chazzle

The builders yesterday added new ground markings encroaching some 3-4 metres further across the entrance to Railway Rise. I've heard that this is a change agreed with the owner of Railway Rise, but I don't think it has been shown in any amendments to the plans. It may be that it's a temporary measure to allow easier access to the site, but the markings suggest something more substantial. I'll try to contact planning tonight and find out more.

Apparently the building's about to start. The hoarding will be extended further across Railway Rise, which will make it tight for lorries to get up there. There will be a new site entrance near the corner - which should be ... interesting. The same source said it will be a library and M&S, but he's not been 100% reliable in the past! I haven't seen any application to change usage to a pub or bar.

No, he was being pretty cagey. Like the Council.

I saw a surveyor over there in mid-July (I think) and he said it was under new ownership and work would recommence at the beginning of August ... No reply from Southwark planning.

James, The consultation period for the latest plans to partially demolish and extend the cottages at Railway Rise has now officially ended (although it does appear the comment are still open.) For the previous complete demolition, you said that you and Councillor Shimell would call in the proposal for a council meeting. Would you consider doing the same for this reduced proposal? Although the new plans are less dramatic, they do include a substantial demolition. The developer has followed his usual practice of repeated applications. It would also be an opportunity for the council to consider the prospect of supporting this application in the wider context of the ten-year history of the failed development at the former Garden Centre site, etc.

I'm surprised - the queue this morning was longer than for elections

I know we're all focussed on a bigger decision, but I'd really appreciate it if you would consider commenting on the latest plans for Railway Rise.

The deadline for comments on the revised proposal for the (partial) demolition of the cottages at Railway Rise, by East Dulwich Station is this Friday 24 June. You can see the application on the Southwark Planning website at http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565779. The reference number is 16/AP/1341. The proposal is less dramatic than the previous proposal to completely demolish 2 and 3 and build a four-storey block. Nevertheless, I have objected on the grounds that: - The new three-storey rear building is higher than the other house and is clearly out of keeping with the rest of the cottages. - The proposal requires a substantial demolition of the cottages and a building in the garden. - The substantial extension to three storeys would block the light for the neighbours. - The new extension would overlook the neighbour, invading privacy. - The proposal to fit three and four bedrooms leads to cramped accommodation.

We are now in the confusing position that number 2 and 3 Railway Rise are for sale, but the new proposal for redevelopment has now been issued. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565779 I think that the plans submitted are the amended plans they tried at the end of the previous process, which were rejected as the planners said that they could not go above the existing level. Maybe they thought they might as well make use of them. The revised proposal isn't as bad as the original (it couldn't be worse) as it only appears to require partial demolition, apparently preserving the front of the cottages. At the back, the new three-storey extension will project further than the existing and will block out sunlight for number 1 from, I guess, mid-morning. The houses would look very different, with rather incongruous 'Juliet' balconies and a mansard roof. As well as these objections, the houses would seem quite cramped downstairs for 3/4 bedrooms and provide relatively little extra accommodation - both used as grounds for rejecting the original designs.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most developers get planning permission and then > sell the scheme on. Or they bank it for a few > years. > Developers rarely have in house construction and > building capacity. They rely on contractors being > professional. > ------------------------------------------------------- This is of course what St Aidan's did with the Garden Centre, no doubt banking a decent profit while achieving nothing. Ten years on we have a demolition site. This ought to be taken into account when they apply for another development, but it won't.

I believe so. It's one of the projects on their old website: http://www.staidansgroup.com/projects.html, together with the failed development at the former Garden Centre. They are no longer involved with the Garden Centre site and I don't know if they were still involved with Soloman's passage when it was actually built, so I'm not implying they were responsible for the subsequent problems.

http://www.clague.co.uk/our-projects/railway-rise/ Interesting to see the Architect's presentation of the rejected proposal for 2&3 Railway Rise. Interesting to see that the case actually submitted were rather selective in their choice of images. They left out the two images which clearly show how the block would have towered over the neighbours. Instead they included the one with the flat Railway Rise. Also interesting to see some of the errors in the proposal, such as the mysteriously moved chimney and other alterations to number 1 seemed to have originated with the architects. Poor work. They also anticipate the "future developments in the area" - presumably the eventual demolition of #1. No news on the next proposal. Hopefully St Aidan's have turned their attention elsewhere.

James - thanks for the update re 2&3 Railway Rise. I keep hoping the developer will give up on this and go away, but I guess that's too much to wish for.

James - Thank you for your help - very reassuring.

The documents are still not on the site. (Sorry to be boring, but this is a useful way to document this.)

James, I have posted a message on the Railway Rise discussion about the new planning application to build a three-storey extension on the back of two of the cottages. Can you confirm that, although the consultation period has begun, the planning documents have yet to be loaded: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1341&system=DC It is clearly not acceptable to lose a week off the consultation.

I've written to the planning officer at Southwark because the consultation period for the new planning application on Railway Rise started on 2 May (running to 22 May), but the planning documents have yet to be made available on the website. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1341&system=DC

James, Is that Westrock you have been in touch with? If so, could you ask them to give an indication of their current plans. Do they have a builder in place and planned start/finish dates? (The comment about cost cutting is somewhat alarming.)

Here we go again ...

BNG, Mollymoo, James - I've posted an update about the former Garden Centre on that thread.

Bit of an update, but not very promising: I tried to contact the current developer Westrock and an apparent investor NorthRidge Capital (http://www.northridgecapital.co.uk/portfolio.php?p=east_dulwich). Both completely ignored my emails. I contacted Morrisons who confirmed they no longer have an interest (see above). In the end, I wrote to Helen Hayes MP, who wrote to the Director of Planning at Southwark in January. That did get a prompt response. The response basically said: 1. The three-year time limit has run out, but the developer could claim they've started because of the demolition. 2. The developer has applied for a minor adjustment to the plans which suggests they are going to get moving again. 3. The hoardings are on private land, but he would get the Highways Licensing team to check 4. He would ask the Head of Building Control to check whether the partially demolished former waiting room presented any hazard to the public. I left this sitting until recently (also focusing on getting the appeal on demolishing 1 & 2 Railway Rise rejected), but then wrote back on 21 April. In short, I said: a) I thought the partial demolition meant that any time limit on planning permission was pretty meaningless. b) Were the developers trying to renege on the library promise? c) The hoardings are blocking the route for people leaving the station and trying to cross. d) Had the Head of Building Control checked the safety of the partially demolished structure? e) Would it not be reasonable for the Council to contact the developers and find out about their intentions. I'll let you know more when I get a response to my follow. This has now been dragging on for ten years, and counting ...

Yes, thanks James, I should have said that (bit over-excited) thank you for the 100+ objections and particularly to Zak for taking a lead on this.

GREAT NEWS! Attached decision from planning inspectorate. All good - appeal to demolish Railway Rise cottages REJECTED. Only remaining opportunity to take this forward is High Court. Here's the concluding paragraph: "29. I do not however share the appellant?s view that the proposal is an efficient use of land as it would harm the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbours and provide a substandard accommodation from an under provision of outside space. There would also be a loss of local heritage. These impacts are contrary to national/local planning policy to which I give considerable weight. I therefore find that when taken as a whole, the proposal is not sustainable development for which the Framework carries a presumption in favour."

Rather than 'by permission', I think they have right of access to their property, so not quite the same as a private driveway. BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's used presumably by permission of the owners > of the road. It's like I could say that Fred and > his friends can use my drive but you can't. You > might not like it, but there you go.

Zak: The developer took a different view of the cottages when renting one out not so long ago http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-50027336.html