Railway Rise - more demolition?

[healey]

Those plans are.... ridiculous. The remaining house is completely dwarfed. Its occupiers must be completely horrified. Should be thrown out.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I wonder whether a single 'unit' will be priced at a level which is affordable for someone on an average salary?

[steveo]

I like all the happy blank people boulevarding it down that slip road

[Blackcurrant]

Another giant box to match the one over the station.

[healey]

Blackcurrant Wrote:

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

> Another giant box to match the one over the

> station.

I heard the "box over the station" had stalled due to disagreements over the old station building. Clearly this proposal was going to use that development as context, but perhaps that's not so easy now. The planning policy for the rise will need to be clarified. In my opinion the railway cottages should be conserved and the opposite side of the rise limited to two-storey development.

[BrandNewGuy]

... which will help give the Council the excuse to shut Grove Vale Library and not open a new one on the old garden centre site as planned because the development has stalled. As I mentioned to Cllr Barber a while ago, the new library is by no means a done deal.

[healey]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> ... which will help give the Council the excuse to

> shut Grove Vale Library and not open a new one on

> the old garden centre site as planned because the

> development has stalled. As I mentioned to Cllr

> Barber a while ago, the new library is by no means

> a done deal.

The library should be separate issue.

[BrandNewGuy]

Maybe it should, but funding for it was coming from the developer, which we were assured would be fine. We'll see.

[worldwiser]

As my English teacher frequently used to say: That's just awful awful awful awful. No way it gets passed. Unless they do an M&S 'wear-down-the-council-with-lawyers' move.

[Jenny1]

These proposals are - in my view - highly destructive.

Is there anyone here who has experience of campaigning in this kind of context who would like to take the lead on this? If so I feel sure there would be people here - myself included - who would be very happy to work on it with them.

The suggestion of working via English Heritage (as made earlier on this thread) is a good one. I imagine the Victorian Society might also be helpful.

Others may be more aware than myself of the appropriate timetable for action in relation to the latest planning application.

[abeattie]

Any ideas re: consultation period and how to voice opposition to this disaster?

[chazzle]

rahrahrah - I assume your question about pricing for 'an average salary' is rhetorical! The 'garden centre' plans dodged the social housing requirement by including the library.

steveo - Yes, I'm not sure where all those jolly people are boulevarding to and from. And is that a bus that's taken a wrong turn?

abeattie - I guess we'll know about the consultation period once the official letters have been sent out. I'll post something on here as soon as we know.

[intexasatthe moment]

Consultation period ends 28 Feb according to this http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9558549

The on line comments form indicates that there is an attempt to restrict comments to 1000 characters .

I think there may be more interest from posters if the thread title were changed to indicate that the subject was concern over a recent planning application to develop Railway Rise .

[Blackcurrant]

The simplest way to block demolition would be to fill out the English Heritage form EDHistory posted a link to. Surely doing that will force Southwark to put things on hold.

The drawing is monstrous but presumably just the start of a negotiation process in which the developer hopes to get planning for maximum number of units - I doubt they expect to get approval for the first round. But who knows what random decision Southwark might come to - they believe there's a housing shortage rather than a house price bubble and are rubber stamping developments everywhere in the borough.

[Blackcurrant]

In other news, Peckham residents are trying get a protection plan in place for the multistorey car park:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/thousands-sign-petition-opposing-proposal-to-build-20storey-building-in-skyline-of-franks-caf-10036862.html

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm not sure that English Heritage would move fast enough for there to be any impact on this application .

[LondonMix]

Also, didn't another poster say they contacted English Heritage and they said it didn't merit protection? While these are unique to Dulwich, they aren't unique in London and don't have any specific merit when compared to the numerous railway cottages that exist from what I understand.

You are probably better off objecting specifically to what you dislike and using planning criteria for objections. I imagine the owner of the remaining cottage can object potentially to loss of amenity.

[abeattie]

Made a comment objecting to this application and it has so far failed to show up online. I note that you can make a comment or a public comment, so I would urge anyone else to do both.

[edhistory]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> While these are unique to Dulwich,

> they aren't unique in London and don't have any

> specific merit when compared to the numerous

> railway cottages that exist from what I

> understand.

I've not been able to locate any other London examples.

Can you help?

John K

[Jennys]

Google "railway cottage London" and you will find quite a few examples of Victorian railway workers' cottages although I didn't see any exactly like the East Dulwich ones.

[ednewmy]

The suggestion in the developer's covering letter that this and the development on the station side of Railway Rise will somehow "enhance" this area of East Dulwich are somewhat lost on me, frankly! And blimey, looking through the design and access statement for this proposed development has really hammered home just how massive the development on the station side is going to be.

It's all terribly sad given how in the past when one has emerged from the station, it feels far less urban than other areas of the city. If they proceed, these two developments will certainly begin to put paid to that feeling.

[first mate]

Ednewmy, which is exactly what certain powers want, because that urban look can be used to justify further urbanisation. This is a link to a great article explaining precisely how London is being sold up to developers and to what extent councils and politicians are in the pocket of developers, who hold the whip hand in the planning game. Note the bits about Peter John our own Labour Council leader, and the ongoing Heygate scandal. Read and weep.

Remember that the likes of the Harris Federation, who are accruing schools and land faster than you can say primary, are arguably just another developer.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities

[dimples]

What about contacting Tessa Jowell ?

[Blackcurrant]

Jennys Wrote:

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

> Google "railway cottage London" and you will find

> quite a few examples of Victorian railway workers'

> cottages although I didn't see any exactly like

> the East Dulwich ones.

I can't see anything similar.

I think the building is a bit of a gem, though it's a shame the tyre shop currently hides it from view unless you walk up Railway Rise. Also a shame the old cobbles have been tarmaced over.

http://i59.tinypic.com/35ibo9l.jpg

[Blackcurrant]

I'd be much happier if they demolished Melbourne Grove Medical Practice next door.