Decision 2 April - Proposed Development - The Sidings, Railway Rise, SE22

[march46]

I see the objections have almost doubled over the weekend, with many concerns being raised about the impact on the neighbouring Charter East site.
 

Interesting to read this objection from a local business. The access through a narrow passageway (4 metres wide?) for 500+ pedestrians being shared with vehicular access for car parking, deliveries and taxis doesn’t sound sensible.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 10/10/2024 at 16:25, Penguin68 said:

 student accommodation is by definition short-term.... But I do suspect hidden agendas here.

1) Student accommodation is NOT by definition short term. Short term lets are for 90 days or less.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/housing-and-land/improving-private-rented-sector/guidance-short-term-and-holiday-lets-london

2) it's easy to imagine things are a conspiracy when you don't understand how they work.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Penguin68]

3 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Student accommodation is NOT by definition short term. Short term lets are for 90 days or less.

You are right, technically there is a legal thing called a Short Term Let, but student let's are unlikely to be for more than 3 years, and are frequently one year (and in fact only occupied often September to July) whereas the crying need is for family housing for several years continuously. Hence my use of (lower case) 'short term' to describe typical student tenancies. 

Lets to student nurses are more likely to be continuous and for a longer period than a year, but the Dulwich Society comment on the nature of the rooms on offer does suggest that most would want to move out to something less cell like if they could. 

 

Edited October 24, 2024 by Penguin68

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Plus ca change

During WWI, Vera Brittain worked as a VAD nurse at the 1st London General Hospital, Camberwell - the military extension of St Bartholomew's Hospital.

The satellite hostel was nearly two miles away on Champion Hill.

 

"...it seemed strange to be the quarter-possessor of a bare-boarded room divided into cubicles by much-washed curtains of no recognisable colour, with only a bed, a washstand and a tiny chest of drawers to represent one's earthly possessions...

to meet the needs of about twenty young women, was one cold bathroom equipped with an ancient and unreliable geyser...which took about twenty minutes to half fill the bath with lukewarm water."

 

Edited to add source: "Testament of Youth" by Vera Brittain published 1933.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Peckhamgatecrasher

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Totally bizarre narratives being pushed on this thread: student accommodation shouldn't be allowed because there aren't any universities nearby (news flash: London students commute like everyone else) and because only affordable housing should ever be built (news flash: that's not going to happen).

This is a little sliver of land on an industrial site over a transport link. If we don't let student housing get built here, it's just not going to get developed. Right now it is housing no-one.

[James Barber]

It seems we've lost focus on the proposals being for outlandish 8 stories high - way out keeping for the area. 3x higher than the norm for East Dulwich. 

 

[march46]

The objection on behalf of The Dulwich Society highlights the overdevelopment of the site but also the lack of habitat buffer to the adjacent green corridor and the missed opportunity to include a low line walking route, as noted in the Southwark Plan for the site. 

Well worth a read, they make lots of sensible points.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

5 hours ago, James Barber said:

It seems we've lost focus on the proposals being for outlandish 8 stories high - way out keeping for the area. 3x higher than the norm for East Dulwich. 

The existing student accommodation on Burrow Rd (a couple of streets away) is 7 storeys tall + a service floor. No-one has their knickers in a twist about that building.

In any case, we have a housing crisis. We can't carry on with the "norm". That's what got us into this mess. If we are not going to build dense on ex-industrial sites overlooking a train station, then where are we going to build more housing? On playing fields?

[march46]

This image from their daylight assessment doc is helpful to understand the scale and why so many objections have raised concerns about the student bedrooms in the development facing into Charter East classrooms.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Heber Rd primary school is surrounded by houses. Dulwich Wood primary school is surrounded by blocks of flats. A block of flats faces onto the back of Kingswood.  Alleyns wasn't shy to put up portakabin classrooms directly opposite the houses on Hillsboro Rd for years!

Meanwhile we've got the Dulwich Society objecting to construction that is "visible"...

[ED_moots]

On 26/10/2024 at 15:12, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The existing student accommodation on Burrow Rd (a couple of streets away) is 7 storeys tall + a service floor. No-one has their knickers in a twist about that building.

In any case, we have a housing crisis. We can't carry on with the "norm". That's what got us into this mess. If we are not going to build dense on ex-industrial sites overlooking a train station, then where are we going to build more housing? On playing fields?

Hambledon Court is not student accommodation. It's for key workers and NHS staff. It's also less than 1/3 size of The Sidings proposal and, as you say, not as high.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

7 storeys + a service floor is the same as 8 storeys without a service floor. It overlooks a school playing field. No-one is complaining about the existing building or suggesting it has rUiNeD tHe NeIgHbOuRhOoD

[Sally Eva]

https://www.samuels-solicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-view

 

There is no legal right to a view. This applies both here and at the Aylsham Centre vis a vis the view from the top of the car park

[pecksniff]

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=SHWOSNKBJXR00&activeTab=summary

It appears there have been some revisions made to this proposed development. They incl introduction of basement, lower ground, upper ground and up to 6 storeys. Unclear about commercial space. 

[johnrich]

There seems to have been further amendments dated 19th Dec on this, it's hard to keep up with what's happening here and obviously submitting this over Christmas is not helpful to anyone but the developers . This still looks like many of the original problems suggested by the locals haven't been addressed. Anyone with insight into the main changes? still seems an overdevelopment of the site.

[pecksniff]

I've just received latest update which suggests the Planning  Officers are recommending that the application is Granted. The application is due to be heard at Tooley Street on April 2nd 6.30pm. Although the meeting schedule states Moved. 

 

If you wish to address the Committee you'll need to  register with the Constitutional Team by 5pm on the working day prior to the meeting.

 

• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 020 7525 3667

 

The meeting will also be live streamed on Southwark Council YouTube. 

 

Details of Planning officers report can be found in Agenda Report pack pgs 27 - 160

 

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=650&MId=7942&Ver=4

 

 

 

[first mate]

Had a quick look at the plans and the latest 'design'. In my view, it looks absolutely awful; sterile characterless blocks. How disappointing.

I also read that there will be car parking for residents and wonder if that is a mistake?

[Sue]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Had a quick look at the plans and the latest 'design'. In my view, it looks absolutely awful; sterile characterless blocks. How disappointing.

I also read that there will be car parking for residents and wonder if that is a mistake?

Where else would they park? 

[spider69]

Thought Southwark only granted building permissions when no parking was the way forward.

[Kathleen Olander]

1 hour ago, Sue said:

Where else would they park? 

Southwark does not normally allow provision for car parking in planning applications.

[first mate]

Quite. I have no objection, in many ways it is sensible, but, unless I misread, it is apparently at odds with Southwark's aim to rid our streets of cars.

I have just checked and car parking is mentioned in the Proposal (p 3 of 134), along with ancillary cycle parking, refuse and landscaping.

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page(opens in a new window)

24/AP/2314|Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed-use development of 3 buildings being (1) part 5, part 6 part 7 storeys, (2) part 5, part 7, part 8 storeys and (3) part 7 and part 8 storeys, accommodating up to 1,229sqm of storage and distribution space (Use Class B8), up to 53 residential homes (Use Class C3) and up to 360 purpose-built student accommodation rooms (Use Class Sui Generis) with ancillary cycle parking, refuse stores, car parking and landscaping.

I would like to point out that when the Lordship Lane M&S was developed, existing car parking on that site was removed, meaning more shoppers parked on surrounding streets- although it was at the time stated that shoppers would cycle in or use public transport, in order to justify on site parking removal.

We should note this proposed development is very close to a train station and to bus stops! It will have cycle storage on site.

Edited March 30 by first mate

[march46]

The only car parking I’ve seen in the plans is for blue badge bays. Suggest you read further than the title.

[Azalea]

What does Use Class C3 mean?   Of course Blue Badge bays would be needed.   And, what about visitors, carers etc?  You might not have a car, but could be disabled and need picking up, yet not have a Blue Badge.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The weird thing about criticising Southwark for not following this rule is that it's a rule a poster has made up, it's not Southwark's rule. It's doubly weird when agreeing with the outcome. 

[first mate]

2 hours ago, Azalea said:

What does Use Class C3 mean?   Of course Blue Badge bays would be needed.   And, what about visitors, carers etc?  You might not have a car, but could be disabled and need picking up, yet not have a Blue Badge.

Good points.