Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In an earlier thread people were asking about the plans for the land by East Dulwich Station where the old Garden Centre was. Things have now moved on to the next stage, with an application to demolish two of the Victorian Railway Cottages opposite:


APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION


Application number: 15/AP/0192


Address: 2-3 RAILWAY RISE, LONDON, SE22 8EE


Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment of 2&3 Railway Rise to create 135 sqm of ground floor commercial space (use classes A1, A2, A3 and B1(a)) together with 5x2 bed residential units across three upper storeys above (1st, 2nd & 3rd), together with associated amenity, waste, recycling, cycle storage and other facilities.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/53934-railway-rise-more-demolition/
Share on other sites

This would be a shame. Especially when the huge, blue building that is designated commercial space ( next to Dulwich leisure centre) is allegedly to be torn down and made into high density flats. What a farce.


This latest application will no doubt have been made by a developer who has no interest in the fabric, character or structure of East Dulwich, other than how it can best be ripped up and turned into a meaty profit for himself and his investors. Baaaagh.


There has to be some overview of development or ED will be homogenised and characterless before we know it.

ernesto Wrote:

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

> hate to be the voice of dissent, but they are a bog standard railway cottages that seem to exist

> all over London- why should these 2 be listed ?


I don't think they deserve to be listed, but they definitely deserve to be saved.

Loz Wrote:

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

> ernesto Wrote:

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

> -----

> > hate to be the voice of dissent, but they are a

> bog standard railway cottages that seem to exist

> > all over London- why should these 2 be listed ?

>

> I don't think they deserve to be listed, but they

> definitely deserve to be saved.



How do we save them without having them listed. I'm not at all familiar with such regulations.


DulwichFox

I agree with Ernesto, though quaint, there's nothing special about them and wouldn't stand any chance of being listed. Take a walk around East Dulwich and you'll see there's enough period housing to satisfy the most fervent John Betjeman disciple, in fact when I first moved into the area I found the ubiquitous bay windowed terraces incredibly dull. Of course, it depends on what the proposed new build will be, the plans don't appear to be online yet. What's intriguing though is the proposal only covers 2 of the 3 cottages - does this mean the one closest to Grove Vale is remaining?

first mate Wrote:

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

> This would be a shame. Especially when the huge, blue building that is designated commercial space

> ( next to Dulwich leisure centre) is allegedly to be torn down and made into high density flats.

> What a farce.


I'm sorry, but I see no value whatsoever in that commercial building. And, lets face it, London needs (much) more housing. Great leap forward, IMHO.

James - Thank you. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything


worldwiser - I have only the reference above, which came by letter. I'm chasing this up with Southwark and the developer's representatives.


ernesto - Yes they are bog standard railway cottages, because they were (sturdily) constructed for the workers. They were built in 1866 and pre-date most of the surroundings. However, English Heritage did agree with you, in principle, and said they didn't merit listing (along with the station). Interestingly North Dulwich Station is listed. East Dulwich has very few listed buildings.


nxjen - The 'bay-windowed terraces' may (or may not) be boring. These don't have bay windows. (See above) The property developer owns two of the three cottages.


ironjawcannon - From hearsay, I think that land further up may be for sale and would be a huge site.

I also can't find the application on Southwark website, either using the application no. above, or searching for Railway Rise.


I agree that architecturally the houses are unexceptional, but the site is a prominent one so you would want any new-build to be a really good one, whereas I suspect the developer wants to build a bland (cheap) box. Also, I'd generally be sympathetic to mixed commercial/residential development but this application is obviously completely speculative re future use, hence the application for A1/2/3 and B1(a) i.e. any non-industrial use.

Even though these houses are not listed I think they are particularly characterful. They're unusual for the area - perhaps because (as Chazzle states) they were built in 1866 - which is twenty years or so earlier than the vast majority of the development of the area.


It would - in my view - be a great shame to lose this particular aspect of the history of East Dulwich.

And it's easy to say that any particular buildings are 'nothing special', but then, bit by bit, they disappear. Then they do become 'special'. It's why we have societies dedicated to 70s and 80s architecture and so on. They don't want to preserve everything, they just don't want it all destroyed because it's 'nothing special'.
Seeing these ripped down would be very sad. They add a lovely character to the place when you emerge from the station. There's enough redevelopment going on across the city as it is, erode enough of the "insignificant" places away and you're left with nothing but homogenised blandness. No thanks.

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

    • We’ve got a gap on the roof of our shed that needs patching  don’t want to buy a huge roll so hoping someone has some leftover  happy to collect/reimburse 
    • I never said I thought it was targeted or deliberate. There also has never been a “stand off” or confrontation, we’ve spoken to them in a friendly manner about it. Our experience is they don’t seem to care. That’s the frustrating thing for us, if someone politely raises a concern at least take a second to reflect. Treat others how you would want to be treated.  I don’t want them to lose their job, far from it. But considering it could cost me a days work to fix any damage, I’m within my right to try prevent it.   
    • The SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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