Railway Rise Demolition - Consultation now open

[chazzle]

Yes, great news. Application REFUSED

There may be appeals and further applications, but time to be optimistic that the council has made a good decision. I would think that with 40+ critical comments, all will agree that it would be better to build on existing wasteland before they start knocking down Victorian cottages.

[first mate]

Yes, time to be optomostic but there is a little game that developers and planning seem to play where a couple of applications are refused, as few tweaks are made and we get to the point where planning say they dare not refuse since if the case is won at appeal they will have to foot the legal bills. This seems to be the way developers work the system time and time again.

[intexasatthe moment]

Good news indeed . But as chazzle says ,further applications will made ,if not appeals .

Keep up the good work chazzle and keep us posted .

[chazzle]

FM - Wouldn't it be nice if the developer reflected on the criticisms and acknowledged that it was a bad idea all along and left it at that. Yeah, I know ...

[ednewmy]

They will dooubtless retreat and tend to their wounds for a while, all will go quiet, then they will come back and park their tanks on the lawn (as it were).

[Louisa]

Having said all this, even if the developers win the day, sometimes they will choose not to go ahead against great local opposition, as appears to have been the case with the whole M&S/Iceland situation on LL.

Louisa.

[chazzle]

The decision notice (attached) cites three reasons for throwing out the proposal which were roughly: (i) Too big (ii) Impact on neighbour (iii) Inadequate amenity space.

Unfortunately, they couldn't include the demolition of the cottages as a reason nor the clear mistakes and inaccuracies in the plans. I guess the developers would have cried foul if they had. However, I would have thought that to reduce the bulk of the proposed block and provide some amenity space, they would have to reduce from five flats to maybe two or three. In particular, he would have to lose his penthouse. (Not much glory in a second-floor penthouse!) I suspect that wouldn't yield the profits required considering the rents that the 'spacious and desirable'/'poor quality and squalid' cottages currently provide.

It's intriguing to see that some late amendments were submitted but too late for consideration.

[edhistory]

How did the contact with the Dog Kennel Hill bat survey people go?

John K

[Eileen]

hi all - I have just come across this thread, and relieved to see that the app was refused. as people say though it can resurface. What we need is a reborn East Dulwich Society or similar community group that comes together on planning in East Dulwich. Such a group can't do everything but the key thing it can do is to keep people connected with each other, who watch out for apps and build up experience in dealing with them. Coupled with this great EDF communicating tool that would be great. Is anyone keen to do something to nurture a group like that?

[James Barber]

Good. Cllr Rosie Shimell and I had called-in this planning decision so if officers had been minded to grant permission it would have gone to a planning committee.

Fingers crossed we wont have another 10+ year saga.

[chazzle]

I think there was a bat survey on the Garden Centre plans, but not on this one. I've never seen any evidence of bats in the loft. (Although there is a tennis racket.) Can we get some? Do they eat moths?

[MarkT]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Cllr Rosie Shimell and I had called-in this

> planning decision so if officers had been minded

> to grant permission it would have gone to a

> planning committee.

James,

The Council rules also dictate that an application must go to a committee if there are 3 or more objections. In this case more than 40 objections were submitted.

MarkT