Proposed blocks of flats on Barry Road and Etherow Street

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

BARA, even if you provoke naysayers, you are doing what so many of us are too lazy to do. Keep up the good work.

[bob]

There is a meeting to night behind the church in Barry Road

Bob S

[Pugwash]

Attended meeting in rear hall at church. 40 odd people there. Very orderly meeting - many objections to proposed development - traffic, subsidence, design of building, collapsing streets under weight of buses and heavy traffic, a very informative letter read out by a BARA Committee member from the Head of St. Anthonys school who was worried about the impact of a lengthly construction period would have on pupils and school generally. Child Protection issues raised as flats would overlook infants play ground, height of flats would restrict light into 3 classrooms - traffic, pollution, higher risk of accidents etc. One parent from St. Anthonys was present and she will talk to Fathers John and Roy at St. Thomas Moore's Church. Suggested by some attendees that Head circulated his letter to all St.Anthony's parents and ask them to write in. Also is this the correct financial climate to do new builds if other properties are not shifting

Those of you who want to get details of plans/object/support quote 08/AP/1536 Planning Caseworker Rachel Gleave,

Chiltern, Portland Street. SE17 2ES. objections by 25th July according to local notices)

Alternatives - 2/3 bedroom houses, not higher than existing properties in street, with own car parking spaces on site.

same financial risk but possible more pleasing design

[Jamma]

Shame I missed the meeting but I think I'm against the development on subsidence grounds more than anything. But I don't see what the financial side of things has to do with anything. Surely it's up to the developers to decide if they want to take the risk or not and how much money they will make or lose on the deal is not a reason for accepting or rejecting a planning application? Or am I missing something?

[BARA]

With property prices falling, the developers may just get outline planning consent and decide to sell off to another developer rather than to risk a loss in their investments. The original price for 259 Barry when it was placed onto the market was aaround ?800+ but eventually got sold for over ?900. There are many unsold flats around the area, many of which have been vacant for months as mortgages get harder to obtain. Local residents are not accepting or rejecting the proposals on financial ground but passed comment as to whether this is the right climate for new builds, There was a mention that all the big building companies laike Barratts/Wimpy etc were laying off staff as the demand for new homes had dropped. Unless empty flats are rented out at affordable rents, the property could remain empty and attract squatters or vandelism.

Subsidence is of the highest concern. Barry Road near Etherow Street is built over a small river/stream which rises in our cellars following prolonged heavy rainfull - not often I must add ( 3 - 4 times in last 30 years) but this could change with too deep excavations.

[macroban]

> Barry Road near Etherow Street is built over a small river/stream

Oh well, I guess there's a place for local myth and legend.

[EDOldie]

Be a waterall on Barry Road surely?

[EDOldie]

Alright, waterfall then.

[Jamma]

Did anybody else get a letter from Bara through their door last night? Let me start by explaining that I have a lot of time for Bara, I'm glad they exist and what them to continue as a respected voice. Which is why the letter infuriated me so much. It seemed to have been written by someone from a home for the terminally stupid.

It sets out various objections to the Barry Road/Etherow St proposal. Now there are serious objections to be made to this proposal, mainly as far as I can see on subsidence and traffic grounds. Objections best backed up by expert evidence from a surveyor or such like. But the list in Baras letter is just stupid and easily demolished by the developers. The most mind-bogglingly moronic objection is that there won't be enough car parking spaces in the development because 'most people have two cars'. Who? I don't know anyone in London with 2 cars, let alone anyone living in a 1-bed flat as is proposed here. Bara then make an alternative proposal of houses instead of flats, 'each with one car parking space'. Surely a household is more likely to have more than one car than a 1 or 2 bed flat? Didn't anyone think of this before typing it out and sticking it through everyone's door? That's just the worst of the stupidity on display. The letter just makes Bara look like a bunch of small minded nimby twats and I sincerely believe that that couldn't be further from the truth. It makes me sad and angry.

[BARA]

Having just read Jamma's letter, would like to raise certain points.

At the BARA Meeting- the attendees listed all their objections and asked that these be included in a letter from BARA to Planning Dept. These being the combined views of the 40 odd people who attended.

There was also a request that a version of the same letter be widely distributed in the local area asking that people who agreed with the comments made, sign and return it to the Planning Officer. If they did not agree with some or all of the comments, they could just ignore it.

before this general letter was sent out, it was read by many people including those who ran their own business, a head teacher, a management consultant etc - none of whom could be classed as 'stupid'.

There are several couples living in a one bed flat, sometimes with a baby, who have 2 cars - one partner needing for business, the other either for business or taking child to child minder. There are equally couples in one bed flats who have no transport etc. The comments made were from the audience - BARA reports as it finds. The only comments which were not passed on were thought to be discriminatory/racist in their nauture and were actually said to the BARA Committee after the meeting.

Since the meeting, several people have spoken to BARA Committee Members in the street thanking them for the letter.

The letter clearly states should you agree with the majority of the points raised, please add name and address and send to Planning Officer. I guess that Jamma will not be posting his/hers!!.

[Gilles]

I live mid-way down Barry Road

How come I never receive any BARA letters or notices?

[macroban]

BARA can be contacted here.

I'm sure BARA will be happy to provide you with letters, notices, audited accounts, etc.

[Gilles]

Thank you, MacroBan

I would have thought I would have received some notice from them in two years

Or is mid way down Barry road not in the Barry area?

[LondonVillageLifer]

We got a circular through the door from Tessa Jowell MP yesterday saying that she was writing to Southwark Planning to oppose the development.

[BARA]

Gilles

BARA covers Barry Road from LL to Upland and both sides. Am surprised that you have not had anything in 2 years. Our last newsletter went out in March to the whole area( we delivered 2000 copies). Are you in a shared house? as what we have found that communual letter boxes are the norm for shared properties, and the fist person in the door grabs the papers and either bins them or leaves them for the next person. We cannot gain access to Halliwell Court due to security doors ( our contact there died some years ago).

if you want to PM me with your house number - I will check out who the deliverer is ( we sometimes pay for delivery if we are short of time).

Excuse speilling as am at work.

[buggie]

...would help if more than one was put through the doors that obviously have more than one doorbell - we only got delivered one - all the menu flyer's seem to pick up there's 2 flats!!

[TJMP]

The application has been turned down. Tessa Jowell wrote to local residents about this in a letter that was distributed at the weekend:

Report back: Etherow Street and Barry Road Flats

Tessa Jowell MP's Office

[intexasatthe moment]

Hi ,glad to hear application refused.

DOES ANYONE HAVE THE APPLICATION NUMBER ?

My search on Southwark Planning online using various computations of Etherow,Barry etc has drawn a blank.

Would really like to read reasons given for refusal as they may be relevant to comments I am in process of making on planning application 08-AP-1916.

This is an application to build 4 x 3 bedroom houses on land at rear of gardens of 153 - 163 Barry Rd ,with new access road

( over 200 feet long ) running down between 151 and 153 Barry Rd ,plus pedestrian footpath between 163 and 167 ( nos 165 does not exist ).

I wasn't around in the summer ,but 2 points briefly on the Etherow / Barry Rd flats thread - the house I live in ,middle of Barry Rd - has a covenant restricting the erection of buildings within 20 feet of Barry Rd. It seems likely that similar covenants exist affecting other properties in Barry Rd. While I agree about subsidence ( and also about effect of bendy buses shaking the houses ) I'm not sure Southwark will take such worries into account .They judge only in relation to their planning regs. Though I suppose subsidence could come under loss of amenity. But the subsidence would presumably happen after planning granted and the cause would have to be proved.

[Lawboy]

I am glad that the application has been refused as I had opposed it. I will keep my eye out for the appeal if any.

Intexasatthemoment you are right about the convenants. These were brought to the council's attention.

[BARA]

Application number is somewhere on previous correspondence. The reasons we were given for turning down application were

out of character with rest of area, too dense a building for site.

Need to watch out for other applications - the building company have forked out over a million ?s which they do not want to lose. Also hear that flat sales are being badly hit by the recession more so that freehold house.

[AllforNun]

Lets hope they get some through soon then, hate for you not have the same kind of applications passed as the ones that get through over in Peckham, now that would be a little nimby-esque.

[Lawboy]

Here is the reasoning behind the refusal:

Conditions or Reasons for Planning Application - 08/AP/1536

1) The proposal, by reason of its height, bulk and footprint would fail to respond positively to its surroundings. The inappropriate scale of the building would be an incongruous feature within the street scene which would adversely affect the character and appearance of this part of Barry Road and Etherow Street. As such the proposal is contrary to policies 3.2 Protection of Amenity, 3.12 Quality in Design, 3.13 Urban Design the Southwark Plan 2007.

2) The excessive scale, bulk and height of the proposed development would represent an oppressive form of development that would result in an increased sense of enclosure, shadowing and a poor plan relationship to the adjoining school. This is contrary to the policies 3.2 Protection of Amenity, 3.11 Efficient Use of Land, 3.12 Quality in Design and 3.13 Urban Design of the Southwark Plan 2007.

3) The proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site, by reason of the excessive scale of the buildings in a drive to maximise development at the expense of providing adequate levels of private amenity space. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies 3.2 'Protection of Amenity', 3.11 'Efficient Use of Land', 3.12 'Quality in Design' and 4.2 'Quality of Residential Accommodation' of the Southwark Plan 2007 and The Draft Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Standards 2008.

4) The proposal fails to demonstrate that the required 20% level of renewable energy technology would be provided on site. As such the proposal is therefore contrary to policy 4A.7 Renewable Energy of the London Plan and the aims of Policy 3.5 Renewable Energy of the Adopted Southwark Plan 2007.

5) The proposal has provided an excessive level of car parking in an area with a good level of access to public transport thus conflicting with attempts to minimise reliance on cars in the borough. This is contrary to policy 5.6 Car Parking of the Southwark Plan 2007

6) The proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site, by reason of the excessive scale of the proposed buildings in a drive to maximise development at the expense of providing good residential amenity standards, specifically in relation to the size of units provided in the affordable housing block B. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies 3.2 'Protection of Amenity', 3.11 'Efficient Use of Land', 3.12 'Quality in Design' and 4.2 'Quality of Residential Accommodation' of the Southwark Plan 2007

and the Informative Notes:

Informative notes: 1) Further assessment of the works to be undertaken to trees here and any resulting adverse impact resulting from the construction on the long term health of the mature trees located on the site would be required. A Tree Preservation Order is in place to protect trees located on the site at 259 Barry Road and any resubmission would be required to demonstrate how these long term security of the trees is to be achieved. There is concern that the extensive basement proposed may be harmful.