MarkT

"A better question would have been why Southwark don't build a number of properties itself on the site" Loz, spot-on. The BBC News report states: "The council said the property had been sold without planning permission for demolition, but that did not stop the new owners applying for it. Mr Livingstone added the money would be used to fund its housing investment programme which includes building 11,000 new properties in the borough by the 2040s." Perhaps Councillor Richard Livingstone could explain the economics. MarkT

Fazer71, The planning inspectorate seems to believe that there is a requirement. See Link http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/1186&system=DC See "Appeal Document - START DATE LETTER" See Page 2 "By 16 September 2015"

I've just discovered that an appeal was lodged some time ago for the rooftop extension. Appeal Reference W/15/3065783. The grounds for appeal is that Southwark Council failed to make a decision within the statutory period. The Appeal documents are on the Council's website alongside the application documents. Application 15/AP/1186. Included is a list of 60 addresses that were notified of the appeal by a letter from the Council on 11th September. My letter must have been either lost in the post or eaten by the cat. I am surprised though that over the last month, on this rather busy thread, which has included specific questions for updates on this application, and postings from usually well informed contributors, that nobody has mentioned the appeal. The deadline, by the way, for submissions to HM Inspector, is 14th October. I believe the Council is required to send on all objections that it previously received, but I think I will send mine separately. I won't take the risk that it might be eaten by HM Inspector's cat. MarkT

Southwark Council's planning register states that application number 15/AP/2698 Barry Road Parade has been withdrawn. MarkT

James: Re Visibility splays on crossovers: The Southwark Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 includes the following paragraphs that I quote in full: 1.2 Discussion a. Providing adequate visibility between street users is important to everyone?s safety. Visibility should generally be sufficient to allow road users to see potential conflicts or dangers in advance of the distance in which they will be able to break and come to a stop. 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. The officer responding to your Member Enquiry disregards the cautionary note in the Policy, with a contrary belief that increased visibility reduces danger: ?I think it is appropriate that we recognise these (classified) roads have demonstrably higher risk of collisions and ensure vehicles entering the highway have sufficient visibility splays provided to reduce this.? The warning in the Policy does not differentiate classified and non-classified roads. It suggests that the application of extended double yellow lines should be decided on a case by case basis. The increased splay allows vehicles to cross the pavement at increased speed. I think that presents a real danger to pedestrians.

I understand that the information has now been updated on the School website, with apologies from Goose Green School, and thanks to Belle for providing interim info. MarkT

James, re Railway Rise you say: "it's well and truly outside of our hands now." I think that is a little defeatist. Objectors to the original application are entitled to make representation at the Appeal, and in my experience this can be very effective. MarkT

Cella, do you mean it's only in part of your flat? If so, then it must be a fuse or circuit breaker on one circuit, eg lights or sockets, within your flat. MarkT

No date published yet for Planning Committee meeting to decide on the additional fourth floor http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9560814 MarkT

ednewmy you state: "In my experience, having been on both sides of the appeal process admittedly, these things will almost always go the way of the party seeking planning permission." Now I've just done a quick check on historic appeals: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes Taking Lordship lane, and a block either side from East Dulwich Station to the old police station by Whately Road, I count 36 appeals recorded. Taking no account of the nature of the application, I find only 9 of those were upheld for the applicant plus 1 partly upheld. Three of those 9 were for the same site address. All others - nearly 75% - are marked "Appeal Dismissed" Notably the appeal the old garden centre shows appeal dismissed, which I note from higher up this thread is also St Aidens. Is that the same St Aidens who did the large blocks across the Rye? They lost the appeal to add extra storeys in Solomons Passage. In my limited experience facing government planning inspectors, I find they will take account of a reasoned argument, including any evidence presented with regard to planning policies. This might include for example that in the suburban zone the London Plan limits develpment to 3 storeys.

James, you write: "I think adding another floor to the Iceland/M&S site would be potentially an over development." I suggest that the planning argument against this application would be based not on what we think should be, but that it is contrary to policy, therefore is actually defined as overdevelopment. Suburban Zone development is limited by the London Plan to 3 storeys. The density is limited to 350 rooms per hectare, or its equivalent in commercial floorspace, calculated with a precise conversion factor. The proposal therefore is one storey too many and about twice the policy density. In addition there is a clear policy regarding such a piecemeal application, that if the Planning Authority believes that there is a deliberate attempt to avoid obligations, then it must refuse. It has been pointed out above that the developer describes the proposed additional floor as a third floor rather than a fourth storey, which might also be considered by the Planning Authority as an attempt to mislead. We all have an opportunity to affect those policies, when they come under review, as currently with the new Southwark Plan. The Draft Southwark Plan clearly reaffirms the Suburban status for Lordship Lane. The definitions have been clearly restated in the 2015 update to the London Plan. As these matters are well defined in the Policies, refusal should in this case be automatic. Otherwise what a waste of all our effort in creating those policies. MarkT

James, I understand that they already have planning permission to convert the 2 floors of offices into 8 flats. The current application for the 4th storey pair of flats makes no mention of that prior approval but shows the 2 floors as offices. When you call in an application do you then attend the planning committee meeting to argue the case in person? MarkT

James I quoted the Southwark Streetscape Manual: ?research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at." You responded: ?Hi Markt, The Southwark Street Design Manual has many flaws. Doesn't allow new cycle parking, etc.? My point, which perhaps I should have made explicit, was that the SSDM warns against the indiscriminate use of measures that will increase visibility, such as double yellow lines. I don?t think that this contradicts anything else within the SSDM. Do I understand from your response that the cautionary statement in the SSDM is flawed? The suggestion that increasing visibility can increase speed does, I think, have a ring of truth. Would it not be wise therefore, to consider each proposed new section of double yellow lines individually, with regard to the potential for ?introducing dangers?? MarkT

Southwark Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 "Highway Visibility" states ?research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at." MarkT

If the purpose is to reduce speed in Melbourne Grove then surely putting double yellow lines at all the junctions will be counter-productive. It will provide a lot of passing places of sufficient length to allow passing at speed. It will also increase the visibility in and out of each junction ? ?research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.? (Southwark Streetscape Design Manual SDM DS114 Highway visibility). MarkT

first mate, you write: "The extensive M&S build right opposite Nx will also begin soon." Do you have actual information on that? Would they proceed according to the permission already received, or on the rather different application still awaiting permission? http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9560814 MarkT

We have a population of Goatsbeard - Tragopagon pratensis - at the East Dulwich Community Centre. I see it probably every year. We had a dozen separate plants this time - my photo attached. The flowers are now over and the seeds are dispersed. Has anyone seen it elsewhere in the neighbourhood? Is it rare in London? http://www.naturespot.org.uk/species/goats-beard MarkT

Here's the Cabinet Member's Decision: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5257

RCH wrote: "it looks like this Traffic Order mainly addresses the permanent parking restrictions (i.e., double yellow lines and School Keep Clear markers) along the build outs of all four arms of the junction redesign, which makes me think that the main junction redesign Traffic Order has already been publicised and approved." RCH, the following makes me think otherwise: DCC 17th March 2015. Agenda Item 8. Report from Head of Public Realm "Townley Road... Junction Improvements" Paragraph 6 "Informal public consultation took place for Option 8a... from 20th February 2015 to 13th March 2015? Paragraph 9 ?the Cabinet Member is recommended to approve the implementation of the proposed improvements associated with Option 8a? subject to completion of statutory procedures.? Paragraph 18 ?If approved for implementation this will be subject to statutory consultation required in the making of any permanent Traffic Management Orders. If any objections are received to that statutory consultation, that cannot be informally resolved, a further decision by the cabinet member will be required to consider and determine those objections? MarkT

James, you wrote: ?For non principal roads we've been assured policy changed so double yellow lines are no longer required. They also wont install white H bars. But we have several principal roads in the area such as Barry Road, Lordship Lane, Forest Hill Road, East Dulwich Road, East Dulwich Grove, Grove Vale, Half Moon Lane where officers still require double yellow lines. We're about to have our first example of a new crossover on Barry Road to test this out on. Having reversed the policy for most roads, how do the officers justify its retention for principal roads? National legislation allows parking on the street in front of a dropped kerb with the permission of the resident with no differentiate for class of road. Southwark?s Streetscape Design Manual ? SSDM ? Section DS 114 ?Highway Visibility? paragraph 1.2 states: ?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.? Again that does not differentiate class of road.

James, Re double yellow lines on dropped kerbs, from your recent postings I?m not clear as to the change in the policy, whether the double yellow lines will now be shorter or non-existent. There are 2 separate lines of reasoning in the purpose and objections to the policy - the parking/access rights and the safety issues relating to sight lines. On non-principle roads will a dropped kerb now be approved with no double yellow lines at all? Does the change in policy apply across the borough? Is it retrospective? You say you have asked the Cabinet Member to amend the manual. I understand, however, that the Cabinet Member's Decision of a few years ago was to delegate the writing of the SSDM to officers. Officers have written the manual and can now amend it, with no need for instruction or permission from any elected member. MarkT

DCC 17th March 2015. Agenda Item 8. Report from Head of Public Realm "Townley Road... Junction Improvements" Paragraph 6 "Informal public consultation took place for Option 8a... from 20th February 2015 to 13th March 2015? Paragraph 9 ?the Cabinet Member is recommended to approve the implementation of the proposed improvements associated with Option 8a? subject to completion of statutory procedures.? Paragraph 18 ?If approved for implementation this will be subject to statutory consultation required in the making of any permanent Traffic Management Orders. If any objections are received to that statutory consultation, that cannot be informally resolved, a further decision by the cabinet member will be required to consider and determine those objections? Paragraph 20 ?If it is to proceed, the scheme must be on site in July 2015 to comply with TfL funding restrictions? From the evidence in posts above, no statutory consultation seems to have taken place. MarkT

I don't think terrapins (Fresh water turtles) have successfully bred in Britain. All of the adults in London lakes were individually released. I think the young can't survive our winters. However a few mild winters giving time for a little evolutionary adaptation and we could have a future ecological problem. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/mutant-ninja-turtles-could-be-breeding-in-britains-canals MarkT

I oppose any application that is against current planning policy. Under Southwark's policies the whole of Dulwich is designated "Suburban Zone". The zone titles and definitions come from the London Plan. The Suburban zone is defined as 2-3 storeys in height with housing densities limited to a maximum of 350 habitable rooms per hectare with lower density limits set according to the Public Transport Accessibility Level. The London Plan states that developments should satisfy all the other policy requirements while keeping within the density limits. That includes the provision of affordable housing. The London Plan states "Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted." Southwark's Policies also clearly prohibit new building on previously undeveloped back gardens. The Southwark Plan is currently under review; the first stage in the consultation was earlier this year. Anyone who wishes to change the policies should engage in that process. The review of policy includes several long periods of consultation. It gives an opportunity for every aspect to be examined in public. Every interest group can have their say, the developers; the political parties; transport providers and users, historians, environmentalists; education and health providers, shoppers and commercial providers etc. The resulting policies can then take a balanced account of every consideration, to provide for general community needs. Everybody is then supposed to follow the policies. Planning applicants focus only on the issues that support their case. When they push for higher densities, taller buildings, inappropriate change of use, building in green spaces etc, the planning decision makers are under continual pressure to not only stretch policies to the limits, but to permit clear breaches in policy. The system is not supposed to be based on precedent, but inevitably it is. There is a surprising number of supporters to the inoffensive little house proposed in the previously undeveloped back garden to 51 Crystal Palace Road. I wonder how many of those are applicants in waiting for other gardens in the neighbourhood, determined to establish a precedent. I think the planning officers and councillors involved in the decision making need continuing support from the community in upholding planning policies, and objectors balance the applicant's spin with all the other considerations such as pressure on infrastructure and environment. Anyone who thinks the policies need changing should engage in the consultations. In the meantime, the London Plan definitions have been recently re-affirmed; the Draft New Southwark Plan maintains the designation of East Dulwich as Suburban. MarkT

TFL website shows Public Transport Accessibility Level for Dulwich Village to be 2 on a scale of 6. Accordingly, the maximum density for developments shown on Table 3.2 of the London Plan is 250 habitable rooms per hectare. The proposed development is considerably denser than that. London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential: ?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.? MarkT