Zak

Good point First Mate, I think that there are perhaps five points that can be made in putting forward an objection, which are all drawn from to the reasons that Southwark refused planning permission in the first place. 1. The proposed building itself is unacceptable. "Due to its inappropriate height, scale, massing, siting and design, the proposal, following the demolition of the existing cottages, would appear as excessively dominant and incongruous in this location" It's a totally inappropriate building to erect in that space. 2. The way it doesn't fit in with the rest of the area "would harm the character and appearance of the townscape". It's a brutal three storey block and clashes with the harmony of the remaining building, which is typical of the domestic architecture of East Dulwich. It's worth knowing that the developer has got his consultant to highlight all the three story buildings in the area to make the case that it's really fine! He's even trying to pass off the shops along Grove Vale as three storeys, because although they're only two storeys, they've got mansard windows in the roof. 3. It's impact on the remaining cottage next door "Due to its size, bulk and siting in relation to the windows and the garden area at no. 1 Railway Rise, the proposal would be overbearing upon and would result in a significant loss of outlook for the occupiers of this property". 4. It provides poor accommodation for prospective occupiers "The first and second floor residential units would not include adequate areas of private amenity space and the proposal would therefore fail to provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers" 5. These are important historical railway cottages built for employees of the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway in the 1860s and in any case shouldn't be demolished The group of three cottages are of great historic value. On the 1868 OS map, it can be seen that they that they predate pretty much everything in the area, except for some houses along Grove Vale. The original entrance to the station was at the end of Railway Rise (where the builders? merchant is now situated). No 1 was the station master?s house and the two that the developer wants to knock down were for other station employees. As a group of buildings they?re a great bit of old East Dulwich and it would be terrible if two of them were swept away. I hope this is helpful. The attached poster shows the new development alongside No. 1 and gives Southwark's chapter & verse for refusing points 1&2 in case anyone wants to know Just go to https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk/ Quoting Reference: 3135088 and get objecting! The deadline for objections is 17th January

An ad hoc group has been set up (inc.No1) in order to alert people to/publicise the opportunity to object to the developer's appeal against Southwark's decision to refuse planning permission to knock down Nos. 2 & 3 Railway Rise and replace them with a horrible three storey building which (in Southwark's own words), would be "incongruous in this location and would harm the character and appearance of the townscape". Everyone has until Sunday 17th January to send in their comments to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol. The easiest way to do this is on line. Go onto the Planning Inspectorate Site https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk / and then enter the seven figure reference number 3135088 into the search box, in order to bring up the Railway Rise application. Then comment! Attached is a flyer with a picture of what is being proposed, plus all the information. If you feel strongly enough about the issue, then print it out and hand it around. These are some of the oldest houses in East Dulwich (c1860)and it would be terrible to see two of them torn down in this way.

I'm not sure if, among all these posts, there's an accessible image of what the developer is actually proposing to build in place of Nos. 2&3. If you've not yet seen it, then take a look. It's about as bad as it could be and really needs kicking out. Object!

I also think that Borderland's idea is excellent. If you look at the developer's latest submission, you'll see that they do everything possible to make it seem like their proposals are entirely in keeping with the surrounding area. If you can't find these easily from the above links, then PM me and I'll send you the PDFs in question. If you are planning to submit further comments/an objection, then you need to bear in mind the exact reasons which Southwark gave for rejecting the original application (see below). They gave three reasons. The first of these, which relates to the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area, is perhaps most the relevant in this context (the other two, relate to the impact of the scheme on the adjacent property). Objections will carry most weight if they relate to these issues, which in turn relate to the Southwark's own plans etc Extract From Southwark's Published Refusal To Grant Planning Permission For Proposed Railway Rise Development ?Reasons for refusal: 1 Due to its inappropriate height, scale, massing, siting and design, the proposal, following the demolition of the existing cottages, would appear as excessively dominant and incongruous in this location and would harm the character and appearance of the townscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies 3.12 (Quality in Design) and 3.13 (Urban Design) of the Southwark Plan (2007), policy SP12 (Design and Conservation) of the LB Southwark Core Strategy 2011 and Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012". Applicant: Mr Bateman St Aidans Group LBS Registered Number: 15/AP/0192 Date of Issue of this decision: 25/03/2015 Zak

I've just had a look at the Kickstarter page and I see that over ?8,500 has now been raised out of the ?13,500 that the project needs (including my small contribution, made after I watched the interview and pitch video. That's pretty fantastic, but the only problem is that according to the Kickstarter site, the remaining ?5,000 has to be raised by midnight on Thursday or it's all been in vain. Anyone else feel as I do that we should be supporting a local talent who is in his turn supporting the local community? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2132164114/the-works-short-film/description is the place to go if you agree.

I think I saw this guy in a trailer for a new ITV series called "Jericho" starting in January. Would that be him?

Thanks for the replies - the original post said she was thought to be Dutch so it's probably the same lady, HPsaucey. The reference number had a digit missing, by the way - I copied it from the lounged thread where it appeared the second time and that has been edited, so I've edited mine now. It's 209116. Ratty, I left a message with the Southwark co-ordinator for the Outreach team who is based at Tooley Street so that may be the same person. It would be good to get back to him with some more information.

I saw a post about this earlier today ( Lady With But No Van)and then it vanished - I now realise that it's been relegated to the Lounge: "The Place To Relax & Chat About Anything ! This was serious post, asking people to help in getting assistance to someone who is clearly homeless and I guess pretty distressed - on the pavement and surrounded by her possessions. Last spotted around Grove Vale/Oglander Road. Surely, this is an appropriate post, for this most visited page. Anyway, we're told by Hare, who made the initial post, that "she is not sleeping in the same spot tonight, so the Street Link Outreach Team won't be able to locate her very easily .....keep your eyes out and let them know on 0300 5000914.quoting reference number WD209116, by which they can identify her as someone who has already been reported to them. A bit of local intelligence could play an important part in helping some one make contact and getting a roof over her head. If you see her tonight or tomorrow, them ring the outreach team Thanks Zak

At last, it's opened. Has anyone been in there yet? Have the previous owners been thoroughly exorcised?

Yes, please keep banging away at it! It will be a tragedy if they manage to get some dreadful scheme through, which results in the demolition of two of the three cottages. Is there really no chance of getting them listed by English Heritage, as possibly the only remaining examples of occupied purpose-built station accommodation, developed by the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway in the latter half of the 1800s?

As I came home last night I noticed that the Cherry Tree on Grove Vale was closed and that there were padlocks on the doors. Anyone know what's happening?

It's no wonder that there are rats running around the station, since nothing has been done for months and months about the gradual build up of litter and rubbish behind the fenced off areas. I made a few enquiries and found out that it's Network Rail that are actually responsible for those fenced off areas. However, since Southern run the station I wrote to Joan Fairbrass, who is the station manager, with a few choice photos(including one of a very obliging rat),suggesting that she gets Network Rail to sort out what is actually a health & safety risk for Southern. She's come back to me and said that she'll get it dealt with. If nothing happens, then I think we need an "adopt a station rat" story in one of the local papers!

If these are "nondescript" and "squalid" buildings, as suggested by the person commenting on the Planning Website on 26th February, then that could surely be said of a lot of buildings in East Dulwich! However, the case can equally be made that they are examples of charming vernacular architecture, which is in keeping with the surrounding station environment and generally enhance the area. By contrast, what is being proposed is insensitive, ugly and entirely out of character. Furthermore, it's possible that these are the only remaining examples of occupied purpose built station accommodation, that was built by the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway in the latter half of the 1800s. If this were the case, then surely they would merit listing by English Heritage.

Went over to Upland Road yesterday and found the jewellers open and business as usual. It's amazing, considering what they've been through in the last week, but Mac (the jeweller) says they refuse to be intimidated and went on to express his thanks to all the people who have been in touch and have sent them messages of support. They're a great asset to East Dulwich and if you've not been over to their shop then go and see what you're missing. They've also got a lovely dog called Gem, who is in charge of greeting new customers!

I have to say that I've always found Mr Merryfield to be really helpful. He's carried out one or two out small repairs for free in the past and I've just picked up a pair of shoes that he's re-heeled very nicely. I think having him on Grove Vale is a real asset to the community.

There's a notice in the window of the shop which explains how they intend to operate. It says that the shop has been set up by a group of people who have previously worked in charity shops and that they intend to support local charities.I think it then goes on to say that they're open to approaches from any local charity wanting support - although they don't say how they will arrive at whatever they decide to donate I happen to work in the charitable sector and I think there's a great deal to be said for raising money for local causes. Large national charities are very good at getting all the limelight, but small local ones,which are often closer to the "front line",just don't get heard. It takes a bit of courage to go local and not just support the usual suspects. Pret A Manger, for example, used to support Crisis at Christmas but over the last couple of years have been funding many local charities with whom they and their staff work - by the way I don't work for Pret!

It looks like Southwark have been at it again. As part of the Baroque The Streets initiative, the Mexican artist,Pablo Delgado produced a minature interpretation of several works from Dulwich Gallery. It was was located on a small low wall at the end of Oglander Road and only the other day I saw a party of school children on a Baroque The Streets art tour, inspecting this particular work of art. Sadly that won't happen again, since someone keen to improve that quality of our environment,I imagine from Southwark Council,has decided that the wall in question needed a nice coat of white paint. And guess what's happened? See attached photo of said art. Which other pieces of street art do you think they might believe need to be cleaned up?

Ed Nagaiutb writes .........."Their neighbouring unit, Rabbit On, has been empty for years. Unless someone can take on both units and make the space more useable, but unlikely". Interestingly the "shop" called "Rabbit On" appears never to have been a shop. I've watched people go in and out of the premises over the years and it seems fairly clear that it's simply a front for a building providing residential accommodation - a planning scam. Strange that Southwark haven't been able to work that one out!

I was told, last year, by a Southwark officer that income from parking charge/fines for the borough is between ?11-12m per year. Of that, c?5m is accounted for by parking fines. True, not that much out of a ?323m budget - but worth having and only likley ever to increase!

Definitely the latter offence!

CPZ's are a fabulous cash cow for the local authority Look what happened in Forest Hill: ""At yesterday?s meeting of Mayor and Cabinet, the Mayor approved the increase from ?60 to ?120pa for Resident?s Parking Permits. Visitors permits will also double, going up from ?2.80 to ?5.60 daily. Weekly permits will now cost the same as five daily permits instead of three". Don't be fooled by assurances from Southwark - they need money and lots of it! Charges for CPZs will only ever go in one direction - up!