Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have also objected to this. Better plans should be put in place if they want to redevelop that part of the station. Putting up a load of modern buildings is just sad to see when we should protecting our period buildings for future generations.

It was mentioned earlier about Thames Water and drains. I've never seen a planning application rejected due to drains or utility connection concerns. The site could be linked into drains directly on Melbourne Grove and would imagine Thames Water would insist upon this.


If Southwark rejects this planning application without what is legally considered a valid planning concern - it breachs Southwark policies and strategies - then the applicant can appeal the decision and a Planning Inspector will re consider the application.

I've appeared at planning appeals to defend East Dulwich but the applicant often wins. The applicant can then be awarded costs from the council so the council will be certain they can refuse if that is what is proposed.


Cllr Rosie Shimell and I are planning to call the decision in - but with 5 clear objections that may not be necessary.

Blackcurrant Wrote:

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

> I've posted my objection a second time as all

> previous objections appear to have been deleted.



Perhaps Cllr Barber could email Southwark's IT dept to find out where they went? Hopefully just a glitch.

Councillor James Barber has already been helpful on this thread but I think one other thing we can do is alert other local councillors to the issue.


I've written to Charlie Smith who's a Labour councillor in East Dulwich Ward. Labour are now the dominant party in Southwark Council so it's important that Charlie's aware of this.


I've said that a number of forumites have registered public objections to this proposal and have asked for his advice on how best we can argue our case.


I suggest that the more people who can write to their councillors about this the better.


As a reminder East Dulwich Ward councillors are:


Charlie Smith (labour) [email protected]

James Barber (Lib Dem) [email protected]

Rosie Shimell (Lib Dem) [email protected]


If you live in Village Ward (which is also close to the station) you might want to contact


Anne Kirby (Labour) [email protected]

Jane Lyons (Concervative) [email protected]

Michael Mitchell (Conservative) [email protected]

Jenny1 - I've had contact with councillors from all three parties.


It makes me think (and yes, it's a little late on a Friday night) that there could be a more strategic approach where development happens but continues to make East Dulwich somewhere to live rather than just somewhere to sleep.

Comment from the Planning website:


"Comment submitted date: Thu 26 Feb 2015


I seee no sense in retaining these nondescript buildings on a pice of land that could be used for a range of other uses. There are many examples of 19thC railway cottages in SE London, Blackheath for example, still retains them.East Dulwich is hardly known for its architectural stockpile, given its recent development. I have no issue with these squalid little houses being lost as part of a development process"


(Squalid: wow!) Strange argument: there are others in south london, e.g. seven miles away in Blackheath, and not much of architectural merit in East Dulwich, so demolish what there is.

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

    • This presumably hasn't been done by vandals. It's hardly a Sycamore Gap situation. So if it's been done by professionals, unless it was a mistake (unlikely) there must have been a good reason, as it would have cost money. It would perhaps have been a good idea to put a notice on the tree explaining why such drastic work was done, but usually (I think) it would be either because of disease (often not noticeable on the surface) or that the roots or branches  were endangering nearby structures. As already said, nobody on here is likely to know. The tree department in Southwark Council are helpful in my (admittedly limited) experience. Please post on here when you have found out, as I agree what's left of the tree looks pretty odd. Depending on why the work was done, possibly they intend to remove the rest as well?
    • I have a very stupid question. I want to get a SIM card to put in an old mobile as a back up,  in case despite my best efforts my mobile gets stolen and I have no way of contacting anybody quickly, eg banks. Can I just buy any old cheap pay as you go  SIM card and put say ten pounds on it and it will then be fine for years (with the phone kept charged!) even if I don't use it, or do I have to use the phone  every so often to keep the SIM card valid?
    • I hate to see trees cut down to such an unfinished state. Unless the tree is home to wildlife, an effort should be made to remove & replace. Otherwise, it's just so useless & unsightly.
    • Given the level of care in Dulwich Park, I would not expect this to be careless or unnecessary. It will grow back.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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