Railway Rise Demolition - Consultation now open

[abeattie]

- keekybreeks

"sticking their oar in" or expressing legitimate objection to a planning application people evidently feel rather strongly about?

[keekybreeks]

with respect to chazzle, Im getting out of this discussion, but you know exactly what the issue is.

[chazzle]

Positive article in yesterday's South London Press, page 3.

[James Barber]

Sadly from a planning perspective objectors and supporters normally carry most weight if they live within 100m of the development site.

Certainly at planning committees supporters and objectors can only speak if living within 100m of the planning application site.

But certainly councillors can't help but be influenced even if sub consciously if they receive lots of emails. But the councillors to influence will be those on any planning sub committee that will decide this planning application.

But it can only be refused on planning grounds else any successful appeal could see Southwark be charged the applicants costs.

So worth checking the applicant versus the Southwark Plan and highlighting if it's an overdevelopment - we're suburban here, design, parking pressure -

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/1241/the_southwark_plan

[MarkT]

James, are you quoting a new rule?

?Certainly at planning committees supporters and objectors can only speak if living within 100m of the planning application site.?

I can?t find this rule in either Southwark?s Constitution or Statement of Community Involvement. Do you operate this rule in your capacity as vice chair of a planning sub-committee?

Surely this would tend to restrict a proper hearing of expert, or informed, objections, for example in this case, relating to the historical importance of the existing cottages.

You say:

?worth checking the applicant versus the Southwark Plan and highlighting if it's an overdevelopment - we're suburban here, design, parking pressure?

I would add height and density, both defined in policies, which therefore provide direct measures of overdevelopment. The London Plan defines the Suburban Zone as 2-3 storeys with density maximum 350 habitable rooms per hectare. A 4 storey development with accordingly high density is therefore contrary to planning policy.

Do you consider such an objection on policy grounds to be less valid if expressed by someone living more than 100m away?

You add:

?But certainly councillors can't help but be influenced even if sub consciously if they receive lots of emails. But the councillors to influence will be those on any planning sub committee that will decide this planning application.?

Do Committee Members read the objections in full, or only the highly condensed interpretation presented in the officer?s report? If an application goes to a planning committee it must be because officers are recommending approval, and might therefore be inclined to underplay strong objections. Would you recommend therefore that we copy objections in full to committee members?

MarkT

[first mate]

It is amazing how all these little technical hitches surface just as a consultation is closing. I wonder do our local councillors support demolition if these cottages to make way for yet more overdevelopment? I'd love to hear from, Barber, Smith and, Shimell, do they support demolition or not?

[abeattie]

This is the first line about Dulwich in the New Southwark Plan:

"Dulwich: The unique historic character of Dulwich will be protected and enhanced. Dulwich

will continue to be a popular and pleasant place to live with many attractive homes

alongside playing fields, parks, tree lined roads and large gardens."

Seems like a pretty clear case that this application doesn't adhere to that.

[Zak]

If these are "nondescript" and "squalid" buildings, as suggested by the person commenting on the Planning Website on 26th February, then that could surely be said of a lot of buildings in East Dulwich!

However, the case can equally be made that they are examples of charming vernacular architecture, which is in keeping with the surrounding station environment and generally enhance the area. By contrast, what is being proposed is insensitive, ugly and entirely out of character.

Furthermore, it's possible that these are the only remaining examples of occupied purpose built station accommodation, that was built by the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway in the latter half of the 1800s. If this were the case, then surely they would merit listing by English Heritage.

[edhistory]

This at Haywards Heath:

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pic2/wn-2011b/hh_cottage_richardc2593_1oct11h.jpg

was demolished in October 2011.

Unless someone knows otherwise, ours at East Dulwich are "sole survivors".

John K

[intexasatthe moment]

The retention of these 2 cottages ,especially as part of a terrace where only one will survive is important and the point well made .

But I think additional points where the application might be contrary to planning policy need to be made .

My concerns would be - change of use from residential to commercial

"8.2.5 Saved Southwark plan policy 1.8: Location of developments for retail and other town centre uses, states that outside of the town and local centres, developments for retail, leisure, entertainment and other town and local centre uses, will only be permitted where the need for the development can be demonstrated."( from Dulwich SDP )

Figure 7 in DSDP shows Railway Rise as being outside the Lordship Lane town centre

- loss of family housing .There is an emphasis throughout the DSDP on retaining family housing and guidelines against both subdividing large properties and smaller ( 130 sq m.or less ) into flats .

5.3 Subdivision of large properties 5.3.1 There is a presumption against subdivision of large properties in Southwark. This is especially relevant to Dulwich as Dulwich is an area with a lot of family housing which we wish to maintain. This is because we have a large need for more family housing and large houses form an important element of the character of the area.

- does the proposal meet requirements re amenity space ,accesibilty as per Southwark's Lifetimes Homes standards etc as found in the Residential Design Standards ?

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s22935/Appendix

These guidelines apply to all developments ,not just those exceeding 10 units

"These standards apply to all residential development, including new dwellings, conversions, extensions and

alterations. "

- it's too high ,however many other buildings in the vicinity are referred to .

[abeattie]

All good points.

This from the 'Quality in Design' section of the New Southwark plan is also relevant...

Key points highlighted.

DM 38.1 Development must:

38.1.2 Ensure new buildings and alterations to existing buildings embody a creative

and high-quality appropriate design solution, specific to their site?s shape,

size, location and development opportunities.

****Where applicable development must preserve or enhance the significance of historic assets and their settings, and the local character.****

DM 38.2 Development must take into account:

38.2.1 Functionality - how the form and layout of the development successfully

functions in relation to its land use.

38.2.2 Aesthetics and geometry - the visual appearance of the development.

***38.2.3 Local character and context.***

[MissKing]

According to this, it's the same property developer that did the garden centre. They have bought up the cottages and the road with a view to develop into shops and flats:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/designation_of_railway_rise_se22

[MissKing]

And interestingly here you can see inside the cottages when they were last up for sale. I don't see how it can be justified to demolish these I really don't!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detail.html?country=england&locationIdentifier=STREET%5E518353&searchLocation=Railway+Rise&referrer=landingPage

[healey]

MissKing Wrote:

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

> And interestingly here you can see inside the

> cottages when they were last up for sale. I don't

> see how it can be justified to demolish these I

> really don't!

>

> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detail.htm

> l?country=england&locationIdentifier=STREET%5E5183

> 53&searchLocation=Railway+Rise&referrer=landingPag

> e

"Squalid", according to one commenter......

[edhistory]

MissKing Wrote:

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

> According to this, it's the same property

> developer that did the garden centre. They have

> bought up the cottages and the road with a view to

> develop into shops and flats:

>

> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/designation

> _of_railway_rise_se22

Who is Charles Lound? What is his source for road ownership?

If it is an adopted road owned by Southwark Council the council should have a copy of the legal order.

If it is owned by Network Rail (or successor) the Marlin Plan will show the land ownership boundaries.

If it is owned by the developer the Land Registry should have details.

John K

[MarkT]

The Southwark Council planning officer?s report for the garden centre application, 11-AP-0024, in paragraph 3, site location, states: ?Railway Rise is a private road which is under the control of the applicant?

MarkT

[chazzle]

John K - That'll be me. I'm not sure whether I've ever seen an official document saying that Ivan Bateman or his company St Aidan's Group, owner of 2 & 3, also owns the Road. I expect it's been checked as part of the previous works and I've no reason to dispute it. MarkT's comment seems conclusive.

[pebs]

I have just submitted. The deadline for comments is the 20th I believe.

[MarkT]

I have submitted my objection as follows:

The London Plan (Paragraph 3.23) defines the Suburban Zone: ?areas with predominantly lower density development such as for example detached and semi-detached houses, predominantly residential, small building footprints and typically buildings of two to three storeys.?

The proposed development of 4 storeys, within the Suburban Zone, is therefore contrary to the London Plan.

[abeattie]

FYI the planning site is down again for some reason.

[chazzle]

According to the letter we received, the consultation period is now closed. I've just had another read through the comments and it's great to see the eloquent, considered and heartfelt comments opposing these plans. I guess we now have to wait.

I'm expecting a long process - the Garden Centre plans first emerged around ten years ago - but I hope that those deciding will see that this is a good opportunity for the clarity of just saying 'no, never', so that we don't go for the ongoing rigmarole of repeat applications, trimming and adding a small carrot for the community. I worry about being seen as a 'NIMBY', but seeing as the developers saw fit to include in their proposal speculation about the demolition of our family home*, it's more like 'not in my front room'.

Cheers,

Charlie

(*Yes, they really did!)

[steveo]

The wholesale planning barbarism in London/Dulwich never ends. Just when you think the councils have wised up they commit another atrocity. Why was the hospital wing demolished? Does anyone know?

It is essential that these heathens are scrutinised at every turn and I am glad that you are taking a stand despite your vested interest. Whatever the housing need, I can't see any argument for replacing Victorian cottages with flats other than trousering a bit of money.

In this instance Nimbyism is a virtue if you ask me. If these council mediocrities were any good they'd be in private practice.

[Jennys]

Give that the planning site has been down on a couple of occasions for some time so that people could not post any comments and that all the previous comments were seemingly wiped from it, perhaps it would be worth asking for an extension of the consultation period.

[abeattie]

Consultation period extended to 17 April according to the planning site.

[abeattie]

Good news it seems.

Application refused according to the site just now.