Jump to content

Planning application 23/AP/2780 - flats on green space SINC at East Dulwich station


Recommended Posts

There's a planning application accepting comments until 20th December on Southwark's planning portal. The application number is 23/AP/2780 and the link to information is here:

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=S1WQPYKBJ4500

Quote

 

"Land To North Of Featherstone Mews And Rear 13-16 Talbot Road, SE22 8EH, 25-30 St Francis Road SE22 8DE
Development of the site to provide 9 no. new houses, associated roof level amenity space, hard and soft landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, and all associated ancillary works.

(This application represents a departure to Policy P57 Open Space of Southwark Plan 2022 by reason of development on Borough Open Land (BOL))."

 

This is a SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) ref number SoBII02 and also BOL (Borough Open Land). Part of this greenery by East Dulwich train station has already been built upon when Featherstone Mews was created. Would be a shame for another local green space to be built upon. Even though it is small and currently inaccessible, it's these parcels of land that form a mosaic of habitats for wildlife that are really important for biodiversity. As council documents state:

Quote

The site forms a strategic habitat corridor through a residential part of the borough, connecting a number of SINCs and open spaces together including Herne Hill Velodrome in the south, then James Allen School, Greendale fields through to Dog Kennel Hill Estates and Warwick Gardens in the north. For this reason, it is of high value as a foraging and dispersal corridor for wildlife

Comments can be made here: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=S1WQPYKBJ4500

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Nine new £1m houses will have little to zero contribution to the community (note developer is keeping it under 10 to avoid any social housing obligations!) and in the meantime we need to endure the permanent removal of yet another protected site and the felling of 15 mature trees out of 18 total!. Say bye bye to the pleasing view of trees and nature from the ED station...  greed has no limits. Will object!

ED Railway SINC view 4.jpg

Application Notice.jpg

  • Sad 1

I love this beautiful tree canopy that greets you when you arrive into East Dulwich. It's awful that this developer is trying to cram a  development into this small area of nature and wildlife, and destroy the lovely views we have here. 

I'll be submitting an objection!

  • Like 1
35 minutes ago, alice said:

hasnt this a separate thread

I searched and couldn't find one. There's a separate thread about the plans to build flats on the other side, where the build centre currently is, but can't find anything about this particular plan to build on the area currently covered in trees. 

4 minutes ago, jay66 said:

I searched and couldn't find one. There's a separate thread about the plans to build flats on the other side, where the build centre currently is, but can't find anything about this particular plan to build on the area currently covered in trees. 

Yes, this one is new and different to the one called "The Sidings" which it is in a separate thread. This one requires the removal of the entire green habitat behind PLatform 1 while the Sidings one is mainly where Jewson Yard is behind platform 2. Unfortunately deadline for objections is the 20th of Dec.

  • Thanks 1

The 'roof level amenity space' is concerning too as it could set a precedent locally.  Though aware that the development above M&S at the station also has some roof terrace space so perhaps that ship has sailed. 

I’m with J and B. Trees will be felled and replacements planted (and there’s nothing to stop any of us from doing the same). Homes of all sizes and types are needed. If you disagree then vote according to your principles. 

Its a tension - yes housing is urgently needed, but what is most needed in Southwark is homes for affordable rent - preferably social rent.  There is a danger that in a 'we need more homes' view - that we allow any development to take place, including ones like this that may have been designed to avoid the need to provide any social or affordable homes and being built on land that is important for biodiversity, whereas  100m north there is a vast space given over to tarmac for parking for sainsburys - arguably the whole area could be conversed to housing above a supermarket as has been done in Nine Elms where the Sainsburys now has flats above and underground parking. 

  • Like 3

The trees at the station cheer me up every day on my commute. This would definitely change the character of the station and so I will be objecting too. We need some nature around us, otherwise the city will become a pretty horrible place to live. 

  • Like 1

@DMF
Well said. I've seen foxes and a whole range of birds there plus bats catching insects around the lights at night.  It would be a travesty to cut these tress down and replace it with the hard standing that is shown in the plans.

  • Like 1

This application is still open for comment today. Today's date is the one given by the council as the final date for comments on this application and a number of comments have already been submitted today, so it is still open at the moment.

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

    • But all those examples sell a wide variety of things,  and mostly they are well spread out along Lordship Lane. These two shops both sell one very specific thing, albeit in different flavours, and are just across the road from each other. I don't think you can compare the distribution of shops in Roman times to the distribution of shops in Lordship Lane in the twenty first century. Well, you can, but it doesn't feel very appropriate. Haa anybody asked the first shop how they feel? Are they happy about the "healthy competition" ?
    • ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores.  At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024:  "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network.  We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."
    • Ha! After I posted this, I thought of lots more examples. Screwfix and the hardware store? Mrs Robinson and Jumping Bean? Chemists, plant shops, hairdressers...  the list goes on... it's good to have healthy competition  Ooooh! Two cheese shops
    • You've got a point.  Thinking Leyland and Screwfix too but this felt different.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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