Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Cl thank you and Jeremy, Mark T and KK have laid out the issues in regard to planning and process and James Barber seems to have disappeared.


There is a relationship between increase in traffic, space for vehicles to reverse out etc.. and increase in residential units that will share the same entrance/service area. Those residents and perhaps their children will also have to get in and out of their homes. Seriously, what with the car wash too, there will be so much going on within an inadequate (extremely reduced delivery space) that there are real safety concerns. One of the more knowledgeable objectors, a RIBA architect, has raised this over and over again, but it falls on deaf ears.


Owners of those same ears choose to ignore reasons for the seriously damaged bollard at the delivery/service entrance (which will be shared with the flat owners). Planning claimed that it could not conclusively be proved that the damage was caused by a delivery vehicle. Go and have a look and make up your own mind. The bollard is huge, the large scrape marks on the side (Iceland delivery vehicle red)seem pretty conclusive to anyone with an ounce of common sense.


Of course parking pressure on all the surrounding roads will be massive. We've got up to 10 new dwellings, a larger store than envisaged, two new schools opening very close by and a very busy car wash that likes to park customer cars up and down the street outside. I doubt all the new residents or parents getting kids to school, will be cycling. The Council wanted CPZ and that is probably what will happen...it was always a long game.


Mark T I guess if there are enough 5 storey builds of the type Fazer cherishes then perhaps the designation can simply be changed to urban anyhow..? I forget what the criteria are but once there are enough up then anything goes, I guess.

Posted by James Barber February 07, 05:25PM



Cl thank you and Jeremy, Mark T and KK have laid out the issues in regard to planning and process and James Barber seems to have disappeared.


"Thanks ITATM for helping while I've been focusing on a fab new day job."


--------------------

Regards [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

First Mate,

I did say that the solution was simple - to redesignate ED as Urban - but the process would require full and protracted consultation. The current policies have been in place since 2007.


Jeremy,

I think that anything that exceeds the policy definitions and guidelines is, by definition, overdevelopment. Policies are arrived at through a defined thorough and lenthy process, giving every statutory body and interested party a chance to contribute. They therefore can take account of every aspect of infrastructure - road capacity, public transport, energy and water supply, education and health services etc along with local history and the collective wishes of residents.


Of course the policies leave scope for balancing one factor against another, but the London Plan specifically states that all other requirements should be satisfied within the defined densities.


If individual developments are considered strictly in accordance with policies, they can rightfully be approved speedily with minimal consultation.


Through repeated rounds of consultation, through generations of policies, the Council maintains the designation of East Dulwich as Suburban and therefore the London Plan definition applies. If there are good arguments for applying Urban heights and densities in East Dulwich then they should be put forward in the preparation of the New Southwark Plan, and subjected to full statutory consultation.


MarkT

If this was a housing association JOB


It would be 10 floors high regardless of the policy


The UK planning system is a total shambles


This is 100% underdevelopment !


Edit


If you can't build 5 floors on a high street WTF can you build 5 floors ????????

F71, you may be right but that will cause a heck of a lot of holdups on the Lane as there will be lots and lots of deliveries. Poor people using buses as primary form of transport at rush hour. Imagine too if part of Melbourne is closed off to traffic...the mind boggles.
Edhistory, oh it's all okay, the computer tracking proves it, somehow those lorries, the same that smashed the bollard to one side, will be able to easily and safely get in and out of the considerably smaller space. Planning magic.

Aren't the deliveries in the early morning? I could be totally wrong but I remember that from the planning application as some people were complaining they were too early / noise. I'm not sure though.



first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> F71, you may be right but that will cause a heck

> of a lot of holdups on the Lane as there will be

> lots and lots of deliveries. Poor people using

> buses as primary form of transport at rush hour.

> Imagine too if part of Melbourne is closed off to

> traffic...the mind boggles.

LM, no that was about ensuring that daily deliveries do not begin too early in order that people are not woken at an unreasonable time. Deliveries will take place at various points of the day. Because the shop is much bigger than Iceland there will be much more produce to deliver. It is reasonable to expect there will be more deliveries.

Yep

The planners want to stay busy so they refuse anything they can to stay in a job.


Planning is part job creation part confusion they are very skilled in being busy.


Department managers want bigger departments dealing with more complex issues.


It's a mess because it's about job creation, not about creating homes.


It's another reason we have such huge a housing problem.

I don't think that everyone in the planning dept can actually read plans. There are a number of recent developments which have been built (so I assume approved) that do not comply with Southwark regulations (min outside Space etc) it is this hotch potch approach coupled with their lack of organisation that ensures developers can slip thru what they fancy.

I suspect the truth is Southwark has lost many experienced officers in their reorganising to save money and are employing cheaper less experienced staff.


This could be happening right across the Council.


How many very experienced senior officers have gone?

The agenda pack and the basis of the decision is set out on pages 15 to 33 here


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5100/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2008-Mar-2016%2019.00%20Planning%20Sub-Committee%20B.pdf?T=10



"Whilst the proposal is below the affordable housing threshold, there is an extant permission for 8 flats on the first and second floors of the building, demonstrating (should this proposal for 2 flats at roof level be permitted) that at least 10 flats could be created here were a future scheme to come forward proposing residential again at first and second floor. It is therefore considered necessary that a S106 agreement is required here to ensure that the cumulative number of residential units at the site is considered, should future proposals come forward, against the Council's affordable housing policy."

Abe this submission is totally disingenuous.


Key factors: density, conflict between servicing vehicles and resident/pedestrians, parking, are all considered mitigated because the submission at this stage is for two floors of offices with two further residences on a fourth storey. But it is crystal clear that once the penthouses are built that an earlier submission, granted by planning, to convert the 8 offices to residences will be activated thereby re-instituting all the earlier conflicts which planning would object to were a submission made for 10 residences now, and that is without including the further but important issue of affordable housing.


I see that the planning say that if and when this happens they will seek some sort of legal constraints but do not state what these are. It is difficult to know what these might be and how they will help since once all 10 flats are up an running the damage will be done and it will be irrevocable. I can well imagine planning may seek some kind of financial redress/ fine which they will cali. As salve for the community but will not help those directly impacted by this over developed site.

Wow, that does seem pretty sneaky. Surely Southwark won't now grant the creation of 10 flats? I dont' know that much about it, but from your post first mate, it does appear the developer may be playing the system somewhat.

Rahrahrah,

Well I am no expert but have watched the progress of this thing over the years and am quite dumbfounded. Again I would ask anyone who doubts what I say to visit the back of this development to see just how large it is already, without a further storey.

first mate... why don't you and MarkT register as objectors and speak jointly at the planning meeting?? If you email the clerk on Monday, you should be able to get assigned a slot.


At least this way, you'll get to have your voice heard...


It probably won't make much difference to the decision to grant, but you may be able to get some stricter conditions inserted.


My guess is that the timing of this meeting is being set to pre-empt the appeal. I'm not in a position to get to the bottom of why the application wasn't decided on time, but am guessing is that it fell between the cracks during the reorganisation of the planning dept.


But Simon Bevan, the new head of planning, and Sonia Watson, the officer in charge of this application, are actually both really good officers, so I suspect that this is the best that they can do to legally salvage the situation.


But it definitely wouldn't hurt if a group of residents went along and protested...


Power to the People, etc!

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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