What's happening to old ED police station?

[landsberger]

The School is scheduled to open on the 1st September 2016; otherwise will remain where it is at present.

[UVArchitects]

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.

[first mate]

Not great is it.

Think we can kiss goodbye to the E Dulwich skyline soon..that'll be two 4 storey buildings in close proximity on Lordship Lane.

[healey]

Looks like a functional enough building. The new plans are much better. It's good that they've made them use stock brick instead of rendered and painted breeze block.

[Otta]

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.

[Jah Lush]

Agree with Otta. All of it. Looks ok to me. It's much much better than the carbuncle that is the police station. I think that would be a good fit for what it is going to be.

[edcam]

Academies make me puke.

[first mate]

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.

[MarkT]

According to Southwark planning policies, Dulwich, including the whole of East Dulwich, is in the Suburban Zone. The Zone definitions come from the London Plan which defines Suburban Zone as two to three storeys.

MarkT

[EPB]

"Academies make me puke."

Why?

[first mate]

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.

[Jeremy]

But the existing police station is already four storeys! Besides, this is zone 2 London, not some picturesque village. And we need schools. Sorry FM I could not agree with you less.

[healey]

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.

[first mate]

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.

[Otta]

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.

[first mate]

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.

[Otta]

I just don't agree that the character of ED would change beyond measure if they built a tower block. Not that I think they ever will.

How are we defining "tower" block? How many stories? To me a Tower block is like 20 stories high.

[first mate]

Would ten stories high be okay then? A useful link here http://www.theguardian.com/cities/series/london-skyline-debate

[Jeremy]

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.

[first mate]

Well let's wait and see, I do really hope that you, Healey and Otta are right and I am wrong.

[worldwiser]

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.

[Otta]

I don't think it's fair to call First Mate narrow minded, but I do have to agree with the rest of that post.

[Jeremy]

Yep, FM seems like an intelligent and community-minded guy. I just happen to disagree with him on this issue.

[Tarot]

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.

[James Barber]

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.