Jump to content

Child Safety Petition: SG Smith Development / Dulwich Village

Recommended Posts

Please sign this petition and help us raise awareness:


More information below.... thanks very much - Andy


Current plans to redevelop the SG Smith (Audi) garage in the centre of Dulwich Village include a 5,000 cubic metre basement to create underground snugs, utility rooms and parking for 12 new homes.

The works will involve over 2,000 multi-axle HGV journeys: tipper trucks to remove the soil and aggregate lorries to supply the concrete. And that's just to create the proposed basement.

That's ONE HGV, EVERY 10 MINUTES FOR TWO MONTHS, right into the centre of the village, on local, residential roads that are already dangerously congested.

There are 14 schools with 7,000 pupils within 10 minutes walk of the proposed construction site as well as 40 pre-school nurseries.

Parents and children walk, cycle and scoot to school every day and their routes take many of them straight through Dulwich Village.

As well as local residents, school children walk straight past the site throughout the day - to and from lunch, and on local outings.

Petitioning the Dulwich Estate (land owner) and SG Smith (their co-developer):

We believe that the scale of the proposed HGV movements poses an enormous risk to our community: of the 20 cycle deaths in London last year over half involved tipper trucks and skip lorries.

We urge you to consider a scheme that excludes any basement excavation. This would significantly reduce the associated HGV traffic.

We believe that the safety of our children and local residents should be prioritised, rather than maximising the scale of the development and your financial returns.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crikey, those houses look ghastly.

Upland Road in ED is virtually a no go area because of developments happening simultaneously right opposite each other. The pavement has been taken away completely on one side and then you have all manner of large trucks and lorries parked up either side, leaving little room for motorists and even less for pedestrians, and yes it isvery unsafe and I fell sure there will be an accident soon. The larger developer has hoardings up boasting how community mindde and 'caring' they are...not (they are pretty rude actually).

I really feel for the parade of shop owners who must be suffering and hope the devlopers have to compensate them for loss of earning..plus the houses to be built look awful as well.

Then of course we have the police station to be converted into Harris. The mind boggles what disruption that will bring to the Lane. One also wonders why huge efforts are being made at this time to reduce parking and generally produce queues of traffic everywhere. Bizarre. Perhaps it is so Southwark can lease out parking for works on most of the roads to developers and builders??

Anyhow, I support your objection in Dulwich, developers seem to be able to make massive impositions on the local area giving nothing in return but securing vast profits for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sympathetic to the argument but I can't see the point of petitioning the Dulwich Estate, who presumably made their minds up when they put in the planning application. The application is still open for comments so better to voice concerns there, i would have thought. I note that the head teachers of the local primary schools have submitted comments very much reflecting the concerns above, so let's hope they are taken account of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite like the houses. It's a moderate sized development that seems to be in keeping with the area.

The objections strike me as classic nimbyism. "Won't someone please think of the children" is a rather weak, manipulative argument, as is tacking on recent cyclist deaths on major city roads. The disruption won't last forevever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jeremy you are absolutely right, and the local schools are making that exact point. However in this case we have the Dulwich Village Infants' School, which is split-site, who take their kids back and forth for lunch straight past this site. Add to this the pre-school care and after school clubs and you have a very narrow window. Thanks for your comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeremy Wrote:


> How about requesting that site related deliveries

> and removals are done during school hours? Then

> safety of children is no longer an issue.

Good idea, I'd go with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks DaveR. Yep absolutely the schools (and us lot) are making formal representations. However the whole planning consultation process really does feel like a silent vortex sometimes with zero feedback. So the objective here is to add to the official efforts and to make sure our decision-taking councillors are able to hear some grass-roots opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the development of new housing in the area, but the basement excavation seems unnecessary and will certainly cause a massive amount of disruption, noise, pollution and safety concerns. I've signed the petition for these reasons. Thanks to the organisers of the petition for raising it and creating the opportunity to comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pretty rediculous request even for this forum. perhaps you'd be happier if construction was only out of school hours and through the night?

Jeremy's suggestion seems a good one.

Perhaps as well we could petition all parents, children, pedestrians, cyclists and scooter users to take some personal responsibility, obey the Highway Code, watch where they're are going and not sneak up the inside of lorries?

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Andyskip,

I would also share your concerns about large tipper truck numbers visiting our area. They have a much much higher incidence of crashing with pedestrians and cyclists and those crashes resulting in death or signficiant life changing injuries.

Tipper truck capacity is usually 16 tonnes or 10 m3. So I'm not clear your numbers are correct but either way objecting to HOW a construction will occur is not grounds to successfully challenge a planning application. How ever unfair that may be.

You would need to object on plans grounds such as an over development. But for that to stick you've need ot assess whether more habitable rooms are being proposed than the Southwark Plan suggests for the area. Well worth speaking to THe Dulwich Scoeity who have a sub committee who will have worked those numbers for this site.

The HOW would be covered, if people were concerned, by a Construction Management Plan. Any approval could included a condition requiring such a plan to be approved by officers and I would encourage concerned objectors to ask that such a condition involve Dulwioch councillors and the Dulwich Society be consulted prior to any officer approval of such a plan.

Best way of ensuring this is to ensure the scheme is decided by a planning sub-committee. For that people need to object with at least 5 objecting OR two councillors need to call this application in. As it's in Village ward I would feel uncomfortable as an East Dulwich ward councillor (although southwark constitution doesn't make this distinction) leading on that but happy to support any of the village ward councillors if they initiate this. I will email this offer to them.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks James... it's important to validate the figures. So I'll post up the calculations in a moment.

You also make a very good point about the construction management plan. The local schools have repeatedly asked for clarity from the developers and have so far heard nothing back. Zip.

A 'draft outline' CMP was written in March 2014 (attached here). It contains no figures whatsoever regarding the scale of construction, just general comments, highlighted placeholders and a promise to consult before publishing a final version.

From a safety perspective this is probably the most important document and I believe we should question whether a planning decision can be made before we are clear on the impact it will have on the local community.

Figures to follow - all the best - Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the petition we estimate 2,000 ?truck journeys? i.e. journeys to and from the site.

Excavation: we?ve assumed 18 tonne trucks with 11.5 tonne load capacity, 1.7kg/m3 density -> 826 trucks.

Concrete: 1,100 m3 (slabs, internal & external walls) -> 180 trucks

Total c. 1,000 trucks overall, 2,000 truck journeys in and out of the site.

NB this only covers excavation and concrete, and only considers the basement on the basis we?re asking the developers to scale back the development and specifically reconsider whether a basement is sensible.

Whilst we can improve the above figures I believe they are ball-park right. And the 2,000 truck figure understates the total level of disruption given this just gets us back to ground level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi andyskip,

Construction Management Plans are rarely useful or impressive - and often Southwark over the last few years have agreed to allowed construction works if quiet outside restricted hours of Mon-Fri 8am-6pm , Sat 8am-1pm. But those 'quiet' works are often very noisy and Southwark councils response to this usually poor.

Hence my suggestino that any condition about requiring a CMP in such a sensitive area have the provision that Dulwch councillors and the Dulwich Socieity and perhaps thetwo nearby schools are actively consulted on it. Rather than left to officers to work without any reference to any stakeholders.

And yes the figures are important to ensure the correct level of measures of H&SE wrap-around to minimise risk and disturbance. Underground parknig is a worrying precedent for Dulwich.

I've now confirmed that this scheme will go to a planning committee. Fingers crossed one I'm a member of so I get to hear all the evidence to make a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed. Feels like they're squeezing in the maximum number of large houses in to maximise profit with no regard for either genuine housing need (for which they'd build flats) or the local environment (in which case, fewer & smaller houses more in keeping with the area, with surface parking).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Sign In

Sign In

Or sign in with one of these services

    Search In
  • Create New...