What's happening to old ED police station?

[UVArchitects]

Hi James

It is clearly bigger on the Lordship Lane fa?ade as can be seen by the architects image.

I understand you pushing for it to be approved so as it can provide school places quickly, but the community should not be rushed into approving something of such mediocre design quality on such a prominent corner of such an important thoroughfare.

[worldwiser]

Not all Free Schools can be designed by Norman Foster, that was Labour's Academies' racket. Free Schools have to operate on the same budgets as other maintained schools and this is a very acceptable design which works pretty well in the streetscape. I say get on and build the thing.

[UVArchitects]

Good design doesn't have to cost anymore to build, its just the level of thought that is brought to bear at the design stage

[James Barber]

Hi UVArchitects,

The applicant applied over 9 months ago and appear to have had quite a run around by Southwark.

So no one is being rushed. In fact the inordinate delay is worrying as every year anothr 60 pupils are added to this school.

The build and design is limited by the budget set by the government. The budget has also been severely stretched by ?6M for the site.

If you have some hepful thoguhts to offer please email them to me so I can share them with the Harris project team who can then discuss with the Educational Finance Agency (gov't agency) who procure the building on behalf of the free school.

[Otta]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

Because we desperately need more housing and should let nimby nonsense stop it perhaps?

Seriously, where exactly does anyone think a tower block COULD be built in dulwich?

[first mate]

It is not the school I object to at all, it's the combination of two buildings ( Harris and proposed M&S) being made taller than they were in close proximity and therefore setting precedent for taller still. The focus should be on the M&S development not Harris. If we believe housing is vital then question hard what they are doing with that development.

Just to be clear, M&S is just shorthand for the site...any objection has nothing to do with the retail brand.

[James Barber]

Hi Otta,

March 2014 I organsied a meeting with Southwark Labour Council leader Peter john to talk about desperately needed new secondary school.

he listened to me and parents and education officers for Southwark and he agree a huge U turn and changed council policy from beign anti a new secondary school to pro.

BUT he talked about the Dulwich Hospital site and how the school could be more vertical and tall so that plenty of space would be left for lots of new housing. So I can see that the Dulwich Hospital site will have taller buildings proposed than I'd want and I suspect many local residents.

osuthwark Council have also propsoed various other local sites for housing developement - quick Fit, neighbouering timber yard, Jewson's builder yard. All developers would rue how close they wer to East Dulwich station and should have many more units and height.

ta, I believe we do have a risk of very tall buildings being proposed and first mate is right to point this out.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> BUT he talked about the Dulwich Hospital site and

> how the school could be more vertical and tall so

> that plenty of space would be left for lots of new

> housing. So I can see that the Dulwich Hospital

> site will have taller buildings proposed than I'd

> want and I suspect many local residents.

So housing on the Dulwich Hospital site is still on the agenda? I thought it had come down to the school plus the community health centre.

[Otta]

So how tall are the buildings you fear?

When it comes to Southwark and housing I have absolutely no faith that they will do anything but line the pockets of developers, but I still think talk of "tower blocks" in ED is just silly.

[James Barber]

Hi BNG,

Southwark Labour have chosen, despite being asked repeatedly by Rosie and me, to NOT revise the current Dulwich Hopsital Planning Brief. That brief emphasis is on replacement health faciltities, housing and then community use. They say this document doesn't need changing or to be withdrawn. They've said it would take too long. We're now 15months since this was originally requested. We suggested how to fund this using our devolved budgets.

So in planning terms yes.

BUT when I appied for the Right To Contest 17,000m2 was allocated for non health use. I'm hopeful that Southwark Council will refuse a secondary school for anything less than this amount of land. The Educational Finance agency could dig it's heals in as the price is likely to be very high for the land.

The local health service have said they need 7,000-9,000m2. The site is 28,300m2. So it looks like something upwards of 2,500m2 will be free for housing. NHS property will try and obtain the most cash for this possible which would mean going up. We will resist non suburban densities but Southwark council is very pro towr blocks and big developers currently.

[Otta]

Again, can you define "tower blocks" please? How tall?

[Otta]

It's just that when you say "tower block", I think of this

Or similar.

That one is in Stratford by the way. I've done home visits in there, amazing views.

[first mate]

Otta, we've got them on the edge of Camberwell...not so far. I think half the height of the picture you posted would be too high, but that's me. I agree the views are great if you get a top floor. The shadow cast all around it is another matter.

James, thanks for coming back on this and shedding light (arf arf) on the matter

[Otta]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Otta, we've got them on the edge of

> Camberwell...not so far.

Perhaps, but at the risk of doing a Paddy Ashdown, if a building even half that height ever arrives in East Dulwich I shall eat my hat.

[first mate]

Oooooh, now I feel torn. I want you to be right about this but the prospect of public hat eating makes that tricky...and I sense you are a man of your word. Any chance of an advance pic of hat, just in case?

[landsberger]

> Hi UVArchitects,

> The applicant applied over 9 months ago and appear

> to have had quite a run around by Southwark.

Not true. They have, if anything, messed the Council around

> So no one is being rushed.

Certainly not Harris

> In fact the inordinate

> delay is worrying as every year anothr 60 pupils

> are added to this school.

It couldn't be that, like in Bromley, Harris were attempting to bounce the Council into approving their ill thought out scheme ?

> The build and design is limited by the budget set

> by the government.

And Harris's bottomless coffers....

> The budget has also been

> severely stretched by ?6M for the site.

Nothing to do with the Council.

> If you have some hepful thoughts to offer please

> email them to me so I can share them with the

> Harris project team who can then discuss with the

> Educational Finance Agency (gov't agency) who

> procure the building on behalf of the free school.

How about don't build a school where it's not needed?