Murky Depths

News in London and beyond

Sidcup

Former Sidcup Leisure site to see new homes and gym

Courtesy Google

Plans have been submitted to demolish what remains of the former Sidcup leisure centre and build a new gym with 27 flats and undercroft parking.

Sidcup’s former leisure centre closed and was replaced by the current facility back in 2008. Much of the site has been levelled since with the frontage remaining.

Bexley Council’s conservation officer requested developers retain the frontage in plans during pre-application meetings though developers intend to demolish. It’s not in great shape currently though officers sought to refurbish to an as-new condition.

Developers have also rejected a request to include a through-route for pedestrians.

Bexley Council’s rules state nine of the 27 flats should be “affordable” or a payment made for off-site housing. According to developers the council did not get back to them on this issue during two pre-application meetings.

The Planning Statement notes:

“Officers confirmed they will follow up with confirmation if a financial contribution can be made as an alternative to providing affordable units on Site; however, no formal pre-application comments have been received to date from LBB”.

Bexley Council has a poor record of securing “affordable” housing at many schemes.

Approved this year

Near this site a plan was approved earlier this year to demolish co-op and build a block of flats. Developers there argued they could not provide any “affordable” homes on site and would give payment for homes elsewhere.


Enjoy the site? Help me continue to meet running costs by donating here

————————————————————————————————–

Given “affordable” housing now includes cost levels up to 80 per cent of market rates, which could still mean £300,000+ for a small two-bed flat in Zone 5 or 6, claims that providing that is not possible highlights the housing mess we are now in.

Co op plans

Where “affordable” is being built there is a risk of sink estates being created. Just last week Bexley Council approved a 100% so-called affordable development in Slade Green on a tight plot beside a curved section of railway which forms the loop line linking the Woolwich and Bexleyheath line.

Slade Green affordable housing site wedged next to curved loop line track

Anyone lived near curved track? It’s often pretty loud with squeaking rails. The Slade Green depot is also nearby with trains moving throughout the night.

Montreaux Ltd are the developers behind this plan. Last week this site covered how they’ve purchased land in Charlton with plans to build up to 1,500 homes.

This development in Sidcup will go before Bexley’s planning committee in coming months.

Click here to view and comment on these plans.

Help support the site by donating here. You can also become a monthly supporter here.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support fromthemurkydepths on Patreon!

7 Comments

  1. SANDRA VAMPLEW

    I have major concerns regarding local facilities and traffic congestion if we have even more flats. Currently Doctors are over subscribed, and the hospitals are overloaded. The main roads are congested during peak times and with the removal of the Coop, significantly less places for reasonable shopping and parking. I am very concerned with Bexley councils attitudes and think we need an independent enquiry as to what is going on.

    • fromthemurkydepths

      Similar arguments surface every time housing is proposed and have for decades. Increasing numbers of people are already in the area but often being squeezed into ever more overcrowded existing properties – often converted from family homes. At least with new builds numbers can be counted and family homes preserved. The issue is funding for services.

      As for cars the number of people under 40 driving has dropped substantially since the 90s as public transport has increased sharply. We need investment in public transport.

      Regarding an inquiry are you referred to housing overall in the borough? It’s conforming to London and national standards in terms of meeting the need for new homes. In terms of affordable homes that’s something else and does need scrutiny.

  2. Philip Waller

    Squeaky train tracks, shame.

    Like the people who live next to me who are in a 3 bedroom semi who don’t work and have their shopping delivered,

    spare me the tears about affordable housing , too many people who can work who won’t work is a major problem. Spend oa week on Sidcup high street, there you will find the feckless spending their hard earned on beers in the Taylor’s chalk I have to get up at 515 every morning and if I MISS my payment I am out of my house.The largesse of the welfare state is the death of most western countries. It’s the reason why we are in such a state.

    • fromthemurkydepths

      Ah yes everyone in “affordable” is a freeloader. Stick them in a hovel. Maybe a workhouse?

      Please, stop the drivel.

      Here’s an idea – if housing wasn’t so expensive the welfare bill would be far lower. Do you know how much elevated housing costs the country each year nationwide?

      It’s obvious you havn’t the first clue how expensive much “affordable” housing actually is or who lives in them nor how diverse the term is. Still, go ahead and lump everyone in the same bracket. You know “affordable” rents are higher than mortgage costs right on a like-for-like basis? And affordable homes are often part buy (so a mortgage) and then rent on top? Probably not given how ignorant you appear.

      It doesn’t even sound as if your neighbours are in affordable housing but private lettings. A totally different tenure.

      One of the most idiotic and lazy comments in a while. Your neighbours don’t work = everyone must have high housing costs.

  3. Sidcup Person

    Excellent point about need to invest in public transport. Your points on affordable housing are spot on – it is the greed of those owning more than one home (in many, many cases many homes) with a view to rent at high cost that keeps the cost of homes in the south east unaffordable for those on a “normal” wage nd therefore trapped in rent thereby making the rich richer.

    Any idea who the developer will be? Perhaps BexleyCo? Any independent enquiry must look at all aspects of the setting up of this company in the wake of the Bexley Park sales and ensure that no one involved in the advice given to councillors to sell the parks (to try and make up the terrible shortfall in money due to Bexley’s appalling financial mismanagement of public finances in the wake of the bank collapses in the 2000s) – if any person connected with the sale of parks is working in a high paid post for BexleyCo it must be immediately shut down…

  4. J.A.

    I can only see this being a positive for the area. Only thing that could be of concern is parking for the gym. From the plans there doesn’t seem to be an abundance of parking. For a gym that size they will require at least 30 spaces which if aren’t provided by the scheme will likely mean the adjacent roads could become flooded with gym members cars. Just a thought..

  5. CDT

    Firstly I say the mixed housing/gym scheme will far better than a empty property which will be allowed to fall in to disrepair and have a detrimental affect on the area. Sadly a lot of retailers are not interested in opening new shops on our high streets at the moment due to the large increase in on line shopping.

    I do agree however, that more investments is needed to provide more health care facilities including GP surgeries along with new schools etc. While also improving the public transport infrastructure to meet the demand of the growing populations that come with any new developments.

Leave a Reply to fromthemurkydepths Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Theme by Anders Norén