What is replacing the Old Garden Centre??

[edhistory]

Looks diiferent to me too.

Now an impressive 13.93 metres high plus "roof".

Anyone who puts a 3.26 metre basement in this area may not yet have done proper research.

Much more enrichment for East Dulwich sewers.

Are the rubblish gondolas stiil going to be adjacent to the library entrance?

[James Barber]

The developer and I met with Network Rail 2-4 years ago to try and come up with a scheme that resulted in a new station ticket office and lifts to the platforms.

Network Rail wanted ?1M from the developer to shore up the railway before they'd talk seriously about this. So sadly it didn't proceed.

[ednewmy]

Yet another uninspired and bland modern building. Shame. Though I am in no way surprised.

[Louisa]

I'm not overly concerned with the look my main issue is with the height. We are in suburban london and I for one don't want the area being spoilt by tall buildings. Drive down into Lewisham this morning and what a monstrosity that place has become, tall buildings crammed into narrow spaces. Yuck.

Louisa.

[first mate]

Louisa, I agree and once you have a few it sets a planning precedent.

[Nigello]

The only way is up, folks. People complain about digging down, people complain about sprawl, so what other way is there to go? Five or six storeys would be completely in keeping with the council flats across the road. The flats where the cinema used to be are pretty tall but not overpowering.

[chazzle]

Looks like this has stalled yet again - the builders have pulled out and taken down all the signage. Seems there was a difficulty with the demolition of the station - pretty obvious really. It would be nice to think this would mean the station building (1866?) could be saved, but I guess it's standing in the way of progress.

[maxxi]

Given Morrisons' terrible recent figures might they have backed out of this?

[Louisa]

Morrisons have indeed backed out of this. No further store openings for foreseeable future.

Louisa.

[healey]

The old station building certainly should be retained in my opinion. The proposed scheme looks oversized.

[nxjen]

IMO the old station building is unremarkable and possibly not in very good condition. I'm all for preserving old buildings that have some architectural merit and/or history but neither applies here. Is it known what the problems are regarding demolition?

ETA: Looking at the elevation posted by Blackcurrent on 20 November 2014, it seems like the station is being retained?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It would make an ideal place for an M&S simply food (much better location than the Iceland store infact).

[first mate]

Well Morrisons are struggling so perhaps M&S would work better there. That said I feel very sorry for the people who live on Railway Rise if they are to have a four storey monstrosity towering over them.

[Louisa]

I agree first mate. That beautiful little row of rail workers cottages will be eclipsed by this monster construction. M&S are not interested in this site neither are Waitrose according to James Barber.

Louisa.

[DulwichFox]

Why would any food retail be interested in the site with one of the

Busiest Sainsbury's in the country 500 mtrs away.

DulwichFox.

[Jeremy]

I agree, it's too close to Sainsburys.

Seems terrible to pull down a usable building (evicting a business in the process), then just walking away... shouldn't be allowed.

[nxjen]

I don't understand, which business has been evicted? If you mean the Garden Centre, I was under the impression, though perhaps I'm wrong, they owned the freehold and sold that to the developers who will be building the flats, library and retail space. The retail space will be a lot smaller than DKH Sainsburys and will appeal to a different customer base than Sainsbury's. Sainsbury's is that far away from the station to deter commuters wanting to get something on the way home whereas a M&S Simply Food, or similar, would attract a lot of passers by.

[Jeremy]

Maybe you're right, I just assumed.

[chazzle]

Yes, the Garden Centre owned the place and sold up. It is a shame that the building could be being used, e.g. by the art gallery that was there last year.

[Jeremy]

Righto... glad to be proved wrong about "evicting a business", but nevertheless seems a shame to pull down a useable building and replace it with nothing. Hopefully another tenant will step in... we keep hearing about these huge commercial rents in ED, so maybe it won't be that long.

[chazzle]

I think the issue is that they intend to knock down half the railway building, the bit which is rendered and painted at present. That needs to be done carefully and I can't see them doing it while the station is in use.

[Jeremy]

The state of the train service at the moment, they may as well just pull the whole bloody thing down - and supply season ticket holders with a pair of sturdy boots.

[chazzle]

BTW, the plan shown earlier is a reduction on the original plans which had an extra storey.

"That beautiful little row of rail workers cottages ... " - Next in line for demolition

[chazzle]

Looking at these plans again, I found this which appears to be an accepted application to extend to 21 months the period before a viability review is triggered. This is dated April/May 2013, so that period has now expired.

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=13/AP/0830&system=DC

As the builders have pulled out and it is suggested above the Morrisons are not longer interested, it seems that this might be time for a viability review.

[healey]

chazzle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BTW, the plan shown earlier is a reduction on the

> original plans which had an extra storey.

>

> "That beautiful little row of rail workers

> cottages ... " - Next in line for demolition

Indeed. And on those plans they include these building on the drawings in a blatant attempt to manipulate context.

Nothing over two storeys should be allowed on this site.