MarkT

The time to get buildings listed is before planning permission is given to make radical changes. Time is running out to make objections to plans for Railway Rise: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565779 MarkT

Rendelharris, Thanks, I also had believed that distances were measured from the cross in front of Charing Cross Station, but your answer still leaves me with a little confusion. You say that the original Eleanor's Cross stood at the "top" of Whitehall. I assume by "top" you mean the end at which the Cross stood. Which end of Whitehall is that? MarkT

Thanks for the reminder, jev. Many good arguments have been well put by others, I felt repetition would be unhelpful. I've just submitted my objection as follows: "The existing stadium site is designated in Southwark's Policies map as Other Open Space so replacing the stadium with flats is contrary to Southwark's Saved UDP Policy 3.27. The site is within the Suburban Zone so, under the London Plan Policy 3.4 and Table 3.2, development is limited to heights of 2-3 storeys. TFL maps show the site to have a PTAL of 3 so, under the London Plan Policy 3.4 and Table 3.2, density is limited to 250 hr/ha." MarkT

The green colour is probably due to plankton such as single-celled algae. Before the fountain was restored to operation a few years ago, the pond was full of water lilies, with a large population of newts. MarkT

Do you have a washing machine waste joining the sink waste above the u-bend? If yes, then sink water can run back into the washing machine waste pipe, partially blocking it with sink sludge. It's above the water trap so it stinks. To minimise that problem tie up a loop of the hose as high as you can, so it is above the water level in the sink. The washing machine should then keep it flushed out. MarkT

See the link, and on the right of the screen select "1936-52 mixed" http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes MarkT

Buddug, Well done for putting in the FOI request. From my experience the Council typically responds precisely on the 20th working day from receipt of an FOI request. I assume that?s what you refer to as 10 days left to run. As I understand it, 20 days is the maximum allowed, by the FOI Act, for an answer to your request (the answer might be, of course, reasons why they can?t provide the info). If they can supply the information before 20 days, then they may legally do so. In this case you have already been told by the Council?s press officer: ?Our building control officers visited the site and did the inspections that are within their remit.? Therefore information has already been given to the press officer, so why not to you? I think that the Council should immediately publicise the record of Inspections. I would accept that names are redacted until the culpability of individuals has been properly investigated. I think also that the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive should immediately apologise for allowing a press officer anywhere near this. The press officer?s statement is of course highly questionable. For buildings, so new, to require refurbishment or demolition demonstrates major flaws in the ?building process? which should been identified during construction. MarkT

Renata, I must question your statement: "There have been changes in legislation since planning permission was first gained for the properties. The new numbers 44 and 46 will need to follow the Southwark and London plan." What is this this change in legislation? As I understand the situation Southwark Council was supposed to follow the London Plan when these blocks were approved, but did not do so. Recent approvals around East Dulwich show that it still does not do so. In the specification of height and density for developments, the London Plan has not changed. Clearly the legislation you refer to is consistently disregarded. Perhaps the point you are making is that the London Plan limits re-development in this location to 4 storeys and accordingly a far lower density than exists; i.e fewer dwellings. If the Council and the owners were to make a binding commitment with regard to long-term and intermediate rehousing of the residents directly affected and to the replacement of these shoddy buildings with quality affordable housing, this might be a good argument, in this instance, for exceeding the London Plan densities. MarkT

The intended purpose of the community notice boards was exemplified at the start of this thread, to advertise Community events such as Goose green fair or Dulwich Festival. The East Dulwich Community Centre, which hosts up to 50 different groups in a year, self rations to one standing poster on the Community Boards. The Barry Area Residents Association, which covers a third of East Dulwich does likewise. All the above examples represent efficient use of the limited available space on the boards and the precious time of the individuals who volunteer to manage them, including our local councillor. Individual classes cover a wide spectrum from voluntary to commercial, some being franchises turning a nice profit for the beneficiaries of a national business. If we allow use of the boards to one group how can we deny others? Is advertising a specific class an appropriate use of the Community notice boards? MarkT

Texas, NYYoung stated that "Southwark Council Building Control signed off the buildings" in the letter from residents to Harriet Harman. NYYoung, do you have any references for that? MarkT

Thanks Noelwd for posting that. I wonder if Southwark Council planning officers, or Planning Committee members, will read it. It includes a reminder that they are supposed to follow the London Plan. ?1.14 Boroughs? local development documents have to be ?in general conformity? with the London Plan, which is also legally part of the development plan, and in accordance with which a planning application must be determined in any part of London, unless there are material planning reasons why it should not.? There have been a series of 4 storey approvals in East Dulwich, within the Suburban Zone, which the London Plan Policy 3.4 (and Table 3.2) Defines as 2-3 storeys. The density in those approvals accordingly exceeds the London Plan Policy. In each case, the officers report makes no mention of that Policy even when it is specifically cited by objectors. Two of those recent approvals are for upward extensions, a fourth storey to an existing building ? Crown House and the former Iceland building. I think that neither would qualify for consideration under the new proposal. ?2.9 We are proposing a new permitted development right in London to allow additional storeys to be built on an existing building, up to the height of an adjoining roofline.? The Crown House addition was described as a ?third floor?, and was approved by officers. Within days the 4 storey height was cited by officers as a precedent to justify 4 storeys for the nearby Crystal Palace Road factory site. In each case officers made no mention of London Plan Policy 3.4. I wonder if Southwark Council will contribute to the consultation. Perhaps to share experience over the former Iceland site. ?2.4 We would welcome views from developers and local planning authorities on their experience of securing planning permission for this type of development, and what the key considerations were in developing and implementing their proposals to build upwards.? MarkT

Rowanofsky, try this: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-3/policy-34-optimising Southwark Council has designated this as Suburban Zone and TfL website shows Dunstans Road to have a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) of 2. Habitable rooms (hr) include dining/sitting rooms and the developers state the area to be 406sqM. A hectare (ha) is 10,000sqM. I have just submitted my objection as follows: London Plan Policy 3.4 states that ?development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.? Table 3.2 defines Suburban Zone development as 2-3 storeys and, for a PTAL of 2, limits the density to 250 hr/ha. This proposal is therefore a storey too high and over twice the density specified in the London Plan.

Thanks Cllr Charlie Smith for your post re the Community Council meeting. You say: "It was agreed by the Councillors present at the meeting to hold talks with officers to look at this again." It would be nice to know if that was also agreed by the officers. MarkT

Southwark's Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 paragraph 1.2(a) provides a very good reason as to why increased visibility may not improve safety at any particular junction: ?b. Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.? This needs to be considered for each individual junction. MarkT

Thanks, Bels123 for quoting, above, 8 reasons given by Southwark to justify the blanket application of double yellow lines extending 10M from junctions. If this were required by national law, then all other reasons would be redundant. However, the Council?s first point shows that it is the Council's choice; the Council can decide to allow parking within 10M: ?motorists must not park within 10 metres of a junction, unless in a designated parking bay? Surely at some of these junctions now designated for 10M double yellows lines, the Council has already built out pavements to provide recessed parking within a few metres of the corner. Did that improve safety? Was it all a waste of time and money? With regard to the key argument that the proposed parking restrictions will increase visibility, the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 paragraph 1.2(a) provides a very good reason as why increased visibility may not improve safety at any particular junction: ?b. Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.? Therefore, it is meaningless, in this context, to quote statistics of cycling accidents at junctions, without stating which of those junctions were high or low visibility. With regard to the last bullet point concerning the safety of wheelchair users this does not seem to be a universal consideration for Southwark Council: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1622398 Their assertion that ?By introducing double yellow lines at junctions we ensure that we meet the needs of all road users?, I believe is meaningless. This is a matter for balancing the needs of different groups, and for assessing the potential safety benefit for each junction, case by case. MarkT

LondonMix, The Crystal Palace development is for 22 dwellings including 4 bedroom town houses. Officers calculated the density as about double the policy limit. The officers' report stated that it was made acceptable by the promise of 35% affordable housing (which was in any case a policy requirement for anything over 10 dwellings) and recommended refusal if that was not legally agreed. The application was approved subject to that legal agreement. Once the application was approved, the developers applied to vary the 35% to zero. You'd have had to be at the appeal hearing to judge whether the the Council threw in the towel. A line of high ranking property and planning officers essentially stated that the deal had been made in good faith and the developer should stick to it - a morally upstanding position, but not a winning argument. Having previously gained the change of use on the claim that they had tried and failed to let the factory, the developers now stated that it was empty at their own choice; factory space was now in high demand; commercial rents were rising rapidly and they had underestimated the floor area. They had also underestimated the costs of building so high and so deep. Their potential profit was marginal. MarkT

In the interests of balance I should point out that one of our other councillors turned up to oppose the application for the Crystal Palace Road factory site. He put up a good fight but the committee appeared somewhat predisposed to accept the officer's recommendation to abandon policy and approve the over dense, over height application on a promise of 35% affordable housing, later varied to zero. MarkT PS To be fair to the Planning Committee, one member abstained.

I am otherwise occupied on Tuesday. As the Council is pre-empting the Appeal by capitulation, I suppose we?ll never learn HM Inspector?s view. The officers? Report states that they had been minded to reject and, though I can?t find it now on-line, I think their recommendation to the Inspector was to reject, but the reasons cited were fixable details. If they really meant to reject, I think they could have done so, if they had acted within the statutory period, on clear policy grounds without reference to Planning Committee. With regard to the existing permission for 8 flats, the wording in the Council?s Policy would not seem to require clear proof of intent: ?The council will seek to ensure that proposals deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold of 10 units will not be accepted.? With regard to height and density the London Plan, I think, is pretty clear. Table 3.2 defines Suburban development as up to 3 storeys and 350 Hr/Ha, and Policy 3.4 states: ?Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.? The Officer?s Report makes no mention of London Plan Policy 3.4 or Table 3.2, even though specifically referenced by several objectors. The Report does, however, cite Policy 3.3 ?Increasing Housing Supply?. By approving this plan, which on the face of it replaces the existing approval, the Council has, paradoxically, accepted a reduction of 6 units. Whatever has gone wrong with the processing of this application, there seems to be a pattern in recent applications in the neighbouring Suburban Zone ? Crystal Palace Road factory site; Railway cottages; Crown house. All 4 storeys and well over policy density. In each case officers list a string of London Plan policies but not 3.4 or Table 3.2. In each case, however, they state that it is in the Suburban Zone. Why? If they are not applying the definitions, what is the point of the ?Suburban? label? MarkT

First Mate, I did say that the solution was simple - to redesignate ED as Urban - but the process would require full and protracted consultation. The current policies have been in place since 2007. Jeremy, I think that anything that exceeds the policy definitions and guidelines is, by definition, overdevelopment. Policies are arrived at through a defined thorough and lenthy process, giving every statutory body and interested party a chance to contribute. They therefore can take account of every aspect of infrastructure - road capacity, public transport, energy and water supply, education and health services etc along with local history and the collective wishes of residents. Of course the policies leave scope for balancing one factor against another, but the London Plan specifically states that all other requirements should be satisfied within the defined densities. If individual developments are considered strictly in accordance with policies, they can rightfully be approved speedily with minimal consultation. Through repeated rounds of consultation, through generations of policies, the Council maintains the designation of East Dulwich as Suburban and therefore the London Plan definition applies. If there are good arguments for applying Urban heights and densities in East Dulwich then they should be put forward in the preparation of the New Southwark Plan, and subjected to full statutory consultation. MarkT

Re the comment from LondonMix, the application that will be decided by Planning Sub-Committee B next Tuesday makes no mention of the change of use from offices on the existing second and third storeys to eight flats, which has already been approved. Southwark?s Residential Design Standards SPD states: ?where there is an extant planning permission and a fresh planning permission is submitted for a revised scheme taking the total units above 10 units, the residential design standards for major applications will be applied. The council will seek to ensure that proposals deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold of 10 units will not be accepted.? As the Director of Planning is recommending approval, he is unlikely to work hard at persuading Councillors to do their duty under that policy. As regards height, and density, planning decisions are supposed to follow policy, not precedent. Southwark Council has designated East Dulwich as Suburban Zone. The Suburban (and Urban Zone) label comes from the London Plan and carries with it a definition limiting height and density (London Plan Table 3.2). For a mixed commercial/residential development in the Suburban Zone, this proposal is a storey too high and about double the limiting density. The London Plan (Policy 3.4) states: ?Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.? As the Director of Planning is recommending approval, he is unlikely to work hard at persuading Councillors to do their duty under that policy. If the Council does not adhere to its own policies, the result is chaos. The designation of East Dulwich as Suburban is restated in the draft New Southwark Plan. For those who wish for taller buildings and higher densities in East Dulwich, and that seems to include the Director of Planning, and all the Councillors who approve over-dense and over-height developments, the solution is simple: re-label East Dulwich as Urban Zone. MarkT

Yesterday I received notification from the Director of Planning, Southwark Council, that Application 15/AP/2221 is to be decided by Planning Sub-Committee B next Tuesday 8th March. That?s the application to add a 4th floor comprising 2 flats with use of 2nd and 3rd floor as offices. The Officer?s Report is not available yet, but the Director writes that he is recommending it for approval. I checked today with the HM Planning Inspectorate who confirmed that the Appeal hearing against the non-determination of that same application ? Ref APP/A5840/W/3065783 ? is set for 10th May with a deadline for comment 23rd March. MarkT

The photos in the OP show the bike shed placed bang up against the the wheelchair crossing point, blocking off two thirds of the sloping kerb stone. When I am parking a car, I assume that slope to be part of the dropped kerb. That example appears to create a significant danger to emerging wheelchairs or pushchairs. It seems to counter the Council's general insistence on the need to increase visibility with extensive double yellow lines around dropped kerbs and junctions.

I've just submitted my appeal comment as follows, MarkT The proposal presented for this appeal is a changed version of the rejected application. The changes are in response to the reasons for refusal. This demonstrates acceptance of those reasons and hence the acceptance of the refusal. Surely this should be presented as a new application rather than an appeal. The Southwark Plan designates this location as Suburban Zone. This is confirmed in the draft New Southwark Plan. The London Plan, updated 2015, in the Notes to Table 3.2, defines the Suburban Zone as 2-3 storeys. The London plan specifies heights as numbers of storeys, specifically in relation to density of new development (Table 3.2 and Notes to Table 3.2). The appellant?s claim that the refused 4 storeys is somehow equivalent to 3 of higher ceilings is spurious. According to the London Plan, other features of the scheme cannot be used to justify additional height and density. Policy 3.4 states: ?Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.? Developments in the neighbouring Urban Zone, or any that predate current policies cannot be treated as precedents. The only example cited by the applicant that does come within the Suburban Zone and current policies is the garden centre site, on which permission has been granted for a 4 storey development. The Council states that the garden centre site is a special case, that because of its civic role, incorporating a library, and its location directly adjacent to the station, the garden centre development ?has a legitimate role as a local landmark that is worthy of some presence?. In claiming the garden centre site as a precedent, the appellant rejects the Councils claim that the garden centre proposal is special. I understand that it is the same developer who owns both sites; if so this suggests a cynical attitude; that the developer would seek to destroy that landmark potential which justified approval for the garden centre site.

If you have concerns about Goose Green Primary School results, please read the letter from the Chair of Governors: https://goosegreenprimaryschool.org/files/school-information/pupil-performance/Letter%20RE%20Year%206%20SATs%20results.pdf MarkT

A possible route for communication with the Council is through your local TRA - Tenants and Residents' Association. These are "Recognised" by the Council to represent Council tenants and leaseholders. BARA, the Barry Area Residents' Association, directly represents the area bounded by Friern Road, Lordship Lane, Crystal Palace Road and Upland Road. but membership is open to any Southwark residents. Many historic local TRA's have faded away over time, and the surviving ones are mostly Estate based. Estates of course include leaseholders, but BARA is probably the only remaining TRA representing an area almost entirely of street properties. About one fifth of all the residents in the BARA area are Council tenants or leaseholders BARA does not have a team of experts to directly respond to these issues. The experts are the individual leaseholders, such as those who have contributed to this thread on the Forum. But it can offer a forum to explore the issues and develop collective strategies and it can provide an official route of communication with the Council. BARA meets on the second Tuesday of the month at the East Dulwich Community Centre in Darrell Road. That's tomorrow night Tuesday 10th November at 8pm. MarkT