geh

in response: Borderlands Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the threat to MOL has been lifted at > all in the new plans. Dunno why you think that. My post indicates "the chatter seems to suggest that it avoids development of MOL" > > And I would question your claim that the DHFC > being an "important cultural driver" whatever that > is. It's just a football stadium for goodness sake > - let's not suggest this is the primary reason for > residents wanting to stay here or that this is > what attracts others to want to live and work in > the area.... Actually what I said was DHFC is an "important cultural and economic driver" The outreach initiatives are well documented, rasing awareness, money and support for sometimes under represented causes - in my view worthwhile. Added to this is the direct economic benefit to local business, assisting in supporting the vibrant and independent nature of the same, which in fact I do consider to be one of the reasons residents want to stay/move here! > > What we're talking about here is planning > permission for a large (compared to the mixed > housing of the surrounding locality), > every-expense spared design. It's not just that > the proposed new estate is completely out of > keeping with the district, but it pays scant > regard for any consideration to do with parking, > traffic, access to schools and healthcare. Parking and traffic will I suspect be considered via the planning process in the normal way, although taking the football club in isolation, my feeling is most supporters walk/use public transport. Access to schools/heathcare is not within the scope of an individual developer, however contributions towards the same can be raised via S. 106 payments. Last time I looked, East Dulwich had 3 new(ish) schools and a new health centre/hospital under construction. I agree, perhaps 6 stories is too much, however there are a number of similar scale developments of 4-5 stories throughout East Dulwich - East Dulwich Road, and Lordship Lane to the south > > It proposes a number of 6 storey blocks - although > the actual height in the existing landscape isn't > clear from the pics in the submitted plans - but > looks as if these will loom large above the > existing estate. And, if we agree that we need > more new homes in the area, these proposals aren't > about providing social housing for families - > which is what's needed around here ie., low rise > family houses with gardens. Ain't going to happen > - this is all about money, money, money. Sadly, it is about money, and if schemes don't stack up, they won't get built. Agreed we probably do need more family homes for rent, but is this the site for them? Southwark are pursuing direct developments of existing garage sites for these uses. The only way that will happen here is if the scheme were to be subject to a CPO, and despite the previous threat, that seems highly unlikely. > > Take a look at 35%'s old blog about the Hadley > Scheme: > http://35percent.org/dulwich-hamlet-stadium/ Sadly the provision of social housing is now primarily left to the private sector (exceptions as I've noted above)whose primary motive is profit, I don't think its right, the publication of viability assesments does at least open them to challenge which is a good think. Ultimately stalling the redevelopment of this site which will accommodate the long term security of DHFC and provide new homes will help no one. Ensuring the suitability of the design and scale of the proposals is what the planning system is there to do.

Whilst I'm yet to review the application (and am not a planner!) the chatter seems to suggest that it avoids development of MOL. As in many planning applications compromise will out, however its always difficult to satisfy sometimes very polarised opinions. If the redevelopment can mollify the MOL objections, allow DHFC - who are achieving gates of c. 3,000 for Saturday home games to remain in SE22 as an important cultural and economic driver and provide much needed housing, including the appropriate affordable quotient then the redevelopment deserves support.

my view is that as a community focused club the vast majority of DHFC fans are acutely aware and concerned about the proposed plans and the extent to whcih any redevelopment will impact on the local area

"DHFC malcontents"?

69% against so let?s bring in a partial CPZ Really Southwark?

I have been in somewhat painful correspondence with Southwark over the lack of interest in forming a project group for this redevelopment. Apparently 4 'households' registered interest, less than the required 5 people. If you did register interest please let me know, whilst Southwark have not indicated they will form a group I would like to press them if there was sufficient interest. thanks geh

Slightly annoyed that there has been, to my knowledge, no notification from Southwark of this meeting. Still, I have written to them twice regarding the redevelopment and have not had the courtesy or a response yet so not surprising.

Thanks James

Hi James would you be able to expand on your post please and the divergence from the Southwark Plan please (for us non planners!)? thanks

I received the note saying there would be no project group, again due to lack of interest, and have asked exactly how many are required to form the group as I suspect there would be enough interest. I too am on Bassano and have received no notifications

Thanks for heads up, I do recall more in attendance to the evening session I was at. Can you let me know where this latest info was published please? As both resident and tenant I am interested in there development, and have been liaising with Southwark regarding the formation of a Project Group. Regrettably most of the liaison is mainly one way.

Interesting to see how speeds have increased alarmingly on Village Way now it?s devoid of cars!

brettonbull Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also attended the drop-in session yesterday and > would agree with the comments about what an > inadequate forum it was for such a significant and > contentious issue. > > However, my reason for writing this post is that I > wanted to make people aware of the following two > bits of information that I gleaned from one of the > project managers (Joanna(?), one of only two PMs > in attendance (apparently, there should have been > another one): > > 1) Re: Postal problem with the consultation > document: > I asked Joanna about a rumour that I had heard > that not all households had received the > consulatation document. She confirmed that this > was true; there had been a postal error so not > every household had got the mailing. She said > that they were dealing with this by sending out > another mailing during the course of next week > (28/2 - 1/2) to ALL households telling them about > the error and asking householders who hadn?t had > the mailing to either source the information > online or proactively contact the Council to ask > for a hard copy to be mailed to them. > > 2) Re: ?Why are we conducting a parking study?? > This is the fundamental question and is taken > verbatim from the consultation document. The > answers are given as follows: > ?The council has received many requests for > parking controls to be introduced in the area.? > and > ?Many local residents are finding it harder and > harder to park near their homes...? > > I said to Joanna that these statements were simply > too vague to be either meaningful or appropriate > to be used as the fundamental argument for such a > significant matter, so what were the actual > supporting data? She said there had been 117 > requests during the last 3 years. (N.B. I forgot > to ask if these were separate requests from 117 > individual residents, or just a grand total that > may/may not include some residents who submitted > multiple requests). > I then asked how many people there are in the ED > area, and Joanna said 7,000 (I think, but am not > 100% sure, that she said that this is a combined > figure for residents and businesses). > The person sitting next to me worked out that 117 > is 1.67% of 7,000. > > I hope that this information is of some interest. > > Whilst writing, I have also heard a rumour of some > form of residents? meeting about this issue being > held this Tuesday (29/2) evening at the church at > Goose Green. I haven?t been able to verify this > one way or another, so can anyone help, please? > Thank you. A further point on the above, the 117 requests for controlled parking were received over a 3 year period!

staggeringly arrogant and dismissive attitude from those running the drop in today. I am appaulled at how this whole process is dressed up as anything is anything other than trying to railroad Southwark policy. This is fine, just please don't dress it up as anything else!!!!

Actually Young?s no longer brew anything. Fullers are the last big London brewer left. Oh....

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > worldwiser Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't know why it is that so many people > assume > > that their experience must be everyone's. We > also > > live on a road off LL and I can state > > categorically that there is no way (other than > > pure luck) of getting a space between 8.30 and > 6 > > within 5m walk of our house. The demand for > these > > spaces is enormous and getting worse. Has been > for > > the entire time we've lived here. > > > > I will rejoice when the CPZ arrives. > > I live close to the cinema and in my experience > the busiest time on the side roads off LL is > Saturday when the North Cross Road market is on. > Any other time there are always parking spaces > within 5 minutes walk of my house. For me, a 5 > minute radius around my house is roughly the area > between Crystal Palace Road and the Melbourne/EDG > junction, and anywhere on LL between the Goose > Green roundabout and Pellatt Road. I've never, > ever seen ED so busy that I can't find a space in > that area. > > This morning I walked down Chesterfield and > Melbourne Grove on the way to the station and > there were several spaces available at 8:30. > Yesterday I left work early, got back to ED around > 5 and there were loads of spaces on North Cross > Road, Shawbury, Hansler etc. as well as on LL > itself. Fellbrigg always has space during the > week. Always. Maybe it's different for the side > roads up by the roundabout, but a bit further down > LL there is simply no need for a CPZ. We must live close to each other. Totally agree. Sat sometimes I have to park 1 or 2 roads from my house. I have always taken the view it?s a good thing because it means the gym/the butcher/the cinerma etc etc are busy.

Suggest exeryone take a stroll down Lordship Lane and take note of resent closures and empty units vs a couple of new entrants. Discouraging shoppers and ?500 pa. Business charge per car will not help this state of affairs. It might also be worth counting the number of electric charging points, it won?t take long! If there is a serious desire to reduce emissions then Southwark need to up their game

Thank you to Robin for her continuing good work with SE22 trees geh

SE22-Newbie yup!, ran out and complained to the postman on Sat after he rammed a weeks worth of post though my letter box ripping half of it. His response? incredulity followed by: "you can always make a complaint" probably won't ever get a delivery again.

keep them and re-use them?

Best news this year

MarkT the kids did used to play football in the garages but they constantly broke the guttering and the downpipes which led to the ?no ball games? signage

Interestingly despite no representative from the garage department being at the consultation and the Southwark representative guaranteed garage tenants would be given a minimum of 6 months notice of demolition.

It all seemed rather ill conceived, displace 14 existing southwark tenants for 4 (appreciate homes are important), no idea of overall cost of development, no idea of materials to be used, no opinion on viability. Massing seems too much in comparison the existing residential vernacular. Also noise from the Church would need to be considered. As per garages2018 post above, very annoying not to have any representative from garage department, and in fact a lot of queries were answered with "I don't know its not my department' Indicated planning application poss. in March 2019 which would follow 2 further consultations. Would add that consultation time ending at 19.00 doesn't really help those traveling home from work, and consultation questionnaire is very limited in terms of responses you are allowed to tick. 'Limited consultation' would be a better description.