Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation?

[Andrew1011]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> The only problem is getting the existing champagne

> socialists living in their multi million village

> homes "Think Tessa Jowell" to agree to it .. lol

Tessa Jowell does not, and never has, lived in Dulwich Village or anywhere in the Dulwich area.

I know women MPs (and former MPs in this case) are considered - at least by some - to be indistinguishable, but you've definitely got the wrong one here.

[fazer71]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> fazer71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The only problem is getting the existing

> champagne

> > socialists living in their multi million

> village

> > homes "Think Tessa Jowell" to agree to it ..

> lol

>

> Tessa Jowell does not, and never has, lived in

> Dulwich Village or anywhere in the Dulwich area.

>

> I know women MPs (and former MPs in this case) are

> considered - at least by some - to be

> indistinguishable, but you've definitely got the

> wrong one here.

Ah yes indistinguishable champagne socialists .. :)

Maybe I was thinking Harriet Harman ?

SAME SAME.... pretending to be about the poor and working people when it's all about lining their own pockets.

Dulwich Estate Staff etc "CHARITY" just a .... Different song.

All ultimately crooks who only care about themselves.!

[DulvilleRes]

For those concerned about the enormous and unnecessary basement proposed on the SG Smith development site, and it's implications on child safety, there is protest planned for tomorrow morning at 8.15 outside SG Smith - see this link for details

https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not sure that the 'will nobody think of the children' angle is necessarilly the best approach on this

[Penguin68]

For those concerned about the enormous and unnecessary basement proposed on the SG Smith development site, and it's implications on child safety

Just to make it clear, the basement per se has no implications on child safety - although fears (unsupported by actual facts) about its construction process and resulting vehicle traffic have been raised. All building work has safety implications, of course. Indeed, all life has dangers; one of the jobs of parenthood is to teach children about these dangers so they can act safely. We all have to compromise on our lives at times in order to avoid dangers - compromising around building works has the advantage that these are time limited, and construction dangers are thus relatively short term.

[spider69]

Posted by fazer71 June 19, 01:15PM

Otta Wrote:

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

> As if Social Housing would EVER be allowed in the

> Village.

>

I believe most of Decker Rd remains as social type housing right in he heart of the village.

Out of interest looked on Google at this very nice street, Just how many are still social housing and not been sold off under Right to Buy?

Not an area one equates to Social Housing in ones mind

[Tessmo]

From what I've heard,construction on the S. G. Smith site - if the current plans went ahead - would take 18 months to 2 years. So there would be considerable impact on pedestrians and cyclists in the area for a long time. If the development was scaled back (lower buildings), and there were no plans for a basement (which carries a flood risk - and flooding would affect Dulwich Infants and Dulwich Hamlet schools), disruption would be far less. Scaling back development would mean less profit. But it might be better for the local community.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't know the details of this development, but flood risk, inconvenience and congestion all sound like potentially valid concerns. I just don't think it helps to couch your objections in emotive terms of child safety.

[fazer71]

The best way to deal with this huge OVERDEVELOPMENT is to use what was originally on this site (ie prior to the bomb damage the horrid SG Smith prefab Garage) as a yardstick to the overall size of any future development.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=182859

This is the line of attack we must use against this monstrosity of a proposal.

A refusal from Southwark Conservation given the hundreds of objections is what we should expect.!

There is no way the proposed development meets the requirement of this site, it is blatantly over sized above ground, the scale of any development should represent what was originally built on that site around the turn of the century.

So the current application SHOULD be refused and it be dealt with by The Planning Inspectorate.

Unless Southwark Planning fail to do their job, they have been cr?p before!

Attached is a clear image of what was originally on this site and it shows the scale of what should be built there today!

Compare that to the proposal!

Fwiw what happens below ground is of little interest to planners so that is not a worthwhile argument!

Above ground Southwark Planning must do their job and reign in such over development and allow designs which are in keeping with the surrounding buildings. This application is neither!

We should look at the planning error 2A COURT LANE and the resulting two houses they are too large and too tall for the site they occupy, dwarfing the neighbouring homes, their bland design clashes with neighbouring properties and adds zero architectural quality.

A disgrace!

The SG Smith development would be an even bigger eyesore !!

IT IS TOTALLY OVERSIZED !!!! And NOT in keeping with the Conservation area.!

[Tessmo]

I think the problem is @rahrahrah that this planning application has been dragging on for a long time. The re-consultation emerged without warning, and it doesn't seem as if S. G. Smith and the Dulwich Estate have listened to rational and considered objections. So maybe emotive is the only way to get them to recognise the strength of community feeling... You're right, though. Written objections to the Council can't be emotional.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The Dulwih Estate's stated objectives are simply to increase the amount of money the can make for their beneficiaries (a small number of elite public schools). http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/objectives

I'm not sure they're in anyway interested in conservation (or much else of benefit to anyone but a privileged minority).

[Earl Aelfheah]

"

The Board of Trustees seeks to manage the endowment in the long-term interests of all the Charity?s Beneficiaries.

Success in achieving this objective is measured in terms of increasing, in real terms after allowing for inflation, the annual income distribution to the Beneficiaries and maintaining the value of the Charity?s assets."

This is their only stated objective (at least according to their website).

[fazer71]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The Dulwih Estate's stated objectives are simply

> to increase the amount of money the can make for

> their beneficiaries (a small number of elite

> public schools).

> http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/objectives

>

> I'm not sure they're in anyway interested in

> conservation (or much else of benefit to anyone

> but a privileged minority).

YEP

It is important the mistakes of previous applications are used to show this application does not fit the plot.

It is important the Duwlich Estate is not be given preferential treatment by Southwark planning department.

The only problem would be the planning inspectorate who may be biased in some way ?

Who knows who the Dulwich Estate have in their back pocket previous cronies of the local Private school system funded by the Dulwich Estate I guess.. All corrupt chinless wonders. etc ..

Judges etc..

Biased powerful people.

Main thing is to focus all efforts on the true issues those which are a valid planning arguments.!

That's why objectors should go back to what was there and focus on the LARGE scale of the application vs neighbouring plots.

The Estate are blatantly taking the pi$$ so they can grind everyone down and still get an oversized development on the site...

Keep focused on what was there before the SG Smith Prefab Garage.!

Southwark conservation should be refusing to allow this development.

[Qwe]

Construction noise, traffic, disruption, danger, etc, are not relevant to the planning decision; these type of issues are not material considerations from a planning point of view - objections of this sort should be ignored by the planners. These objections may, however, raise the background noise level and may increase the chance that someone looks for another reason to reject.

Any development in a conservation area must conserve or enhance the conservation area - this development does neither, in my opinion. The original layout would enhance the conservation area, and it is possible that the committee, who make the decision, may agree. This is a positive message: development in keeping would be supported by local residents and there would be no reduction in the number of new units.

There may be an angle under the Southwark Core Strategy 13 Environment. The basement is a totally unnecessary development and sets an undesirable precedent for other local developments. This would impact the ability of Southwark to meet their commitment to ensure that new build 'minimise' energy used in the development. The basement is a vanity addition to project, designed to increase profits for the developers, and results in additional, avoidable, cost to the environment - which would appear contrary to the adopted Southwark Core Strategy.

[Tessmo]

522 signatures on change.org petition:

https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit

Significant protest for a local planning application.

[Jeremy]

Overdevelopment? On a road that contains several mansions? Yeah right...

[fazer71]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Overdevelopment? On a road that contains several

> mansions? Yeah right...

Mansions ?

You should maybe go to spec savers ... or perhaps look up the definition of mansion .. or even have another look at the site if you haven't already.

The site is located close to some regular Victorian / Edwardian houses and many small Victorian terraced Cottages.

The proposed development is for larger modern "and in this case lacking in character charm and harmony" terraced estate style housing.

A long long way from mansions but nevertheless individually oversized in what would be considered by anyone looking from above a large overdevelopment compared to the existing neighbouring properties.

The Dulwich Estate = You can not have any velux on the front of your existing home, BUT you can build a new one with a GUN tower!

The Dulwich Estate, making one bad planning decision after another, unfit for purpose.

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Overdevelopment? On a road that contains

> several

> > mansions? Yeah right...

>

> Mansions ?

>

> You should maybe go to spec savers ... or perhaps

> look up the definition of mansion .. or even have

> another look at the site if you haven't already.

I would class all those Georgian houses between the village and the park as mansions. Doubly so when you consider what would be affected by the proposed 'mansion tax'.

[fazer71]

Hysterical.

Studio flats will soon be classified as Palaces'.

Sad socialist nonsense attempting to skew our minds words and reality.

No wonder labour failed so miserably thankfully the majority remain firmly in the real world and continue to use words in their intended true context not the twisted madness of political insanity.

[fazer71]

man?sion

(măn′shən)

n.

1. A large stately house.

2. A manor house.

[Loz]

I've been called many things on these boards. 'Socialist' is a first, though. :))

Also, the OED defines 'mansion' as "A large, impressive house.". Pretty much sums up those Dulwich houses.

[edhistory]

Loz Wrote:

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

>

> I would class all those Georgian houses between

> the village and the park as mansions. Doubly so

> when you consider what would be affected by the

> proposed 'mansion tax'.

That's funny.

John K

[fazer71]

Loz Wrote:

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

> I've been called many things on these boards.

> 'Socialist' is a first, though. :))

>

> Also, the OED defines 'mansion' as "A large,

> impressive house.". Pretty much sums up those

> Dulwich houses.

Really large impressive. Umm I don't think so.

Google " mansion images "

That'll show what a mansion looks like.

You've been fooled with socialist misappropriation of English words.

[fazer71]

Socialist definition of mansion is a lie.

The Dulwich Estate definition of Charity is also a lie.

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Socialist definition of mansion is a lie.

The cake is a lie.