Rowanofski

@northernmonkey - yes, Pickwick Rd is the reference, but the camera we were caught by is entering Dulwich Village from the roundabout by Gallery / College Rd. Having since gone back on my bike to check, I would disagree strongly about the significant amount of signage for this restriction. There is one sign on each side of the road (one of which is obscured by a tree on the approach), they are not lit and there are no road markings about a bus gate. On top of this, 25m or so before the roundabout (Gallery Rd) approach has a sign stating no left turn (into Burbage) during the restricted hours, but doesn't mention straight on (into Dulwich Village). It's a Southwark cash-cow, pure and simple. Anyway, no point in me moaning away here! Hopefully it makes others aware and I will go appeal the fine in the meantime and drop a note to the local councillors to try and either remove the restriction or make signage clearer.

Grrrrr. Seems like they have stopped giving warnings now. My wife just got a ?65 ("reduced") charge for this exact spot. We don't drive often so had no idea about any of this. Seems like a ludicrous restriction when they've closed so many other routes and it doesn't seem very clearly signed at all. :-(

No problem... I saw it on LinkedIn and just didn't think there would be too many full-time Mums who make LinkedIn a part of their daily routine!

Saw this the other day and thought there might be a number of Mums around here who could be interested... Deadline is this Friday. https://careers.jpmorgan.com/careers/global/en/programs/reentry-program It's basically a 14 week programme for experienced professional women (across all divisions; Technology, Business etc - no banking experience required) who have been out of the workplace for 2 years or more. There is then apparently a strong chance of a permanent role at the end of it (potentially on a flexible working basis). Full disclosure - I work at JP Morgan and really enjoy it here, but am not involved with this. Just thought it looked like a good initiative worth sharing. Good luck with it if you do apply!

I really cannot add any more than what has already been said by every single other comment here. Just so incredibly rare to have such universal praise, love and respect without exception on here! How many shop owners would inspire a 4 yr old to bring back a holiday present for them before than their own grandparents?!! Thank you and good luck Raj, Nilesh & Anita.

You may already be aware of the proposed expansion of Quarry Court (2 Dunstans Grove), whereby a property developer is seeking to double the occupancy by building upwards and outwards, remove parking, build street-facing dormer windows, balconies and a roof terrace (none of which would be granted to an average home around here). This application was already refused a little over a year ago by Southwark Planning and then again at the highest level of the National Planning Inspectorate. Sadly, that was not enough to dissuade the developers' greed and they have reapplied with some minor tweaks, but the council / inspectorate reasons for refusal are still present (essentially to say it would be overbearing and out of keeping with the area). However, Southwark Planning have made a U-turn and are currently intending to approve the application (without stating why) despite the local councillors all still opposing the revised development (Jon Hartley, Maggie Browning, Renata Hamvas, Victoria Mills, Gavin Edwards & James Barber). Due to this opposition and the significant volume of objections (47 at the last count), the case is being decided at a Planning Committee, this Wednesday 27th June @ 6.30pm. This committee can refuse the application! Whilst these committees are independent, they are known to be significantly swayed by community strength and public opinion, which is where you come in. If you are opposed to the proposed plan and could possibly spare half hour of your time, please come and show your support at the meeting near to London Bridge station, this Wednesday! It is the first item on the agenda, so should mean we can all leave early. Placards and vocal opposition make a big impact! Who: YOU!! And as many friends and family as you can bring! What: Quarry Court (2 Dunstans Grove) planning committee meeting Where: Ground Floor Meeting Room (G02) - 160 Tooley St, London, SE1 2QH Why: To prevent the greed of one company impacting the community. When: Wed 27th June @ 6.30pm Additional info: Details of the application can be found on the https://southwark.gov.uk/planning website by searching for Quarry Court or the reference 17/AP/3997 The National Planning Inspectorate's reasons for refusal last year can be viewed at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3164939 The agenda for this Planning Committee (with details of the case) can be found here - http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=351&MId=6137&Ver=4 Hope to see as many of you there as possible, whether you are new to the area or have been here 50 years!

Bonjour. Would anyone happen to know of any local sale of Christmas trees? Only just getting to move back into my house for Xmas today, so Ideally looking for a cut price bargain!

Thanks for flagging this Amber - disappointing that interested parties from the last case weren't notified of this, but it seems they are treating it as a "new" application. The last one was ultimately rejected by both Southwark Council and the National Planning Inspectorate for various reasons, but specifcally "being out of character and appearance of the area" and the "effect on living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular reference to outlook". From what I can see, the "new" application is almost as bad as the original. They've reduced it a small bit, but ultimately still proposed a very large street-facing dormer extension and an open roof terrace right on the public road (Dunstans Grove). I have registered my new objections to the slightly adjusted plans and TODAY is the deadline for anyone else wanting to do so! As Amber says, I'm sure the volume of objections would really help, so please do write your concerns on the Southwark site today, even if it is simply one sentence.

For any interested parties, there is a very tight deadline (TOMORROW, Thursday 2nd March!) to oppose the Developer's Appeal, which will be considered by the National Planning Inspectorate. The more representations they receive, the more powerful our case will be. Please ?make representation? on their portal at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ Application number: 3164939. The key is to register new objections related to the developers? appeal rather than repeat the objections you may have made previously. Southwark?s Director of Planning rejected the proposal for three main reasons. In summary 1. The building would have ?inappropriate scale and massing to the rear and at roof level, resulting in an incongruous and overbearing feature in the streetscene? 2. The roof terrace would be overbearing and dominant, out of character with the area 3. The internal space of the flats was below standards and ?unacceptably cramped?. The developers have moved some internal walls to address point three, but they are appealing to retain all the external additions and changes to which we originally objected. A couple of suggestions... APPEAL TO REFUSAL REASON 1 (excessive bulk, out of scale with surroundings) Developers say: it will enhance the building; that there is no set pattern in the surrounding streets so it doesn?t matter if it doesn?t fit in; that it is on a ?similar? footprint to the existing building; that its height and massing ?responds? to nearby buildings, and that the materials [white plaster and metal cladding] have been chosen to fit the ?rhythm? of existing buildings. Finally they point out that the site is in an area with ?very little character? and that ?any harm caused by [their] proposed development? to the look of the area is outweighed by the additional flat created. APPEAL TO REASON 2 (roof terraces do not fit the area) The developer?s appeal here is contradictory and difficult to summarise. They say that the surroundings have no set pattern so there is nothing to fit in with; then they say it has been designed to ?integrate? with its surroundings. Then they say (as a matter of opinion) that it is not of a ?visually dominating? scale; then they say ?in some circumstances a contrasting modern design can be successful? (quoting a Southwark Residential Design Standard). A few key points you may wish to consider: ? There are currently NO front-facing (i.e. street-visible) Dormer windows on any house on Dunstans Grove, Dunstans Road or further afield within the neighbouring area ? There are currently NO other roof terraces in the local area ? There are currently NO other buildings in the neighbourhood with four full height floors. ? The area is clearly characterised by Victorian/Georgian homes forming the vast majority of the buildings along Dunstans Rd / Grove and beyond. ? The design comments are subjective, but features such as metal cladding and white plaster on such a large scale would make Quarry Court stand out for all the wrong reasons. ? The developer?s survey which claimed parking stress of ~53% included the whole stretch of Peckham Rye up to Harris Academy (both sides), which is clearly not viable.

For anyone who has an interest in this matter, a small group of us will be meeting at the Herne Tavern tomorrow from 8:30pm. Hope to see as many there as possible to figure out the best course of action. All input greatly appreciated. Rowan

So, the grounds of appeal has finally been made available. I have not yet had a chance to fully digest, but attach this here. An initial scan seems that they have drawn reference to a Parking Survey which reported there is more than ample parking space for the area. A neighbour who looked into this at the time, found that they conducted their survey to include a large stretch of Peckham Rye (i.e. alongside Piermont Green) which is never parked upon, since it would be dangerous to do so. My other initial impression is that they refer to amended plans, but again, these have not been placed on Southwark's website, so hard to contest. I will ask again to make sure that ALL documents are uploaded. I will be looking to set up a meeting next week to discuss this case in person with anyone who has an interest, so please PM me if you would like to join us. Thanks, Rowan

Thanks again Ian, I did query the date given by Southwark with the PI and they confirmed your concerns - the letter is at odds with the PI date and 2nd March is the official deadline. The PI deadline of 2nd March is the real one here. That said, I would encourage any representations sooner than later. As for the appellants's statement and supporting documents, they really are the essential missing pieces right now. I chased the planning officer (Anthony Roberts) again and he assured me they would be uploaded by today. Annoying that this comes a week after the original start date. Rowan

Hi, just a mild dispute going on in the Ofski household right now! With the new Costa about to appear in Peckham, I said that there was another one before it, but I can't back this up with where or when and my wife swears there wasn't! Long story short, can anyone confirm if there was a Costa coffee shop in Peckham before? (apparently petrol station ones don't count!) There's a coffee resting on the outcome of this, though, rest assured we will both be claiming from an independent! ;-)

Thanks Ian. I tried those URLs. Unfortunately neither link provides any detail as to why they are specifically appealing the council's rejection of planning permission, only that they are appealing. The Appeal Form gives a long list of documents provided to Southwark but none of those are provided on either site. Having also reread the Start Letter however (the inspectorate notifying Southwark), that does state that Southwark have until 2nd Feb to make all appeal documents available to the public, so a slim hope this may be uploaded today. If not, we still don't know the grounds of their appeal and are losing precious time to respond. I will chase the planning officer today, but once again would be most grateful if Renata is also able to speak with them to ensure this is made public ASAP.

Thanks for posting this update Sarah-Marie. It is really disappointing indeed, especially so that the notification comes NINE weeks after the appeal deadline closed. I really thought it was case closed. Sadly, I already queried this and was told they did register it in time but it wasn't uploaded until now due to a backlog at the inspectorate. As Renata says, I think it is really important we respond to the appeal again, but that is proving difficult just now since nobody has made the grounds of their appeal available to us yet. That in itself must surely be breaching the inspectorate guidelines given the appeal is underway and we have such a short window to respond? Anyway, I am chasing on getting sight of this so will share here as soon as I get any luck. If Renata is able to get access to this, I'd be most grateful. Rowan

Hi Renata, That's really not actually the case for all small applications. As you know, the proposal on Dunstans Grove is not in a conservation area, but I really don't consider it to be a small structural change to more than double the current occupancy. In just a very quick cursory look at the planning site, I instantly found two very recent examples of a far smaller nature, which were refused and NOT in conservation areas or listed buildings. 12 Ferris Road (15/AP/5090) was denied a dormer extension and window alterations as they were "excessive in their scale... and would appear as a visually obtrusive and incongruous form of development... that would represent an overly dominant feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of the building and the group of properties on Ferris Road" 21 Stuart Road (15/AP/4310) was denied a roof extension to create new self-contained studio flat because "its scale and design would result in an insensitive and out of scale addition to the original building that would be materially harmful to the appearance of the building and wider terrace" It's worth noting that there was only one single objection registered between the two cases above, whereas the Dunstans Grove case currently stands at 37! I'd really appreciate it if you had any additional guidance in relation to our case. Getting back onto my original post, this is the exact reason I have started this thread - there seems to be very little consistency to the planning process, so I don't actually know how much value these precedents are given. Rowan

Thanks very much, intexas. I realised the error of my ways and have since discovered you can see the reason for decline in the related documents section on their planning register. Would still be interested to hear anyone's personal experience of these things though. As you say, there are are far smaller applications that were declined (some on the basis of dormer windows alone), so if precedents are factored in as you would expect, then this should be a no-brainer... That said, the planning officer in this case has already stated he would grant the application which is pretty shocking given the nature of this one and also the volume of public objections made. Thankfully it is going to committee who I hope will have a little more sense and consideration between them.

I am trying to help gather some relevant information for an upcoming Planning Committee meeting and would be most grateful if anyone could let me know of a recent application they had declined, for any reason at all. The nearer to Dunstans Grove the better, but anything in the Peckham Rye Ward (or even East Dulwich) would be of interest. I have had a bit of a search on the Southwark Planning site, but there is a minefield of information and nothing to explain the exact reasons why an application was actually declined, so it would be really useful if someone had any personal insight they might be willing to share. For the sake of context and in case anyone is interested, I am one of the many local residents opposed to a significant expansion of the flats on the corner of Dunstans Grove. There seem to have been a number of far smaller applications declined, so I would be keen to show these as precedents. If you have any information on a declined application, please get in touch directly! Thanks. :-)

Thanks John, that is very interesting indeed. So, to directly quote their service outline of how they give it publicity... 1) by listing all applications received on the planning register on the website 2) by sending a neighbour consultation letter to the occupiers of those properties immediately adjoining the application site and others who are felt may be directly affected by the development 3) by publishing a notice in the local press or Southwark News 4) by the display of notices on or near to the application site The 1st and 3rd points would rely on people continuously and proactively seeking out developments in their area. Not sure how realistic that is. Their 2nd bullet point claiming they notify "others who are felt maybe directly affected by the deveopment" has been interpreted scandalously in my opinion. To think that properties directly opposite and indeed beside (even though separated by a road) will not be affected by a proposal of this scale is ridiculous. Considering the fact that Quarry Court sits at the entrance to a very small cul-de-sac, it will clearly have a major impact on everyone in the Grove also. On their final claim of publicity - "the display of notices" - this was not plural and the single flyer they did post was highly inconspicuous. It all just seems very much like they were hoping to get this one through on the sly. Not sure why that would surprise me! Whilst I am grateful for our councillors bringing this to committee (who I really hope have the community's interests at heart and not the interests of an out-of-town property developer), I'm still quite gobsmacked by the Planning Officers' outright disregard and ignorance of the 32+ objections that were raised in less than 48 hours.

Thanks Renata for getting back to me on this. I have sent you an email with my detailed and more structured comments regarding these plans. Anyone who would like to add to the significant objections that have gathered already since yesterday, would be much appreciated. The plans to make such an out of character extension of such a large scale in such a quiet cul-de-sac, seem really poorly thought out. I have been really impressed with the level of support gained in less than 24 hours on this. Thanks to all on that front - hopefully they will all be given proper consideration by the planning officers involved.

Definitely a great discussion to have, ratty... So great I'd say it was worthy of its own thread in its own right! ;-p Back to topic though, thanks for clarifying that notification policy John. Seems like they have been extremely tight with their interpretation of that. I spoke with a number of residents immediately opposite and one which is technically also next door but received nothing from the council on this.

I don't expect this post will receive universal support here, but I was very concerned to learn of the Council's absolutely minimal notice provided for a major extension to the Flats on the corner of Dunstans Road / Dunstans Grove. There was only one very small A4 notification attached to a lamp post some 20 metres away from the building itself and not in plain sight for the people it will most directly impact. They have only sent notice to 2 properties outside of the flats themselves. All of the directly neighbouring properties I have spoken with this evening have expressed significant concern to the size of the extension they have applied for and I wanted to make any others in the direct vicinity aware of the plans. To view the full details, you need to visit www.southwark.gov.uk/planningregister and input the Reference 15/AP/5181 The deadline is this Thursday 4th Feb so if anyone would like to comment and object, please do so URGENTLY! Personally speaking, my main objections relate to the sheer scale of the plans and the impact they will have on the immediate area. This is not a fully composed formal set by any means (it's late and I've got a headache from all the council planning jargon I've been swamped in!)... 1. Parking is already limited for residents and visitors (to park, local business etc). Increased number of residents will obviously worsen the situation. Removing or reducing the parking bay will also mean any turning traffic will have to reverse out onto busy Dunstans Road - dangerous! 2. Obstruction of sunlight on nearby properties. 3. Reduction of privacy on nearby properties. 4. Current refuse situation is already regularly overflowing. Side extension will be where the bins are now. Application states "provision of waste" has been accounted for but doesn't state how. Decreased capacity with increased residency does not seem to make any sense. 5. Noise disturbance from open balcony in the Grove. 6. Dunstans Grove is a quiet cul-de-sac full of families with young children who are playing out in the road - increased traffic is a danger. This list is just a start of potential concerns for those in the immediate vicinity. As per my opening line, I fully understand some people will have the opinion that we live in a City and should just get on with life, but my main cause for posting here is to highlight this to any local neighbours who inevitably will not have seen the (likely deliberate) very poor notification of these major works. If anyone wants to DM me for additional info about this, please do so. I also intend to collect a hyper-local petition (within a 100m radius or so) for anyone who is opposed. If this does not effect you but you know someone it will effect, PLEASE do bring to their urgent attention! One final request for anyone who does choose to object; please state in your comments that you would like this to go to a full committee and that you would like to represent your own views to the committee in person. From what I am told, this does not mean you HAVE to attend yourself, but it does mean the case is perhaps less likely to be swept under the Council's rug of acceptance by one individual planning officer without due consideration. Thanks for reading! :-) ...and for not trolling ;-) (Wishful thinking I know!)

They are very friendly chaps up there indeed and it's great that any money is going to such a good charity... That said, I thought they were pretty pricey and ended up with an excellent same sized tree for ?20 less from outside the Clock House, so ?5 donation doesn't seem to really justify the extra cost when you can donate the extra yourself (and get a free mulled cider in the process!)

Gutted I missed this. Seems some people do read it, but just too late! Do you have a mailing list for your comedy nights?

Andrew1011 - I wish you were right, but Southwark have clearly stated in their letter to me: "If you lose your appeal, you will have to pay the full charge rather than the discount charge (unless the Adjudicator decides otherwise)." I should clarify this is for after I have appealed to Southwark. The original so-called "discount" charge stands if Southwark reject your appeal, but Southwark have ignored my main points of objection and simply restated the original charge, so I don't feel my Representation was truly considered. If it goes to an Independent Adjudicator after the Southwark Representation, it increases to ?130 if you lose.