Petition to stop development at rear of 20/21 Grove Park

[Bloggsy08]

Yes it always seems to hot up during summer school break when people are busy or away on hols ...

Not much time left to sign this petition to get Southwark to refuse planning permission for application number 12/AP/2214, at the back of 20 and 21 Grove Park. Please sign the petition!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-garden-grabbing/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ivanhoe-Residents-Association/316393255069392

[Loz]

It would be nice to know the reasons why you want to stop this, so I can decide if I want to sign your petition.

[AbDabs]

I've just clicked on the first link and it only seems to ask me for my email address. Surely, without a full name and postal address this can't be taken into consideration; it doesn't constitute a valid objection to the application for planning permission. Wouldn't it be better for the affected residents to write a proper objection rather than just sign a petition.

A petition is only worth the effort it took to click a few buttons, which isn't much.

[edcam]

What are we supposed to be objecting to exactly? It would help if you could give us more information so we can make an informed choice. The petition link mentions "garden grabbing", not a phrase which it is easy to take seriously (along with a bad typo, which is also not helpful)but then talks about demolition of garages, so which is it? It may be that we agree with the objections but hard to know what they are!

[Bloggsy08]

If you go down the bottom of the aforementioned FB wall, you'll see developer plans for that parcel. As far back as June 12. You'll also read about attempts to develop 123 Grove Park and mention of the convent project at 18 GP which was approved with little consultation which everyone regrets as work and noise drag on. In that case the land was left by nuns in a covenant for the homeless and the result has been luxury flats. We understand nuns were buried around the chapel and no archaelogy was undertaken. If you walk across Avondale Rise you'll see the crane which has been a fixture for nearly a year as another greenbelt parcel next to the rail line gets developed. Residents in the area have been fighting off development of the back gardens of 20 and 21 off and on for about 12 years. Southwark News ran a story about the attempt 5 years ago, which is the closest it came to fruition for a developer. Some development plans get through and some don't - depends on level of fatigue or apathy on the part of the public, since the developers keep on returning with new attempts for planning permission. Even when unsuccessful the taxpayer foots the bill for consultations. It has gotten to the point where residents feel such frequently repeated attempts constitutes "vexatious behaviour".

In every case it has been about developing in conservation areas for either new builds or expansion of existing buildings. In the case of 123 Grove Park, plans for which were rejected by Inspector Rodgers for the Sec of State for Communities and Local Government earlier this month (links for the docs can be found in a timeline item on Aug 12), one reason given was additional cutting down of trees. It was impressed upon the Inspector at developer appeal that while a common sycamore may not be anything special, a grove of them makes for woodland, including bat habitat. It appeared to be chiefly denied on grounds of being contrary to policies 3.16 and 7.21 of the Southwark Plan (2007). The first because the plan doesn't preserve the Conservation Area as it stands (reading between the lines this invites a new proposal in due course) and the second because it does not, in broad terms, protect trees within a conservation area.

20/21 is also in a conservation area, in a greenbelt which runs between the back gardens of Grove Hill Road and Grove Park, from Lettsom Gardens down to Warwick Gardens past the rail line. Perhaps the only reason the development was stopped 5 years ago is because developers got a junior tree officer to sign off on clearing the land of sycamore trees when his senior was on holiday. This was also during summer holiday when fewer residents were around to monitor events. By the time the press came in, all the trees were down. This caused an uproar as planning approval had actually not yet been given - the leader of the council stepped in and demanded the trees be replanted. Although developers jumped the gun the replacement was paltry and of course this was not like for like because you can't replace 40 year old mature trees.

Since that time each proposal has weighed in for even larger development. The Ivanhoe Residents Assoc opposes this development in part due to violations in the past, the 123 GP decision, and the fallout at 18 GP. Access to proposed works would be from Ivanhoe Road as well, adding insult to injury by impacting residents in the mews - from congestion, noise and pollution, not to mention light and sightlines later. Families mainly live in the road, so this would also mean the end of kids playing in the road and so on ... and no one can really know for how long. You can see the current plans on the FB timeline for June 12th. If you click on the drawing and then click on arrow right, you can see the sketches. FB timeline mode is not the most easily navigable social media view. but it's all the association has for now ... and the data has been posted.

[edcam]

Sorry, I am sympathetic to concerns over the conservation area but you should really post a concise explanation if you want to get people on board. Finding something way down a timeline on FB is like wading through treacle.

And your post above is too convoluted.

[genwilliams]

My tuppence: the gardens at the back of 123 Grove Park are beautiful - I've been in a couple of times and it's a veritable forest - mostly untrodden by people, so a real haven for the kind of city wildlife that is fast running out of habitat in London. It's now rare to find such untouched spots in London. If the area behind 20/21 Grove Park is comparable, I hope it can be saved!