Railway Rise Demolition - Consultation now open

[dimples]

I've not recieved one ?!

[Alex K]

Perhaps to re-file your comment is in order?

[chazzle]

I think there is an optional automatic reply, with the actual posting later.

There are fourteen public comments so far! http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9558549

[abeattie]

Very odd. Just been on to check this and all comments have disappeared.

[dimples]

Yes they have haven't they ?????

[Jennys]

Very weird.

[mamasmurf]

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.

[James Barber]

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.

[ednewmy]

Not sure if it's just me but I can't currently see any of the publicly made comments...

[Jennys]

Is it a glitch or has everything been removed?

[Blackcurrant]

I've posted my objection a second time as all previous objections appear to have been deleted.

[healey]

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.

[chazzle]

I've asked the planning officer about the mysterious missing comments and re-posted mine.

[abeattie]

I've reposted my objection comment, along with a comment questioning the removal of all the previous objections.

[chazzle]

I got a reply today from the planning officer saying it is a technical hitch on the comments website.

Also, he says we have two weeks to submit objections.

[abeattie]

Any mention of whether the comments will reappear or will people have to resubmit their objections?

[sue k]

Objection just written. anything else we can do?

[Jenny1]

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]

[chazzle]

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.

[Jenny1]

I agree Chazzle.

I think the more of us who voice our concerns to councillors the better. It's important that they realise that this is something that matters a great deal to a lot of people.

[keekybreeks]

dont suppose anyone has consulted the property owners on this for their opinion ?

no.

thought not

[Jenny1]

Hi keekgybreeks

Do you mean the owner of numbers 2 and 3 who is making the bid to develop or the owner number 1 (the cottage which wiil remain - attached to the new block - if the development goes ahead)?

[chazzle]

keekybreeks - We own and live at number 1. Very much opposed as you can see from this thread.

[keekybreeks]

fine, thanks for that- at least there is a valid interest aspect rather than everyone else who is sticking their oar in

[chazzle]

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.