Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

James,


If there is a 6+ months delay here, then can we ask that some work is put into tidying up the wasteland they have left? We've now had nearly ten years of worrying about this development and it would be good if they could show a bit more respect to the community. Looking at the plot at the top of Dog Kennel Hill and the Hospital site, we should expect to be in for a long wait.


I would like to see the razor wire defences removed, and the hoarding tidied up, particularly on the station side. The Victorian station building should be properly shored up as there is a chance that if the development does fail this could be saved.


Most importantly, the hoarding should be moved back off the pavement (presumably a temporary allowance) as this blinds pedestrians to vehicles driving (sometimes at inappropriate high speed) down Railway Rise.


I have raised this with Southwark Building Control, who said it was the responsibility of the private company monitoring the building control, who said it was the responsibility of Southwark highways. I posted this as a hazard on the Southwark website, but I'm not sure it was in the right place and I've had no reply.

Hi chassle,

I believe the hoardings are on the boundary for the developers land and ultimately will be returned back.

The delays are with Southwark Planning vacillating between agreeing and disgreeing to some fine tuning of the approved scheme.


I have suggested to the developer - as I did with the 265 Lordship Lane developer - that the hoardings be decorated with pictures from the nearest local school. For 265 Lordship Lane that was Heber School. For this site it would be Goose Green school - this assumes the school would be interested in taking part.

Thanks James,


I agree the hoardings will drop back eventually, but I'm coming to realise that 'eventually' becomes months and then years. Decorating the hoarding would be nice and it would be great to get Goose Green involved. However, I do think there's a safety issue having it blinding that corner.


I'm interested (and increasingly cynical) about the 'fine tuning' of the approved scheme. I hope that doesn't include the re-addition of the penthouse from the rejected scheme next door! (He seems pretty keen about that penthouse)

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Well, we're still no further down the road:

1. Are Morrisons still planning on opening a store there?

2. Is the new library still happening?

3. The site is an eyesore ? can the developers be asked to do something about it, particularly with the hoardings narrowing the pavement right outside the station?

The latest I've heard, indirectly, is that the same builders who did the demolition are moving back in during July to re-start the building work. Mind you, it's been about "two weeks" for the last six months. James Barber in February pointed to a six-month delay due to a planning condition.


I complained about the hoarding to Southwark planning ('looks ok to me'), the private building controllers ('not our responsibility') and Southwark highways (twice, no reply).


Wouldn't it be refreshing if someone just said what's happening?

  • 1 month later...
And are Morrisons definitely taking the retail space? From what Morrisons' new head honcho David Potts has been saying about stopping store openings, I have my doubts. In which case, the developer will need to find someone else pretty quickly.

James B - There should be a function on here to say: "I've been told [insert next month]". I find it exasperating that there's no requirement for developers to be transparent in their plans even when they have a clear impact on the community and, in this case,causing an ongoing danger with the hoarding blocking the views of the road and pavement.


John K - I posted earlier about an extension to something about the "viability", but that extension ran out. It strikes me that there should be a test of whether this is viable (with all the original promises).


BNG - See above remark about transparency. People say that Westrock (www.westrock.co.uk/) are in charge and that they do developments for Morrisons, but who knows really?


My feeling is that they have an increasingly valuable piece of land with planning permission and there's no particular hurry to actually build anything.

chazzle Wrote:

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

> My feeling is that they have an increasingly

> valuable piece of land with planning permission

> and there's no particular hurry to actually build

> anything.


That's my feeling too, but with the complication of the promised library. Without a retail unit that pays well to offset the cost of the library, the developer will be reluctant to stick to the deal.

  • 1 month 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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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