afrz

All knotweed naturally dies back in winter, and the old canes dry out. Looks dead and brown ... till it shoots back with a vengeance in May. It does grow a foot a day, and yes it does break through pavement, or shallow foundations. The young shots are actually edible, so if you like, apply biological weed control that way :) For East Dulwich / Nunhead in particular, it's found on many sites nearby where the old railway lines used to be (that'd be the crystal palace spur in the east, and sometimes near the old tram line), as well as along the current railway lines, or further north in SE15 where the surrey canal used to be. Some backland former light industrial sites also have it, it often shows up on planning conditions for site development. If you did order topsoil for any purposes in the 60s/70s ... you might've "caught" knotweed alongside. Fortunately, it _does_ respond to treatment quite well. Unfortunately ... it's usually left to the buyers to pay for that (as well as to make sure the surveyor aren't more keen on their fees by brushing it under the carpet than by doing a service and pointing it out ...), and to deal with the hassle of organizing such treatment in a rush, while renegotiating mortgage terms and insurance conditions. That even though the sellers often enough know. The estate agents are only too aware of it (and I wish you could sue estate agent for any "not known" on a property questionnaire). In the grand scheme of things ... with a house pretty much anywhere SE22/SE15 way above 500k now, shouldn't the seller be able to put up with 2k to put a treatment plan in before putting it up for sale ? Hmm; I forgot we're in a seller's market, and "buyer beware". In any case, compared to how easily buddleia invades and spreads, and how quickly that grows in masonry, knotweed is "really tame". Thinking you can even still purchase buddleia ... go figure. Knotweed is the "debatable class A drug" of the invasive species. IMHO, Leylandii or Buddleia are far worse, but who am I :-)

@fazer71: Nimby-ism comes in two forms, a negative one as in "general obstructiveness to any change", and a positive one as in "don't do it unless you do it right". Noone's yet stated, either here or on the logged planning application comments, that the site should be left open and derelict as it is. It's a prominent location, and conservation area. As such, the planning authority has a duty to not simply wave "anything" through, but take into account a few key questions: - does the design fit the status of the conservation area ? - does it enhance the local business/residential environment ? - is it of high quality ? - does it make best use of the site ? Thing is, neither of these is well-backed up by the proposal. The design is "bog standard" and could've been cloned from the developments by Elephant&Castle (the triangular roof terrace is a dead match there) or opposite Old Kent Road Fire Station. "High Quality" is really something else. I already called it "bog standard"; if you want inventive/challenging proposals that might be controversial but at least undoubtedly are high quality and innovative, look north across Peckham Rye at the Aura Court development. The "metal-box" penthouse there is a true landmark, and combines innovative design features with very-high-quality workmanship. Is it "nice" .. I leave that to the eye of the beholder, would it be conservation-area appropriate I'd rather not argue that point either; compared to the proposal for Barry Parade though, it's at least a "landmark" that deserves that title, and backs that up by the way it's been built. The Aura Court side is _not_ conservation area. Please do hold the developers to a higher standard, both in design and proposed materials & workmanship. If you don't ... then why bother at all declaring the conservation area ? "Enhance ..." It definitely does not enhance the local business environment, on the contrary - the loss of small units is absolutely not "balanced" by the addition of a supermarket at that site. All around Peckham Rye, not just the south side, lacks restaurants/cafes/takeways of any kind. Those that have been provisioned lately (The G Cafe, the Cafe on the Rye, the cafe on Barry Rd/Upland corner) are popular enough not the least because of that deficiency. The takeaways were ushered out letting the building fall derelict not by commercial unviability. There's other small businesses around locally (just south of the parade, and in the Tyrell Rd. small industrial site just behind the row on the other side of Barry Road), and Southwark council themselves have Barry Parade as 'shopping cluster' on the Peckham Rye action plan. Thanks for a "cluster of one supermarket". It's debateable whether it enhances the residential environment. The flats proposed are surely of a great standard, above-average for the wider area. What's "enhancement" though ? The proposal severely overlooks neighbours, kills sunlight/daylight for 198/200 Peckham Rye, makes no attempt to blend with the conservation area. Traffic-wise this is a train-wreck-in-waiting, at least the way it's proposed right now (with underground parking exit, bus stop, loading/access bay and road narrowing all within 30m of each other, just south of a busy/congested junction). Best use of the site ... well. Let's continue to look at the residential side from that aspect. One can reasonably argue that London in general needs denser housing and some impact to neighbours' amenity is acceptable as long as that goal is achieved well. Though then, at the very least, make a commitment to provide affordable housing as well, because (again) there is more need for that than there is for 1M+ properties. Putting nine "extremely generously-sized" flats onto this site is only making sure to stay below the threshold for having to put affordable units in. The case should be made that were it justified to increase density to the level of the proposal then at the very least, swallow the toad, and provide one thing that does address a genuine need of the area - one or two affordable flats. From the commercial side: For the developer, the supermarket is a wonderful thing to have. It makes it utterly easy and trivial to deal with the management side of it - you only have to find a single tenant for all of the commercial floor space, you'll let it on a very-long lease, and given the business is _not_ a restaurant/take-away there's no fire safety or insurance premium implications. The flats are worth significantly more if above A1/B than if there's A3/4/5 (or D - light industrial) underneath, and constructional details on fire safety of materials used, on site ventilation, sprinkler systems etc. will not apply if there's no food preparation provisioning. In that context, to serve themselves, they _must_ propose "anything-but" A3/4/5/D use classes. That even the immediate area (this "600m" threshold thing from the planning policies) is oversupplied with supermarkets and has long-established and well-liked local grocery stores is a point that the developer obviously can not admit; residents/locals must point that out, and the council's planning department should be held to their own policies in that context. Restaurants/cafes/takeaways are actually lacking there even though the site, with a sunny aspect on Barry Road and right by the green spaces, is perfect for a bit of "social" in this context. The proposal does e.g. propose seating / public amenity and that is good ... just why put it right onto the north side, where the shadow of the mass of the building makes it useless for most of the year ? I'm all for a development on that site even tough I live almost opposite, and even though I hate the idea of the three years of major works needed to get something of this scale up. Thames Water has already requested a Grampian condition (a curfew on the planning permit to say they can't build until the sewers on Barry Road / Peckham Rye have been enlarged sufficiently to take the additional runoff/discharge), and the heavy machinery and lorry traffic for excavation works will disrupt traffic and detour the Barry Road bus lines for months. I'd hope though, that as a little prize for putting up with all that, there'll be places created to go for food, a safer junction for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicular traffic alike, some local businesses that add to the barber or the veterinary to actually make it worth sitting at the site in summer. And if making it so dense, then take section 106 seriously and put an affordable flat in, because, "every little helps". Nimbyism ... it should be allowed to state that the bigotry is _entirely_ on the developer's side. This proposal serves noone other than the developer's pocket; all items that lower their returns (that is, in particular food preparation units aka A3/A5, affordable housing, or properly-outstanding design and craftsmanship/materials) are disregarded in this proposal. It makes me sick swallowing these up. At the very least, if it gets approved as-is, one should be able to point out prominently and boldly how much bigotry there is in the proposal. Unfortunately, cynical bigotry in a design-and-access statement isn't a reason for denying a planning application. Fortunately, it's transparent enough so that a good cause can be made why this proposal falls terribly short of what (well, "whatever", really) should be done on that site, and, in particular with respect to traffic, where it makes the area outrightly unsafe. Yes, please build something there ... something that: - does enhance local business proposals (and that means: _multiple_ smaller units, including A3/A5, not a supermarket) - does enhance local residential/public amenity (hard sell to neighbours due to the inevitable overlook/overshadowing) (easier sell to the public if the public space is where it should be - facing Barry Road) - does make a genuine attempt on quality above and beyond "let's use London stock brick" - makes the junction safer; don't cluster all access on Barry Road It's really not that hard to improve - there's just too much to improve. Fingers crossed.

There's nothing at all in the submitted documents to indicate any other businesses would remain on the site other than Roy brooks and the supermarket. Which is supposed to be larger than either the sainsbury at the end of crystal palace road / lordship lane or the tesco by Nigel road, while providing no customer parking whatsoever. And they want to cluster access to residents underground parking, the supermarket loading bay and the bus stop all on Barry road just north of the narrows, all within 30m of road. Only politeness makes me not use a derogatory term here and merely say "dangerous to everyone". The southern end of Peckham rye green has only just started to get a few places making it worth going to, like Gymboree cafe, the rebuilt one on the rye, and the new clock house; blot the chance for adding some social life at Barry parade out by putting nothing there but a supermarket, thanks a lot. The business side of this proposal really spits in the face of anyone talking "we like to give chances to smaller businesses". Really, give me the takeaways back. I guess it's a first iteration - trying to see how far they can go. The design is rather boring - looks like the new built blocks on old Kent by the fire station. "Conservation-area worthy" ho-hum. Lots of overlook. Fingers crossed this proposal will be reworked.

I'm also interested - planning to do a roof extension / internal layout change ("mother of all loft conversions" type). Pretty much requires demolition/rebuild of the roof and entire top floor level. Any references to builders that have done comparable projects, around SE5/SE15/SE22/SE23, would be highly appreciated! Thanks in advance.