Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...

Well they've changed the plans, and made it bigger!!!

They've also painted the fa?ade with bricks and made it a bit sunnier.


Seems amusing that they seem to have taken the aesthetic of the offices above Iceland as inspiration.


Lordship Lane deserves a lot better than this.

It looks like new schools look. What we're you expecting, gothic columns and gargoyles?


"Lordship Lane deserves better"


Why?


And what E Dulwich skyline? Surely taller buildings actually create a skyline. I doubt New York's was famous when it was a small settlement with a few houses.

Otta, some gargoyles would be fun and a change from the bland, unimaginative boxes currently on offer. That said, it is the height that concerns me. As a one off it's okay, but along with the m&s proposal that sets a precedent for more of the same.

Mark T,



Yes, so allowing 4 storeys will change that by setting precedent. The door will then be open for tower blocks and this is not as far fetched as it might sound, for one it can solve the headache of providing housing. Once local building height has been raised a few storeys in a few cases it is easy for developers to further exploit this. This may also serve the purposes of councillors who can state, as they have done in past applications which breach planning law, that the financial risk of objection and appeal is too great and so all and any developments go through.


Of course, everyone will argue well we must have a school of decent size etc.. that must come first but, again, is there an attempt to squeeze too much into the available space? In terms of the current M$S proposal.. What is the pressing need for four storeys, other than lining the developer's pockets? An application for retail space and 8 residences had already been ok'd, so why the need for yet another storey atop a building that is only 3? If it really were only ever going to be limited to these two buildings it might be bearable, but it won't and next it'll be a five storey building, then more.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Otta, some gargoyles would be fun and a change

> from the bland, unimaginative boxes currently on

> offer. That said, it is the height that concerns

> me. As a one off it's okay, but along with the m&s

> proposal that sets a precedent for more of the

> same.


The vast majority of ED properties are brick boxes with a bit of Victorian stonework thrown on the front. This newer design is a solid bit of modern London vernacular in stock brick. Should fit in well.

Jeremy, I know, you and I already have a history of disagreement on this issue, but tell me, is their a height you would object to or are you happy for builds to slowly creep up in height generally in the area? I think I already know the answer but thought I'd ask.


The most recent version of Harris is taller than the last, you can see that from the drawings.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Mark T,

>

>

> Yes, so allowing 4 storeys will change that by

> setting precedent. The door will then be open for

> tower blocks and this is not as far fetched as it

> might sound, for one it can solve the headache of

> providing housing.





I can't actually see a tower block appearing in Dulwich any time soon, but frankly it wouldn't bother me at all, we need housing, so let them build it.


It makes me laugh the way some people seem to think that Dulwich is somehow special. It's full of uninspiring victorian terraces, and if you look above the shop fronts Lordship Lane is ugly as hell. There are great things about the area, but it's buildings have never been one of them (with some exceptions, which are likely to be demolished).


I am not saying the proposed new school looks wonderful, but it's what modern schools look like. And I definitely prefer the image on the right to the horrible blue one on the left.

I agree the newer version of Harris is better than the old , save that it is bigger. This is not about ED being special but that buildings are proportionate and as aesthetically pleasing as they can be. I would not want to see tower blocks in ED, the character of the place would change beyond measure; but you are right, the argument about endless need for more and more housing is a useful peg for both councillors and developers to drive ever taller buildings through.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Jeremy, I know, you and I already have a history

> of disagreement on this issue, but tell me, is

> their a height you would object to or are you

> happy for builds to slowly creep up in height

> generally in the area? I think I already know the

> answer but thought I'd ask.


I wouldn't want tower blocks either, but 4 or 5 storeys seems OK to me. At the end of the day, a 4 storey building is being knocked down and replaced with another 4 storey building, so we're not exactly opening the floodgates here.

I have no problem with the occasional building going higher than the average, especially where there's overwhelming societal need. 99.9% of the buildings in the area are 2 or 3 storeys and the idea that even a few dozen developments that break this norm will destroy the character of the area is deluded scaremongering.


The need for increased educational provisioning (especially at primary level) is becoming acute and frankly trumps any narrow-minded insistence on aesthetic absolutes.

Curose Wrote:

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

> Is it me or does Harris seem to be taking over the

> world!!


Well you know what the slang word Harris means in cockney,maybe thats what they think of the working class kids that go there.

hi first mate,

The new plans do look better. I'm not sure they're any bigger as both will be following the Dept for Education rules about space sizing etc. The brick does look much more in keeping of what we already have.

We now need it approved so that it can be built in time ot house local children by September 2016. That means 180 places.


WRT to tower blocks. Our area is classified as Suburban. The labour administration is proposing changes to the Southwark Plan so that such tower blocks could be build anywhere in the borough and not excldued from subirban areas. I hope they can be persusded to not make this change. either they think little or no chance of happening - in which case why propose it OR they genuinely will be encouraging developers to do this andthey should say why.

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...