Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

They look OK to me. Aesthetically I really do not like the sections of red brick next to the windows, but I guess that's just my personal taste. The fundamental design and materials look consistent with lots of other modern housing. I've never really understood the argument that new-builds should be "in keeping", do we really want mock-period architecture? I certainly don't!


I would like to see provisions for kerbside electric car charging considered for new build houses. Maybe a couple of pop-out outlets out the front (if such a thing exists!). The chances are that a family buying a fairly expensive house (850K?) are going to own a car, or at least be considering it.

It's social housing so they won't be buying it....


Boddle they don't make it easy but the plans are there with multiple images - click the related documents tab.


My point on aesthetics is not that they have to be the same as those around them but 'in keeping' which I think the consultation ones were but now they have changed them, presumably to save money, in particular on the second floor...so for people living opposite not only do they have their light replaced by a building but by a pretty ugly one....buildings hang around for years surely we can expect them to be designed in a way that is carefully thought out aesthetically as well as practically.


For the first time in my experience they are saying that comments can only be made via the link. They are not offering an email address for comments or saying that letters will be accepted....in my opinion this is discriminatory.


These links are not easy, especially if you are not used to using computers (see Boddle's comments) and if they really wanted people to engage then they would find better ways to genuinely have a dialogue.

I have just checked and to confirm Southwark Planning prefer you to comment by the link above but if you know people who would prefer to write or email comments then they can still be sent to the main planning email address quoting the planning reference (19/AP/1861) and their name and address. If they don't want their name and address made public then they just need to include a line saying 'please ensure my name and address are removed before putting my comments online'. Landlords and tenants can make comments.


[email protected]


Address:


Planning Department

Southwark Council

160 Tooley Street

London

SE1P 5LX

Thank you Cora. We have sent ours in so I hope others will do the same if they want to submit comments more than the allotted 2000 characters. Issues of density, amenity and possible noise and being overlooked are all suggested comments if anyone would like to object.
  • 1 month later...

Planning application going to Planning Committee for those that wish to attend:


I refer to the above application on which you have submitted comments. It will be considered by the Council's Planning Sub-committee A which meets on 1 October, 2019 18:30 Council Offices, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH


Recommended decision:Grant permission


My report on the application can be seen on the Council?s website. You will find it in the list of documents for this application on the Register of Planning Applications. You can search the register athttps://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/ as well as viewing the agenda of the meeting athttp://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgListCommittees.aspx?bcr=1You can use facilities at your local library or My Southwark Service Points to access the website.


Please note that although the report states my recommendation on the decision to be made, it is for the Committee to decide whether or not to accept it after they have considered all the material issues and factors to be taken into account in determining the application.This meeting is open to the public and you may attend if you wish. Details of the procedure that will be followed at the meeting are attached.Please contact the Committee Clerk on if you require any further information about the arrangements for the meeting, including the location of and accessibility to the venue, carers' allowance for people attending the meeting, or any special needs such as transport or a signer/interpreter.I will inform you of the 's decision once the decision has been issued.Yours sincerely Simon Bevan Director of Planning...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-to-light


Looks as if it's a matter of private contract rather than planning law.


Seems to be something like squatting ie if you have received the light for long enough you are entitled to it. It is a civil matter (ie you have to go to court about it). Planning departments may take it into account or they may not.


https://www.123plans.co.uk/uploads/frontend/media/documents/rightstolight.pdf


Further explanation


https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/pbc-today-articles/rights-light-glance/20815/

Both the Bassano Street and the Henslowe Road garage developments were granted permission at last night's planning meeting (1st October). This will bring much need Council housing to East Dulwich.


Councillor Charlie Smith

Goose Green Ward Member

Density is 50% over the Council?s standard for East Dulwich but this was completely ignored by the committee. The architects designed for an urban setting when East Dulwich is designated suburban. Also completely ignored the impact on other residents. A shocking decision and an abdication of responsibility by our ward councillors, none of whom made any effort to understand concerns.

Hi gerry, and other Bassanno residents.

Please accept my apologies for my part in this.

As one of the then Councillors for East Dulwich ward I proposed council housing for these two garages sites. I expected such housing to conform to the Southwark Plan which restricts density, heights, etc and respects our area as suburban.

Clearly the current council administration and more recently elected Councillors are happy with the areas suburban character not being respected. Hence the travesty of these approved schemes. Sorry.

Thank you James. Your honesty is appreciated. The density of the planned development is 510 habitable rooms per hectare, versus Southwark?s Residential Design Standards of 200-350. The gardens will also be less than half the size required. Too crowded for the people who have to live in them and too crowded for the neighbourhood. Why does Southwark produce these plans and standards and then completely ignore them. I hope the current councillors for this ward are honest enough now to admit that they and the council regard East Dulwich as an urban area and not the suburban one we all thought we were living in. We will remember the lack of engagement of our local counsellors at the next election.
James you have always been very supportive and worked hard with Planning Issues....for me it is a real sign of a bad democracy when planning departments are so ineffective and trawl out fake consultations. The Labour Council should be ashamed of the way these decisions are made...I too was not against using the space for more housing but that shouldn't mean a carte blanche approach regardless of issues brought up by the surrounding residents.

Hi all,


Throughout the design process I have been keen to hear the views of residents and I have ensured that the housing team have listened too. As a result of feedback the designs were altered to respond to concerns about privacy and light.


Let's be clear what density means: it refers to the number of people housed in a given footprint. Higher density can mean very tall buildings, inappropriate for a suburban setting, but it does not need to. In this case, the new council homes are going to be roughly the same height as the existing buildings.


The higher density is a response to the dire need for council homes. The council does not own much land that it can build on, particularly not in this part of the borough. So when we have some we want to make the best use of it! We wanted to focus on family homes, the lower density option would have been to go for flats for couples or single people.


I cannot wait to welcome four families into their new council homes. Decent council housing has the potential to transform lives.


Best wishes

James

Councillor McAsh, I am interested that you say that you have always been interested in taking account of the views of residents. You did not engage in any serious degree with the views of the Sage Mews residents. Nor were you or any of the other ward councillors at the planning committee meeting. Why does the Council set these standards and then drive a coach and horses through them? This development is between 50% and 100% over-sized as regards density. They could have had four 2-storey homes which would have met density standards and not overshadowed Sage Mews or three (instead of four) 3-storey homes which would also have met density standards. We all agree that more social housing is required. It should however be provided in a manner consistent with the Council?s published standards and without overwhelming other residents.
To go back to the question I asked (and have regularly continued to ask) - can you, do you, trust the council, its elected representatives or officials? Time and again what they say, or are meant to say, and what they do, part company. As regards their own housing density standards, this appears to be (another) case in point. I am sure the councillor feels he is doing good things - but local standards separate from him were set to allow us to judge that against fixed criteria. Housing density standards are not a starting point for debate, they are a rule, or rather not when it comes to Southwark apparently.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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