first mate

I agree the newer version of Harris is better than the old , save that it is bigger. This is not about ED being special but that buildings are proportionate and as aesthetically pleasing as they can be. I would not want to see tower blocks in ED, the character of the place would change beyond measure; but you are right, the argument about endless need for more and more housing is a useful peg for both councillors and developers to drive ever taller buildings through.

Jeremy, I know, you and I already have a history of disagreement on this issue, but tell me, is their a height you would object to or are you happy for builds to slowly creep up in height generally in the area? I think I already know the answer but thought I'd ask. The most recent version of Harris is taller than the last, you can see that from the drawings.

Mark T, Yes, so allowing 4 storeys will change that by setting precedent. The door will then be open for tower blocks and this is not as far fetched as it might sound, for one it can solve the headache of providing housing. Once local building height has been raised a few storeys in a few cases it is easy for developers to further exploit this. This may also serve the purposes of councillors who can state, as they have done in past applications which breach planning law, that the financial risk of objection and appeal is too great and so all and any developments go through. Of course, everyone will argue well we must have a school of decent size etc.. that must come first but, again, is there an attempt to squeeze too much into the available space? In terms of the current M$S proposal.. What is the pressing need for four storeys, other than lining the developer's pockets? An application for retail space and 8 residences had already been ok'd, so why the need for yet another storey atop a building that is only 3? If it really were only ever going to be limited to these two buildings it might be bearable, but it won't and next it'll be a five storey building, then more.

Otta, some gargoyles would be fun and a change from the bland, unimaginative boxes currently on offer. That said, it is the height that concerns me. As a one off it's okay, but along with the m&s proposal that sets a precedent for more of the same.

Not great is it. Think we can kiss goodbye to the E Dulwich skyline soon..that'll be two 4 storey buildings in close proximity on Lordship Lane.

Crikey, those houses look ghastly. Upland Road in ED is virtually a no go area because of developments happening simultaneously right opposite each other. The pavement has been taken away completely on one side and then you have all manner of large trucks and lorries parked up either side, leaving little room for motorists and even less for pedestrians, and yes it isvery unsafe and I fell sure there will be an accident soon. The larger developer has hoardings up boasting how community mindde and 'caring' they are...not (they are pretty rude actually). I really feel for the parade of shop owners who must be suffering and hope the devlopers have to compensate them for loss of earning..plus the houses to be built look awful as well. Then of course we have the police station to be converted into Harris. The mind boggles what disruption that will bring to the Lane. One also wonders why huge efforts are being made at this time to reduce parking and generally produce queues of traffic everywhere. Bizarre. Perhaps it is so Southwark can lease out parking for works on most of the roads to developers and builders?? Anyhow, I support your objection in Dulwich, developers seem to be able to make massive impositions on the local area giving nothing in return but securing vast profits for themselves.

LM, I think it is more a matter of the developer exploiting little loopholes and technical hitches, that is how they managed to get the okay on the third application for 8 residential dwellings on the 1st and 2nd storey. Actually I'd like to hear what James has to say about this, as our rep and someone who knows about planning.

LM, I suppose I am being frightfully cynical but even James labelled it classic salami slicing tactics, it just seems they are gaming the system for absolute maximum return and a cursory reading of docs attached to the latest application suggests to me, perhaps incorrectly because I do not know much about planning law, the developer is running rings around Southwark Planning and Councillors.

No, the objection is to the suspected number of residences the developer is aiming for and the fact that having got permission for 8 residences they have now reverted to an application to use that space for offices but seeking extra residences on top of those, making a three storey building into a four storey building. Also bearing in mind that a case was made that there was no market for office space when permission was sought for change of use to residential, though confusingly that space was already being used to let out two flats.

There is a limit to the number of residences allowed within a given space. James Barber said he would call in the last application as he also seemed to think they were aiming for loads of flats. They already had permission for 8 residences (I think it was) but then decided they wanted to add a 4th floor with two penthouses and this is where objections came in. So now they have submitted a 4th or 5th application keeping the penthouses but making the rest into office space. In earlier applications the case was made that there was no call for office space. Make of this what you will.

London Mix, sure perhaps it is for offices but the original three applications were all for flats and a case was made that there was no call/market for offices but great demand for flats. I am also amazed that a change of use for the third floor has so easily been achieved, if that is the case, since I know for a fact that there were two occupied flats on that floor only last year, and at a time ther is such demand for housing.

yeknomyeknom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ive never seen a small flat with double toilets. > A small office? Yes. Not a small flat. I have no > comment on the application itself but let's not > make up stuff so we have more to whinge about. With plumbing in place the space for two toilets is easily converted into a loo and bathroom- that's the point.

So still 4 stories high with penthouses on top and lots of, er, 'offices'; each office laid out with double toilets, separate kitchen area and general layout consistent with a small flat. So is this the next tactic? Rather than have the former application called in- as James Barber said would happen- they just submit a new very similar one?

Why not post a photo? It would help other i/d it. I am wondering if it is a wasps nest?

When horses were kept at the police station on Lordship Lane they used to be exercised in Dulwich Park.

It is clear that Iceland is closing and M&S in some form is moving in. What is not clear is whether a three storey building is to be made into four storey building. Addition of a fourth storey would have implications for the street height generally, and might set a precedent for higher buildings in future. James Barber had said the application for the fourth storey penthouses ( quite possibly proposed by the same developer who recently hit the news after knocking down a historic pub without permission) would be called in...but there has been no news since.

Will this common sense be applied to other roads where it was bring proposed to turn unrestricted parking into 'free parking' for one hour?

James, any news on the 4th floor penthouse application for the Iceland site? You did say it was being called in?

Wondering if James Barber has any news on the fourth storey penthouse application for this site and which he said was being called in.

That's no to increasing road closures and no to further parking restrictions. On another note 20mph is an absolute fiasco and Councillors should take a good look at what their meddling has achieved there. It is not adhered to. Buses are worst offenders, I would guess they have been told to ignore it.

Yes, please don't give the council an open door to impose yet more parking restrictions. It really won't help long term.

James, is there any news on M&S site and the penthouse, salami slicing, developer application? Last we heard the application was to be called in, is this still the case, has it happened yet? Any news very welcome.

I have put a question onto James' thread, just in case he is not monitoring this one.

Just to get this thread back on track. Can James Barber tell us what the latest is on the penthouse application. last we heard it was to be called in?