Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is a large development proposed to be 2 storeys above the existing building - no extra parking spaces, no Space for bins and will massively change the low level skyline in this lovely area next to the cinema..please take a look and lodge any comments to planning - these will not be social housing!


It says deadline for public comments is 7th January but the planning officer can still take comments up to the 20th January.


The email address is [email protected]


The reference is 20/AP/3185 and details can be found on Southwark planning website.


https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage



Call me cynical but I presume Park hill chose their timing carefully Christmas and Covid!


Thanks

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Cora. I?ve added comments. It?s my understanding that development to this height should not be allowed as ED is deemed a suburban area (vs Peckham which is deemed urban) but I have less and less confidence that Southwark Council will follow its own rules these days.


I found the link above didn?t work so adding again here:


https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/


You can find the application by searching 3185

The applicant Parkhill successfully obtained planning permission 19/AP/0387 for a partial development on to of the single existing flat adjacent to ESPH on Bassano Street. This subsequent planning application is classic salami tactic. Get a bit of what you want and then very hard to refuse the final brick in the overalll scheme. Hard to imagine this strategy was'n't all thought through in 2019 by Parkhill.


Parkhill redeveloped 29-31 Lordship Lane - would be good to hear from any residents there about the quality of the flats to give a context for this application.


What is proposed is an over development of the site.

Nothing answering the blank frontage the current ESPH presents to Lordship Lane.

Clearly rubbish and recycling storage, bicycle storage isn't adequately addressed in the application.


Tow main problems. Southwark Council current administration is overly friendly to developers. National government has made it harder for councils to refuse permission.

COVID and Brexit means further increased pressure ot allow such schemes to get the economy moving and start to claw our way back to pre Covid and counter the BRxit hit over the next few years.

But letting standards slip impact the next 100+ years the look and feel of East Dulwich.


If anyone needs support responding to this scheme please email me.

Hi all,


Just a reminder that the deadline for comments for this application is officially tomorrow although the planning officer can take into accounts any comments made up until they make their decision around the 20th January. Please take time to look at it. It is a large development of flats next door to the cinema and will have a big impact of the feel of the area if it gets approval.


Thanks

There's been a glitch meaning I couldn't post on here for a couple of days so just bumping as the official deadline is tomorrow although comments can be taking into consideration by the planning officer up until the 20th Jan. Please take a look as it could have a big impact on a special part of East Dulwich.
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

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

    • Yiddish is written in Hebrew script, traditionally, so any attempt to use 'Roman' script will be transliteration, as noted. Hebrew script does not have vowels as such, so any vowels used will try to copy the Yiddish sound of the word. Bagel and Beigel are both correct transliterations of the Yiddish word. 
    • Have they still not fixed it? that's pretty shabby. I took this picture on New Year's Day and it's been like this at least since before Xmas.     
    • To be fair, if I saw you eating any of the parcels I'd have walked out. I noticed last night that the illuminated sign now describes this place as the POT OFFICE. Presumably THC vapes are more profitable than being a drop-off point for bloody Evri
    • Housebuilding isn't that profitable and housebuilders don't have social responsibilities. The affordable housing component is just a tax on new builds. It's a total failure by government - a fantasy belief that the private sector is going to solve the state's social housing crisis for free. It's like expecting Tesco to solve child humgrr by giving away a percentage of its products. It's not gonna work - it just slows down and disincentivises private sector construction of new housing. The only solution to the housing crisis is a massive increase in the supply of housing, not a couple of "affordable" flats in a new development. The state needs to solve the problem of NIMBYs (one of whom is prominent on this thread), get out of the way of private sector developers building private rentals and homes for sale, and borrow to build a huge amount of social housing.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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