Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Southwark Council is proposing to demolish the Bassano Street garages across from ESPH and build four houses in its place.

Consultation now open for comment, search Southwark planning applications 19/AP/1861. I believe there is deadline of 4th August for comment.

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.

There isn't anything published yet concerning the meeting on 25th March. I only found out because I contacted them directly. If there is a project group I would be interested in joining this as we are local residents. I will keep you informed when the details are released. I was informed there would be invitations sent out next week.

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

Hi Passiflora,

As the then local councillor I was focused on East Dulwich and then wider Southwark.


hi very,

The scheme proposed is an over development for the site. It breaks The Southwark Plan - councils planning bible - ignoring the area Suburban designation. I hope others joining me in seeking to get an appropriately sized scheme that meets the councils own policies.

Bother. I can't make the new April date and nor can former Councillor Rosie Shimell. I will get another Lib dem activist to attend.

Hi Passiflora,

I specifically stated a Lib Dem will be there. Baffled how you have morphed that into no Lib Dem will be there!


Hi geh, gerry,

My understanding is four storey building are now being proposed. Contrary to my original officer discussions.

The current Core Strategy from 2011 p57 states area should remain suburban - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiuvIDRsffgAhWMDOwKHToSCKoQFjABegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fassets%2Fattach%2F1675%2F1.0.2%2520DL%2520Core_Strategy_2011.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1_K9P70Ij7_TRp_BgcGLrl

p.78 shows that East Dulwich issei's in the Suburban Density Zone Middle.

Definition of Suburban Density in Southwark can be found on p.79 stating 200-350 habitable rooms per hectare. Sizes of room and outdoor space are requirements. So four storey building there would breach these room range without the excuse of being on top of a station for example.

Southwark Council will argue it's next to the church hall which is high. But of course we wouldn't expect homes to be as tall as churches!


Details of home design and repeat of suburban definition p.8 here -https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1811/1.0.4.1%202015_Technical_Update_to_the_Residesign_SPD__2011_.pdf

The garages are 0.05 hectare. So that would be 10 to 17.5 rooms 18m frontage = circa 3 x typical Bassano Street homes. So 3 houses wide to deliver those 10 - 17.5 habitable rooms.

3 x houses x 3 bedroom each(1 attic bedroom) would be at the top end of the acceptable range.

I think four-five storey blocks, like tenement blocks in Glasgow and those you can see in part of London (like Battersea) and in many cities abroad (Rome, Barcelona, Paris) are a good use of space. I agree that such density is not good for all parts of Zone 2 but in small pockets it could help the housing situation (as long as the rooms are big enough and well insulated).

hi Nigello,

Where that is the norm what you're suggesting can work well.

But where it would then dominate and overlook others it doesn't work well. Which is why Southwark has policies specifically aimed at not allowing what you've suggested in areas like East Dulwich.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Andy is an absolute star. Have used him for years and he’s become a hugely trusted and valued friend as well as handyman. Always willing to go the extra mile and doesn’t cut corners, but great on pricing. Can’t recommend enough.
    • Surely you are still covered under these circumstances even if you don't have the physical licence? I can't believe you would be prevented from driving? That would be a ridiculous system. I don't recall any delays   when mine was renewed. Why would their medical department be involved if you have no medical issues? Could someone have made some admin mistake somewhere along the line?
    • Does anyone have the same problem.  I am 79 and have sent my licence renewal form to the DVLA on the 21st October 20 which they have received. I have just received a letter from them them dated 22 December 2025 today saying my licence is with their Drivers Medal Department and will be processed as soon as possible. This follows my telephone call to them after three weeks  from the October date as I had not received my licence back as per their time frame. I also followed this up mid December after finally getting through but did not get any confirmation as to what the situation was. Is this normal practice? On the 7 January 2026 I will be unable to drive as my licence has not been sent back. I have no medical issues and meet all the requirements with no problem as per previous renewals in fact nothing has changed health wise.Their the letter states if they need any more details from me, they will contact me directly. Why has it taken 2 and a half months get get this far? Is this some sort of ploy to get older drivers to finally give up their driving by making life difficult as possible.  Has anyone else experienced this. Read Medical not Medal.
    • You're being a little disingenuous here. It is simply not true that "the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum" because: -> the area the development is in isn't 2/3 storeys maximum today - as evidenced by the school on the lot adjoining the development to the south, as well as the similarly-sized buildings to the north and east.  -> the SPG doesn't preclude this type of development anyway. This "genie in a bottle" stuff is desperate barrel-scraping. Now you're raising the spectre of a 9 storey building on the Gibbs & Dandy site (the chance would be a fine thing) but also arguing Southwark is too slow to approve things and opposed to development more than 2-3 storeys!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...