Railway Rise - more demolition?

[EDmummy]

It would be very sad to see these go. They are pretty much all that's left of this part of South London's rail history and are embodied (although not featuring) in Pissarro's wonderful paintings of Dulwich. Surely a good reason to list them.

[dimples]

I love these little cottages it would be a terrible shame to demolish them , they are so attractive too unlike yet another soulless build !

[kford]

These old railway cottages are lovely. They're definitely worth keeping.

[healey]

As others have said, the cottages may not be architecturally remarkable but they embody the early history of ED as a suburb and should be retained.

[Penguin68]

Railway cottages may well be a great retention for the local visual environment, but the ones I have been in, (not these ones, I should hasten to add) were often poky and cramped inside, not well provided for cooking (I can't say the k word) or bathrooms - they have often needed very extensive uplift to meet modern standards expectations. They were 'model homes' in their day, and provided railway workers with better accommodation that they might have had elsewhere, but 'their day' has long passed.

[pebs]

Agree with the comments. What can be done/we do?

[healey]

There's plenty of space in these for couples. I'd put money on the new above shop flats being very pokey affairs.

enguin68 Wrote:

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

> Railway cottages may well be a great retention for

> the local visual environment, but the ones I have

> been in, (not these ones, I should hasten to add)

> were often poky and cramped inside, not well

> provided for cooking (I can't say the k word) or

> bathrooms - they have often needed very extensive

> uplift to meet modern standards expectations. They

> were 'model homes' in their day, and provided

> railway workers with better accommodation that

> they might have had elsewhere, but 'their day' has

> long passed.

[nxjen]

But as people are quoting history as a reason for their retention, to be authentic shouldn't the occupancy reflect this? According to the 1911 census, no. 2 Railway Cottages (as they were then called) was occupied by the Head Porter, his married daughter and husband, and a second, single daughter, whilst at no. 3 lived a Signalman, his wife, son and 2 daughters whose ages ranged betweeen 14 and 20. The Station Master lived at No. 1 (or Station House as it was then called) with his wife and 2 young children.

I'm joking of course about proposing occupancy levels be the same as they were a hundred years ago and I agree, whilst also agreeing with Penguin regarding the probable indoor space, they are attractive. It has to be bourne in mind though that when the flats/library/retail building has been completed the visual environment is going to be very, very different. Anybody living in these cottages will look out onto a four storey building a great deal closer than the present railway embankment which will surely block out a lot of light. A development that has commercial on the ground floor with residential above makes a lot of sense, though when I last looked the application was still not online so not in a position to pass comment on what is being proposed. The person/people I really feel for is the occupier/owner of No. 1 Railway Rise, the house not included in this planning application, who may be in a very unenviable position.

[steveo]

Is anything being done to retain the station building that those garden wallahs painted a nasty colour?

If not etc.

[Jennys]

Wasn't the painted pink wall created rather than by the "garden wallahs" (love that phrase) but by the art gallery which occupied the building on a temporary basis after the Tuck family had sold the garden centre.

[edhistory]

pebs Wrote:

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

> Agree with the comments. What can be done/we do?

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/online-application-form/

[Blackcurrant]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> pebs Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Agree with the comments. What can be done/we

> do?

>

> http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/pr

> otection/process/online-application-form/

That's a great idea. It would be a great shame to replace those houses with another eyesore. The proposed new station is already bad enough. I understand the need for new housing, but why does it have to be so ugly?

[pebs]

thanks for this. James B - what's the best approach and do/would you support?

[sillywoman]

Watching with interest as I agree with the dissenters to the proposal to knock them down. ED doesn't have that much in the way of heritage, personally I'd like to keep what little it does have. I've often thought how it might work better from an 'initial impression' viewpoint it the Southbound platform discharged it's passengers behind the old garden centre, so their first image of ED was the pretty and quaint station cottages - pipe dream I know, but I would be extremely sad to see them crushed in the name of progress (mammon).

[Louisa]

What with the planned re-development at Peckham Rye, what's happened at Denmark Hill and now this to our beloved ED station, it seems there is some sort of agenda to forget our Victorian railway heritage and turn everything into modern boxed poorly built homogenisation. This would be a terrible tragedy.

Louisa.

[edcam]

I don't know much about the redevelopment at Peckham Rye but judging by what they've done to Denmark Hill station, which is staggeringly ugly and impractical, I doubt there will be any effort to make this development work well for anyone except those making a profit from it.

[DaveR]

Has anybody actually seen the plans yet? Various references to 'eyesore', 'ugly', and 'poorly built homogenisation' and i wondered what that was based on.

[chazzle]

I'm pretty mystified. We had a letter back on 19 January, saying we had 21 days to make representations. After querying this, we got the planning application number 15/AP/0192, but that's still not up on the Southwark site. Still waiting for a reply to my follow up email about this.

I'll continue to follow up and will post anything I discover.

[Blackcurrant]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> Has anybody actually seen the plans yet? Various

> references to 'eyesore', 'ugly', and 'poorly built

> homogenisation' and i wondered what that was based

> on.

The various references all refer to the new station building for ED (or Denmark Hill) - plans published & image on the forum.

[chazzle]

Blackcurrant - You are right that the Garden Centre redevelopment (which includes the partial demolition of the ED station building) has had plans in place for around ten years. This is a new proposal to build on the other side of Railway Rise, but the plans haven't been posted yet.

[DaveR]

"The various references all refer to the new station building for ED (or Denmark Hill) - plans published & image on the forum."

No, they don't, and in any event that hasn't been built yet so the poorly built reference would obviously be premature. No plans available for the proposed Railway Rise development so it might seem sensible for people to wait before they rush to judgment, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Jenny1]

Thanks Chazzle. Yes - do please continue to keep us posted.

[healey]

I'm normally open minded about new development. However, in this case a shop with flats above tacked to number 1 is a horrible clash of context.

I'm happy to rush to judgement on that basis alone. As they are they form a neat little block with some historical merit.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "The various references all refer to the new

> station building for ED (or Denmark Hill) - plans

> published & image on the forum."

>

> No, they don't, and in any event that hasn't been

> built yet so the poorly built reference would

> obviously be premature. No plans available for

> the proposed Railway Rise development so it might

> seem sensible for people to wait before they rush

> to judgment, but I'm not holding my breath.

[chazzle]

Just as I was hoping that it was all a bad dream: the plans are now in on the Southwark Planning website:

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/0192&system=DC

I'm somewhat biased, as it's sure to lead to yet more years of uncertainty and worry for us, but for what it's worth, I think it's bloody hideous and an insult to the Council and community.

Check out the North Elevation, we seem to be fading on that one. Also, I'm pretty sure that the former Garden Centre development has got taller on that one.

[chazzle]

https://www.facebook.com/saverailwayrise?fref=ts