chazzle

I certainly did make it clear that the cottages should not be demolished, as part of my comments. But it is, I think important to emphasise those points that led to the original rejection as we are saying that this was the correct decision. I also said that I thought the original process was fair, open, based on the facts and allowed more than enough time for the developer to make his case. I also pointed out the misleading and inaccurate parts of the proposal and appeal documents, including photos, stressing the need for a site visit. Hopefully then even the hardest hearted planning officer would see the madness of demolishing the cottages!

Great news to get the coverage in the SLP - Well done Zak!

That's great MarkT. I think the appeal is about the original four storey block, but they've included some stuff about the reduced plan to try and imply that it's not so bad.

Borderlands, Comments from the original application will be passed to the Planning Inspectorate for the appeal. However, I will be writing a further brief submission to emphasise those misleading aspects of the proposal - like the use of the DKH flats and the failed Garden Centre development as a local precedent - which will not be as obvious to a non-local. I will also be suggesting a site visit.

You can also add comments via the Planning Portal here: https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3135088&CoID=0 If you do choose to add further comments, remember that the original decision rejected the proposal on the grounds of inappropriate size, overbearing of neighbours and inadequate amenity space (http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/0192&system=DC). Bear in mind that the appeal is to try and gain approval for the original four storey plan. The appeal document describes this as "relatively modest in the context of the area" and amongst other buildings uses the flats on Dog Kennel Hill and the failed development at the former Garden Centre for comparison. Anyone who knows the area would see this as misleading, but the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol may not be aware of this. I will be emphasising these inaccuracies in my response to the appeal. I will also be following James's advice to recommend a site visit which would help to counter the errors in the plans.

After no reply from Westrock, I tried contacting Morrisons. After a bit of nudging, I got this reply today: "Estates have told me that due to the sale of our M Locals, we terminated the agreement on this site, so no longer have anything to do with it. I can only suggest you try contacting Westrock again to see if you can get any information. I'm sorry but there is nothing further I can do." So that's confirmed what we already expected - that Morrisons no longer have an interest. Looks like Westrock still do. I don't expect that they sold this interest when they sold the stores (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34198944). Presumably they just reliquished their interest.

The developers have discussed scaled back options with the council officers but were knocked back. My understanding is that the appeal will be on the original four storey block. They have mentioned scaled back options in the appeal document, but I think these should be dismissed as being out of scope. I had a reply from the Southwark planner yesterday saying the clock hasn't started yet on the appeal. When it does, they will be putting up the usual notices and informing locals affected. Made me feel a bit more positive as with a proper airing, I think it will be clear that the original decision was robust.

James, [re: Railway Rise] Thanks for pointing out the planning documents - I'd assumed the letter was all there is. (I wrote to the consultant for clarification, but he hasn't replied.) I've had a skim of the appeal and it seems largely a re-hash of the original. They make the same claims about the largely high-rise environment. They haven't even bothered to update the photos to include the mess this developer has left over the road. Most annoyingly, they again suggest that they might get their hands on 1, Railway Rise in the future - which they won't. Thanks also for the update on the former garden centre site. I wrote to Westrock and Morrisons to get some information, but again no reply. We all know that 'later this year' isn't going to happen. They are saying that the original overblown plans are not viable, so can we not call those in for a viability review and start to get something actually built? In the meantime - as BNG says - they should be more responsible and maintain the site safely and properly. But they won't. They can just bank the asset values. Feeling a bit defeatist myself. But, like MarkT, not giving up!

No reply from the developers yet. I've sent a reminder.

James, I've asked a question on the Railway Rise thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1532206

I've written to the consultants to ask for an explanation of the appeal. Also to try and find out whether there is a real intention to proceed with this, or if it's some kind of principle. I'm seeing this as a belligerent appeal - I don't believe they could think that they didn't get a fair hearing so will try to exploit any perceived inadequacy in the administration. I let you know what they say. Question for James Barber: If this appeal were approved could you, and would you (with Cllr Shimell) call this in?

So here we go again - arrive home from work to find a letter announcing St Aidan's is appealing against the decision to throw out their plans to demolish the victorian railway cottages at East Dulwich Station. The form states that they've gone for the grounds of "failure of the Council to give notice of a decision." I can imagine they considered going for "this would be a really good development that would provide housing for the community" or "the development received overwhelming support" or "the proposal wasn't that bad, apart from the typos, the impenetrable bullshit and the impossible design", but opted for an administrative technicality. The consultants have asked if I have any questions. I'll contact them when I've calmed down.

EDHistory: Ah, that makes sense - no actual progress, just a revenue issue. Southwark isn't getting a great deal here.

I've just written to Westrock to see if they can give us an update. I'm not holding my breath - probably get fobbed off with the usual "in the next month". It would be nice if the Council would follow these up, but they don't seem bothered.

Jeremy - I had a Trumans Zephyr and Sambrooks Wandle there on Weds night. They had a board with a decent list, although I can't remember the details (Peckham Brick brewery was on there.) Looks promising. They've split up the huge front area so it's a bit more cosy. It does seem a bit clean and new, but then it is. Staff seemed very friendly.

[double post]

James B - There should be a function on here to say: "I've been told [insert next month]". I find it exasperating that there's no requirement for developers to be transparent in their plans even when they have a clear impact on the community and, in this case,causing an ongoing danger with the hoarding blocking the views of the road and pavement. John K - I posted earlier about an extension to something about the "viability", but that extension ran out. It strikes me that there should be a test of whether this is viable (with all the original promises). BNG - See above remark about transparency. People say that Westrock (www.westrock.co.uk/) are in charge and that they do developments for Morrisons, but who knows really? My feeling is that they have an increasingly valuable piece of land with planning permission and there's no particular hurry to actually build anything.

Another month gone by and ... absolutely nothing

We live near the station and the cat brings a mouse (thankfully not a rat) every day, ever since they knocked down the Garden Centre.

I imagine that if there had been bats in the old waiting room at the station, they will have gone because the building has been left completely open. If I were cynical I would guess we might hear it has to be demolished on safety grounds soon.

James, We tried to get the cottages and the station building listed with English Heritage: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1423554&resourceID=7 I recommend you have a read, but the conclusion was: "CONCLUSION While of local interest as key elements of the suburban expansion of East Dulwich, individually and as a group East Dulwich Station and Nos. 1-3 Railway Rise, do not possess the special architectural or historic interest in a national context required for designation." I understand that Southwark does not keep a local list, so we couldn't seek protection that way. Although they have extensions on the back, they do largely retain their original look (and would never have had fancy interior features, given their use.) I do hope that you will continue to oppose the destruction of these cottages when the plans come round again.

TJ - I think this is a valid question to ask - people do need places to live and I know my daughters are paying a high price to rent privately. One general point - you've identified four developments (and possibly two more) that have raised a lot of opposition on here. These are not the only developments in SE21 and SE22. It's unlikely that people will come on here to make supportive or neutral comments about a development. More specifically on Railway Rise, there are two developments: one stalled at the site of the former Garden Centre and the other a rejected, but soon to be revived plan to knock down two Victorian (c1866) railway cottages. So one of these is a brownfield site, but the other is very much occupied. I may get a bit ranty here, so you can skim or ignore. When the developer came to us (in 2006, initially) about the Garden Centre plans, we did not oppose them. So no nimbyism there. He made the point that the Garden Centre was closing anyway and it would inevitably be used for housing. He said the plans would go through and that he had carried out a light survey etc which had said it was fine and well within limits. Having looked in detail more recently, we found this was a little economical with the truth. He was also keen to tell us that he had arranged to have the library there in lieu of social housing, so the residents would all be well off people working in finance etc. He misread us there, but the point is that I don't think his main intention was about addressing the shortage of affordable housing. Anyway, nearly a decade on and St Aidan's had failed to make any progress at all with that development, so they sold it and bought two of the railway cottages. The developer said that he had no intention of demolishing these charming cottages, and it wouldn't be worth his while anyway as they were worth more than what he could build there. Yeah. Well, after a very stressful few months those plans were wholeheartedly rejected by the community, with unanimous support of the local Councillors. But, he's back again in talks with the council planning officers about a sketch plan that we're not allowed to know about because, it's not a formal proposal yet and we'd probably only kick up a fuss and we have to be kind to the nice developer. OK, I made the last bit up, but I'm older and more cynical now, and more rantier.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1477351,page=3 This seems to be back on the table again. If so, be prepared to be bored rigid with me moaning about it again.

The latest I've heard, indirectly, is that the same builders who did the demolition are moving back in during July to re-start the building work. Mind you, it's been about "two weeks" for the last six months. James Barber in February pointed to a six-month delay due to a planning condition. I complained about the hoarding to Southwark planning ('looks ok to me'), the private building controllers ('not our responsibility') and Southwark highways (twice, no reply). Wouldn't it be refreshing if someone just said what's happening?

Another six weeks and no sign of progress nor information. I've emailed someone at the planning department to see if I can find out what's going on.