929 Cheapside Street - 6s (Approved)
 

A six (6) storey mid-rise apartment building with 105 residential units is proposed at the southwest corner of Cheapside and Barker (which is about halfway between Adelaide and Highbury).

The property currently has a vacant one-story building which used to be The Cheapside Market.

The applicant is Corley Developments. There is a developer with that name based out of Kitchener/Waterloo that has constructed a few mid-rise buildings recently. :)

Planning application page: https://london.ca/business-development/p...anning-applications/929-cheapside-street

Planning application notice: https://london.ca/sites/default/files/20...20Cheapside%20Street%20%28Z-26003%29.pdf


https://i.imgur.com/RqHPuQM.png

https://i.imgur.com/Q48ZGUE.png

Great spot for infill after they finally demolished the old greenhouse market building on the site. Hopefully it flies thru approvals and they get a shovel in the ground soon.

PEC mtg for this scheduled March 10th.

https://london.ca/business-development/p...anning-applications/929-cheapside-street

Lack of parking stalls zoning application at PEC vote is 1-4 against.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/park...y-apartment-proposal-in-northeast-london

Developer will be revising the zoning application to address a number of issues.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/article/co...-east-london-being-revised-by-developer/

They have already submitted a revised zoning application that shrinks the footprint of this 6s building by cutting off the west side and using that space for some additional parking spaces.

Zoning amendments to allow:
•A six (6) storey mid-rise apartment building.
•105 residential units (310 units per hectare)
•46 vehicular parking spaces (0.44 spaces per unit)
•33 bicycle parking spaces (0.31 spaces per unit)

REVISED Zoning amendments to allow:
• A six (6) storey apartment building.
• 79 residential units (235 units per hectare)
• 55 vehicular parking spaces (0.69 spaces per unit)
• 80 bicycle parking spaces

https://london.ca/business-development/p...anning-applications/929-cheapside-street

revised drawings

https://london.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/2.%20Revised%20Architectural%20Drawing%20Package.pdf

This is certainly a money saver but still will be challenged because the parking ratio to units is still low. An alternative would have been to have an underground parking level and surface parking to get the ratio closer to 1:1. Obviously adding an underground level would have increased the construction costs substantially and time to build.

Worth noting that council has requested a draft city wide amendment to return to a 1:1 parking space to unit ratio with some exemptions.
https://london.ca/business-development/p...planning-applications/parking-provisions

The new NIMBY battle cry.

“The biggest angle that we are focusing on is that we aren’t against development, but we are pro community-first development,” :koko:


https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/as-b...-backlash-grows-in-london-neighbourhoods

cheapside
 

I appreciate the drop in residents..but there is a bylaw against anything over 3 stories for our neighborhood and I think it should be upheld as such. Once of the defining reasons for buying in this area was knowing that restriction was in place and has been for decades. 6 stories are three too many and that need to be addressed as well . with thanks...

I believe Cheapside is a neighbourhood connector type which now allows 4s. https://london.ca/newsroom/city-council-...rting-creation-new-housing-opportunities I suspect the amended zoning application will still be voted down because the parking ratio to units is still not close enough to 1:1 They will likely need to take one or two floors off to get to a 1:1 ratio plus some visitor spaces if they don't want to bite the bullet and add an underground parking level. Which trade offs they will go with time will tell.

I'm still not in favor of any part of the building shown above.. The March meeting stated clearly we were not in favor of it coming... If it goes in it should not in any way negatively impact our community. and if the zoning law changed.. I don't support it. We are surrounded by three story buildings.. they are big enough...and they do at least contain the parking for residents and visitors.. essential for any residential structure. this concept is not ok .

I have to add on to the note above these concerns as well..No parking for around 50 cars...averaging around 25 cars down Sterling and Barker street...day and night ..in winter will the plow push all the snow to the non parking side? They wont want to be damaging cars..so that will mean the side without parking will get all the snow pushed into their driveways...leaving the parked side with areas unplowed.?. That is a lot of snow removal for one side of the street...and very unhealthy...What about winter garbage collection...are they going to navigate around parked cars all the time..... that can be dangerous in winter too..not to mention the narrowing winter streets... for residents to get around...In March a lot of people including our local representative said no to this.. so why is it still going ahead?

here's why..
 

If people are thinking its just a building ...why worry. here is what it's construction does to the community... it removes the restrictions that have held back high rise buildings for decades... By allowing parking on streets it sets precedent that more buildings can go in without proper parking. Since the local residents absorb it..Once they break ground at one site...more can be copied and pasted into any open area. Sterling street has a lot a green space behind it that can hold similar buildings and more parking can go to the street since its been done once... That is why it shouldn't go through. The restrictions should have kept it off the drawing board completely.. and this old army district has a history and look that should be left alone.. No was the answer in March on a weekday afternoon and No is still the answer..Its a flood gate we don't want to open...

City planning staff is recommending that Council approve the zoning changes for this 6-storey apartment building. The applicant reduced the number of units from 105 to 79, and added about 10 more parking spaces.

However, they are not recommending Council to approve the applicant's requested setbacks. They were requesting a minimum exterior side yard depth of 0.75 metres (whereas 8.0 metres is required), a maximum lot coverage of 40% (whereas 30% is required), a minimum landscaped open space of 17% (whereas 30% is required).

https://pub-london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=124194

This goes to the planning committee on June 9th and then to full council on June 23rd.


--------


I actually thought the same thing as well, but the report says that 6-stories is now allowed at the intersection of two neighbourhood connectors (as part of the recent London Plan updates), which Cheapside and Barker are.

Council voted to approve the zoning changes for this building.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/article/st...eighbourhoods-oppose-infill-development/