LondonMix

ED wasn't rough, had mostly period housing stock, had proximity to outstanding green spaces and a number of pubs. Also, the amenities of Dulwich Village (the museum, the quaint high street) were nearby and the transport links for Peckham and Denmark Hill are within walking distance. That's really enough. There were a lot of other places the same price as ED in the early and mid 2000s that were either much further out and suburban or closer in but that felt much rougher. ED was an obvious compromise to people that wanted some place not too rough and not too far. That's why the feel of the place now is a posh(ish)/ urban(ish) mishmash.

I agree the law has a loophole that should be closed as it creates uncertainty that undermines the delivery of affordable housing. Are you the only one allowed to use international comparisons to show how other markets deliver housing?

Hopefully a condition can be made that if the permission under the original planning application is ever used, the section 106 for this new planning application will kick in-- ideally a large payment in lieu of affordable housing. Developers shouldn't be able to circumvent the rules simply by making two applications to achieve the original end. Very dishonest behavior.

I agree a certificate of lawfulness (showing that what you've built conforms with permitted development) will make selling it easier (though its not impossible to sell without it). For that you need to submit a detailed application similar to planning permission except you are only getting confirmation that the plans conform. I wouldn't wait to get the confirmation to start building necessarily if you are confident they are compliant. Either way, you do need to notify building control of the works which is a separate branch of the council. Good luck, its well worth it! Why don't you want a side return though? My two cents is that it feels like you are getting much more space with a side return than a rare extension unless your kitchen is already unusually wide.

I believe it. The Elephant and Castle case is worse. The craziest part of it is that they can claim that the value of the land they already own going up in value squeezes their development profit. In the variation analysis, the land (even though the developer already owns the land) is marked up to fair value (rather than purchase price) to test if the developers returns are viable. Its such an insane way to test these things.

What a crock of sh!t. Don't the variations need to assessed by a 3rd party and signed off? If so, whoever that 3rd party is needs to be audited (and jailed). Why is this variation loophole not the thing that's got people up in arms, starting petitions and marching in the streets. When I see petitions for small chain toy stores instead it makes me wonder what the hell is going on. The government needs to reverse its position on this 100%. MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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

You can keep on repeating that Frazer but the only problem with the policy is that its poorly enforced. It needs to be made stronger not abolished. There is no reason why a requirement for affordable housing should restrict total housing developed. In NY, developers are rewarded for affordable housing. The gross buildable area is fixed for each zone relative to the plot size (FAR). For every sqm of affordable housing you develop you can develop additional market rate units above and beyond the FAR limit up to a maximum amount. This works very well. Ambiguity and the ability to get section 106 varied out of applications is the only issue and its unacceptable that the planning system continually allows this to happen. The ability to vary these conditions needs to removed (and the previous system restored). This is one of the worst changes that's been implemented in the planning system in recent times.

Was at Peddler weekend before last-- its great. There is a wave of new openings in Peckham that are giving the area an extra kick and buzz. I've been going out there a lot in recent months to try all the new places. While they are all good, with only a few exceptions, I wouldn't say there are that many I would break my neck to head back to rather that eating in ED but its nice to have a change :) Besides the revamped Indian place and Meat Liquor, new openings aren't on the horizon in ED for a while, which is fine. It's all swings and roundabouts.

People lose and break their phones much more often than they are mugged for them. If that type of thing never happens to you then fair play. In my twenties (which are becoming a distant memory) I feel like we were all breaking and losing phones. Probably correlated to the alcohol consumption.

You don't know what you are talking about Frazer. If the planning system strictly enforced section 106 requirements, the impact would be on land values. If everyone bidding knew for a certain fact they would be required to build affordable housing it would be baked into the bidding numbers. It's entirely possible to build affordable housing profitably-- high house prices in London are due to high land values not high building costs. Its the fact that developers can often circumvent the rules that's the problem. They either overbid the land on the assumption they'll be able to convince the council its not economic to build affordable housing or they don't overbid but create a false financial analysis (see Elephant Park) that suggests they cannot build affordable housing. The Elephant Park scenario is really despicable. There is a reason why they (and Southwark) fought tooth and nail to prevent that information being released and its because its a true scandal. fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This development is a prime example if you still > don't understand > > > Would the developer build the extra flats if they > were "affordable" ? > > > Nope

Rahrahrah-- its near the gym on Crystal Palace Road.

Why was it varied to zero? That developers continually get away with this in a rising market is unbelievable. They are totally gaming the system and its disgusting. MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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.

People who work at the cinema have also confirmed to me that they were in negotiations for it a while back so that's not a rumour.

I'd keep one. Mobiles get smashed and stolen. Not being able to make a call under that already stressful situation is enough reason to keep one. I don't live alone but if you do, I'd say that its even more important.

Why do you say progress is slow. The opening was always to open summer 2016.

The owner wanted to turn it into a coffee shop but has run into planning issues.

The mega shortage for 2018 is now 2020 as the opening of the Charter school has mitigated the original figures. I believe the shortage is meant to be in the north of the borough not down here so it shouldn't necessarily shrink Charter ED's catchment after its intake doubles but I'm not 100% sure of that. Also, Southwark underestimated the applications for this year so anything can happen. I do think that the catchment of this school with a full intake and part of the normal preference application system is much more likely to be near a mile (possibly more) than half a mile. It'll be interesting to see what final distance is this year once all the movement on the waitlist is done.

Lack of light is different, but the disruption of building work not really. If you don't want to be disturbed by neighbours (building work disruption is temporary compared to the others!) you need to live in a detached house on a large plot. Its one of the downsides of living in a terrace / semi.

Their PAN will be larger when they have their school building (they'll be admitting 240 a year so the double of this year). All things being equal that would double the furthest distance offer. Equally important though is that their admission this year was outside the preference system. Everyone who wanted it as an option, including a last option were treated equally. In future years, people (like some on this thread) that preferred other schools over Charter ED will put the other schools first and potentially be allocated their preference rather than automatically being given a place at Charter that they reject. There should be more movement on the waitlist this year at Charter ED than in future years but the first round distance offer should be further away with less movement on the waiting list once the schools is part of the coordinated Southwark Admission process. Not sure if I've explained that well so someone else have a crack if this read like gibberish... Sunglasses Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > landsberger Wrote: > > > So the Charter ED catchment area is smaller > > than > > > 0.55miles in its first year! Ouch > > > > Given they are only taking 120 kids this year, > I > > am not entirely surprised. > > I thought catchment areas of popular schools > generally only ever get smaller?

ok, got it

Congrats Sophie. Piplings is/ was about 80 a day though cheaper certainly exist! Southwark publish a full list by ward including fees. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3272/nurseries Good luck.

Aren't the deliveries in the early morning? I could be totally wrong but I remember that from the planning application as some people were complaining they were too early / noise. I'm not sure though. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > F71, you may be right but that will cause a heck > of a lot of holdups on the Lane as there will be > lots and lots of deliveries. Poor people using > buses as primary form of transport at rush hour. > Imagine too if part of Melbourne is closed off to > traffic...the mind boggles.

Like I said, I was simply clarifying that the system is designed for everyone to put preferences first and that doing so in no way disadvantages anyone from their more realistic options if those are placed lower down on the list. In fact by doing so you automatically get on the waiting lists for the preferred schools if you are not admitted in the first round of offers.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to lecture you just clarify for anyone who might be applying next year and come across this thread. Its a confusing system. I'm glad you are happy with your outcome.

I found the answer to my second question-- the short answer is no. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/NICE%20Threshold%20Press%20Release%20190215.pdf The long answer is that the underlying assumption is that NHS resources (whatever they might be) are not specifically increased to fund any new treatments when the analysis is done so that the value of new treatments must be better than or equal to existing treatments on the NHS.