, opposite the Loampit Vale development "Lewisham Renaissance", has planning permission for a B&Q with 280 flats above it. These other images give a sense of the scale of development, which will represent another major step change for the town centre. 

Demolition work to clear the site began late last year

60 comments:

Fioranimarco said...

estates of tomorrow

Brockley Nick said...

Because...?

Dduck said...

More dross

Dan said...

the trouble with all of these new flats is that the trains are already overcrowded from Lewisham, buses always full, and traffic is already gridlocked during morning/evening rush hours. Is there any obligation for the building developers to contribute towards improving and increasing transport capacity?

John Bassi said...

Why are we turning lewisham into a high density high rise estates? it is however an improvement on the present.

Monkeyboy said...

I think there is a specific duty for them to look at whether the transport infrastructure can cope. It will be in the planning docs somewhere. Not sure all the modes are always full, they often are busy at rush hours but its a bit catch 22. Places that a developer would want to develop will already tend to be popular so the trains etc will be busy.

Pete Thornton said...

I'm trying to work out exactly where this is, and what's there now. Is it where the Sports Direct and Matalan are currently?

BLS said...

croydon-sham.

Anonymous said...

Its behind sports direct, currently just a big space. On the left hand side if you are driving into the sports direct carpark from loampit vale

Deptforddame said...

The planning application number is DC/11/77754 (permission for which was granted last October) if anyone wants to look up the full details on Lewisham's planning database. 

Anon said...

From the Design & Sccess Statement...."Neither Matalan nor MFI have indicated that they
have current plans to cease trading from these
premises.
However, it is clear that these sites offer considerably
greater potential for similar mixed use, higher density
development.
We have been asked to give consideration to how the
site accommodating MFI and Matalan could be
brought forward for development.
Whilst this would remain subject to approval of the
tenants we believe the site offers potential to be
developed in phases, allowing at least one retailer to
continue trading while a new retail / residential
scheme is built. (Similar in design principles to the
proposed DIY unit)"

Anonymous said...

MFI went out of business in 2008.

Current occupants are Mothercare, Sports Direct, Family Bargains and Matalan.

Bill said...

This is what the GLA planning report says about the development and transport: 
"Transport for London (TfL) would expect all of the
previously agreed transport related conditions and Section 106 contributions to
be retained as part of this application for renewal of planning permission.
This includes the requirement for a minimum contribution of £220,000, to be split
between Lewisham Council and TfL, to be secured towards ‘off-site sustainable
transport measures’, including the relocation of two bus stops, cycle and
pedestrian facilities, and any traffic regulation orders that may be required
in respect of those measures. In addition, TfL would also expect the previously agreed schedule of ‘highway
works’, to be retained including the land safeguarded for the potential
extension of the eastbound bus lane along the northern side of Loampit Vale."

Matt-Z said...

The intense, large-scale redevelopments around Lewisham Station bring much-needed housing to the area, but there are serious transport concerns.

Lewisham Station needs a complete, complex rebuild to allow for more frequent services to London, a DLR extension to Catford (and beyond) and a Bakerloo Line extension onto the Hayes branch.

As these housing/commercial developments become bigger, more numerous, and are sited ever-closer to the existing railway lands, any major station rebuild becomes harder, if not ultimately impossible.

This doesn't necessarily preclude future train/DLR/tube extensions, but certainly makes them more difficult and expensive to achieve with, for example, more tunnelling and less surface running required.

Lewisham folly said...

 I think we are not seeing the Renaissance of Lewisham, but simply the birth of a high rise estate.  Where are the all the other things that go with the a town centre?  In Lewisham we get a lot of flats plonked next to the rail station and it is assumed everything else will fall into place without much planning.  A Renaissance is what is happening around Kings Cross where they seem to have made more effort to join the dots together.

Guest said...

Nope, that's for the development where the row of churches in the old industrial units are currently. There is also another stupidly tall development on the same side of the road a you pass under the bridge.

The images at the top of the page are for the Jerrard street side and probably came from here - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=99039756&postcount=305

...and I'm struggling to find any application they are from which may mean they're a little out of date. I certainly thought that B&Q were not involved in the project anymore.

Sue said...

There were 69 objections to this development, but Lewisham are so keen to look like Croydon that they wanged it through. An industrial estate was demolished to make way for it. Lewisham also seem keen on demolishing any industry (jobs) in the borough, and turning those sites into dormitories for city workers who won't necessarily use local facilities and businesses. And how many of the residential units are 'affordable'?

terrencetrentderby said...

This reminds me of evil company from the future "OCP" from Robocop replacing Old Detroit with towerblocks.

Only Lewisham town centre has been rubbish for years so I guess by default this is a vast improvement.

Might be nice if some small houses are thrown into the mix though around the town.

terrencetrentderby said...

Where in the area does the planning infrastructure cope? All the trains I get on in the morning are dangerously over capacity.

terrencetrentderby said...

*transport 

Brockley Nick said...

You would think Croydon was the only part of Greater London with buildings over 5 floors. Has anyone actually been to London in the last 20 years?

Ghost town said...

Croydon is a bit of special case.  It has half a dozen buildings over 20 stories put up during the 1970s.  The future seems to far bigger with another half dozen being built or proposed that will be over 30 stories and one of 60 stories floors.  Whether the new set of office blocks and the canyons between them will improve the area is open to question.  It didn't last time....

Lewishams highrise tradition began and ended with Citybank until the recent sprouting of investment opportunity yuppie flats, which is fast becoming an epidemic.

Where are the people who sleep in these flats supposed to go in the evening and what is for them to do in Lewisham town centre?  The area is a ghost town at night.  The residents will, no doubt, spend their wages near where they work.  Lewishams' loss is the gain of the City and Canary Wharf.

Is there some sort of cunning plan to all this development which is not immediately apparent?

Bill said...

There are two proposed developments with Thurston attached to them. The demolition of the industrial estate is to make way for 406 flats. The planning application number you quote is for a smaller development of 62 flats on the opposite side of Thurston Road.

Bill said...

The GLA planning report notes:

“The extant permission proposes 406 residential units.
Whilst the proposed residential density and dwelling mix remain acceptable in respect
to current London Plan policy, the relevant housing issues to be considered in
this instance are set out below.



The applicant has stated an
intention to maintain the level and offer of affordable housing secured within
the extant consent. This is welcomed in principle.


 


The extant permission provides 90 affordable units,
which equates to 22% affordable housing in terms of unit numbers. Within the
affordable housing element, 69% is proposed as social rent, and 31% is proposed
to be intermediate housing.”


Wombles4000 said...

Well if there are decent and affordable rents then businesses would be encouraged to open to cater for people. London business rents are way too high stifling local business and stopping people taking risks. Also way too high are house prices and rents which lessens people's disposable income to spend. 

As an aside, I looked on google street view and the new towers recently built look good. Nice brickwork, and the retail units on the ground floor look a good size and have presence. However selfish people had already been driving and parking over the expensive paving installed around there. Is this still going on? I've seen it at a few sites where public spaces have been improved with nice paving and landscaping. Nothing seems to be done by local councils/site owners to ticket and remove on other sites I see it happening.

Is B&Q really needed? said...

So why do we need a B&Q on Loampit Vale?

NAT said...

 None. not one of the (very welcome) new residents has a car apparently. There are is no new parking provision.

Anonymous said...

So that people can buy DIY goods perhaps?

Why do we need another deli?

Sue said...

The extant permission provides 90 affordable units, which equates to 22% affordable housing in terms of unit numbers. Within the affordable housing element, 69% is proposed as social rent, and 31% is proposed to be intermediate housing.”
Thanks, Bill, that looks good, all things considered (the council's target for 42% affordable). And what's the latest news (beyond 'extant')?

Sue said...

 Womble have you not had time to walk down our new grand canyon?

Sue said...

 Er Nick, where are you thinking of?

Sue said...

Quickly: semi-industrial sites provide work for all sorts of businesses
that require a bit more than just office space. 24-hour access to
complete orders on time, use of machinery and power tools, use of materials that require extraction or special facilities. Such businesses are graded B2 and cannot be accommodated in the 'mixed use' (B1) environments that Lewisham is promoting.

Lewisham's main aim would seem to be to fulfill the housing need (10,000 new homes). If only 22% of the housing is 'affordable' this aim is not being met, but a fuck of a lot of council tax is being garnered. (Though if the dormitory city workers all lose their jobs, that's a fuck of a lot of council tax benefit!)

Many of the businesses Lewisham is sending out of the borough are the ones it has a reputation for promoting: creative industries. Many of these cannot co-exist with residential homes. Thurston Road, ugly as it was, employed people that aren't likely to be employed in the new retail. The same is going on elsewhere, notably Faircharm Trading Estate, where some of the creative businesses cannot be even be rehoused in Lewisham's flagship redevelopment at Surrey Canal Road because their work is just a bit too toxic to co-exist with residential.

Lewisham's vision for itself must be for anyone who wants a job in something that isn't retail or at a desk must go and work in some industrial park down in Dartford.

Back to all this housing and where is the infrastructure to support it? We don't even know if we will have a HOSPITAL, let alone whether everyone will fit on the train to CANARY WHARF. Drainage & sewers, roads (shut up anyone who thinks there will be a reduction in car-use), schools blar blar blar...

Who buys the flats? Off-plan: Chinese investors, Buy-to-let investors. Any educated Brit would not be buying anything...

I could go on...

Sue said...

Still waiting for my comment to appear, Nick. It was sent before the last two comments which have appeared. Nighty night.

Brockley Nick said...

I don't know what you're talking about, but if you think I am up at 2am moderating your thoughts about affordable homes, you overestimate my commitment.

Sue said...

 What a shame.

Sue said...

I sent Brockley Central some thoughts about industrial space actually which you have chosen to block.

Sue said...

Proof that Brockley Nick censors stuff:

Sue said...

No, I wrote something at around 1-2pm that you didn't like, something nobody else could've taken offence at. Astonished at your response. Oh well guess you'll have to get your cape on and report the latest crash.

Monkeyboy said...

Weirdly he's allowed your complaint blowing the whole conspiracy wide open. Thank you, the people of brockley salute your dogged pursuit of truth.

Brockley Nick said...

I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't moderated any of your posts.

Brockley Nick said...

Ah Sue, I now see the problem. The post you posted was automatically blocked by our swearword filters. Post it again without swearing and you will have no problems. 

It appeared in the "recent comments" box, because that lists all posts, including the ones that are blocked from appearing.

Michael said...

Cringe

Anon said...

Are conrtributors to the internet more likely to be paranoid than those aren't?

Think someone at Goldsmith Collage should investigate, it is interesting how quickly people assume they have been delibrately 'censored'. 

The Real Welcome said...

Is this the same Sue who told us that the BBC prevented any questions about Lewisham Hospital from being asked on QT, shortly before they broadcast a whole 15 min debate? I think so.

Anon said...

All housing is affordable but possibly not for everyone.

To pretend a £40m property is unaffordable flies in the face of the sale of such properties.

Anon said...

Developments around Thurston Road are Thurston Road Industrial Estate which is the one presently being prepared. 52-54 Thurston Road which I believe used to be a breakers yard and lastly Sherwood Court which are currently industrial units.

It is proposed to build at Sherwood Court two 11 storey blocks to with 142 units and 410 bedspaces....do people see that working?

There's also the prospect the current Matalan & Mothercare site could go the way of the Industrial Estate.

Later this year on the over side of town the Ladywell Leisure Centre will become available for development, will they look towards the 6 storey fire station or the 17 storey tower blocks regarding the height of any proposals?

Another possible location for a tall residential building is where the Gamestation and Probabtion Service is located opposite the Library.  

Anon said...

OMG it's the much older brother to the proposal for 180 Brockley Road!
Must be a 5-10 year age gap, don't wish to draw comparisons, but just can't help it, you can see how they're related.

Headhunter said...

This really will create a fume filled chasm along Lewisham Way!  I'm not sure whether I'm for or against these high rise developments.  On the down side they certainly alter the skyline and views from Hilly Fields etc, it also puts a strain on local transport and other amenities (or lack of).  However I am all for efficient use of urban land, in the 70s and 80s there was a trend for cities like London to sprawl, increasingly expanding over whilst the centres became urban wasteland.  I'm all for use of brownfield sites over greenfield....

brockmk said...

 I don't think there's any vision from Lewisham council about what they want Lewisham to be, hence the apparent lack of any joined up thinking. Lewisham's already a dormitory borough, with little hint of that changing.

Lewisham is a dormitory said...

 Given the paucity of amenities and places of entertainment in Lewisham, maybe the idea is that the residents of these new flats will avail themselves of the much heralded fantastic arts scene that exists in Deptford....if they can find it.    These are dormitory developments and the residents will spend their earnings elsewhere, near where they work.  Lewisham have lost out on an opportunity to develop a lively town centre.  It doesn't even have a cinema!

Anon said...

People seem to forget Lewisham Gateway which was supposed to kickstart the regeneration of the surrounding areas. What has actually happened is the reverse, so the nightlife activities and entertainment would be in that development.

For example there is/was a proposal for a coffee house/restaurant on a strip of land infront of the Georgian terrace.
 
Hither Green now has it's own hotel which will put the area on the international map with its quick and easy access to the main tourist attractions and such venues as the o2.

https://www.airbnb.es/rooms/882380

Sue said...

The name of the BBC producer who told us this is Alison Fuller. She also gave us a list of people who would be on the panel – completely different from the guests who actually appeared and who were listed on the website. Would you like her number?

Anon said...

London's population has declined from 9.1m in 1960 to 7.6m in 2010, so the nonsense about transport infastructure is rather overplayed.

Brockley Nick said...

1. The pop of London according to the 2011 census, was 8.2m http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/census-result-shows-increase-in-population-of-london-as-it-tops-8-million/censuslondonnr0712.html

2. It's not really comparing like with like to talk about the population of 1960, which was (I am guessing) younger (greater proportion not of working age), less mobile (more local employment, less pressure at rush hour) and differently distributed (East London in particular was hollowed out in the 1960s / 70s due to the decline in the docks. 

So not really relevant to look at London population - the question is how Lewisham's population is changing. Undeniably, new homes will mean an increased population and this will put extra pressure on transport. But it's also undeniable that many will be working at Canary Wharf and that Lewisham is at the start of the line and that the DLR capacity has been increased massively in the last few years. 

So in public transport terms, I don't see why this should be a problem. 

Monkeyboy said...

There's been a relentless rise in tube passenger numbers and I'm sure that's reflected on London trains. It's projected to grow further, it's a self reinforcing. More transport means access to jobs which encourages traveling....

Lewisham congestion said...

That increase owes a great deal to the fact that owning and running a car in London has become progressively more expensive.  Ever expanding CPZs, Congestion zone, Speed restrictions, Cameras everywhere.  People are being forced to use public transport and to pay excessively for a service that is often found wanting.

Commuting into central London is often a miserable experience. 

Anon said...

I think any area which has been screwed up is the junction of Bromley Road and Southend Lane, with tall buildings on both sides of Bromley Road.

Warren2warren said...

I think the plans and drawings look good.
As for B & Q Spot on!

Flatpack said...

 Don't they usually have a huge car park for their customers?

roysavage said...

An improvement on what is currently there. however where are the parking facilities, how do they intend to alleviate the up bunged traffic.

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!