barry parade ( planning application)

[solar]

Has anyone noticed the planning application in today's Southwark News re the boarded up shops on Barry Parade?

(ref 15/AP/2698)

It's for a mixed use development on 5 floors with a local supermarket on the ground floor and 9 flats above.

Good to see the site put to some use but seems an overdevelopment to me. What do others think?

[Siduhe]

I hadn't, thanks for posting. Looking the elevation plans, those flats are going to have pretty low ceilings!

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hD4y6aYeLcrRjBW7MA3n0w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

[LD929]

You'd get a nice view of the park in that top floor flat.

[EDmummy]

Is 5 floors in line with other local development- seems a bit much for that corner.

[Nigello]

I am all for it. People need houses and the nearby ones on BR and on PR are tall - look at the Clockhouse and its neighbours - and the super-large trees would put the five storeys in context.

As for another supermarket, I am not so sure. Could there be a library, a dentist/doctor's surgery etc?

[Jeremy]

Yep there are already 4/5 storey period buildings around there... a five storey newbuild will probably be lower than those.

[Henry_17]

All for more housing stock but dread the prospect of a strobe light in that location. What is wrong with two levels of housing, or a even better a pub plus some housing. More creativity required.

[Sue]

Henry_17 Wrote:

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

> All for more housing stock but dread the prospect

> of a strobe light in that location. What is wrong

> with two levels of housing, or a even better a pub

> plus some housing. More creativity required.

Surely nobody would put a pub there with the Clock House directly opposite?

[ruffers]

Another pub's not impossible, types of business often clump together. Unlikely but not impossible..

Anyway, how has a strobe light got involved?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Another supermarket seems unnecessary.

[Callie]

A little too tall for my liking by 2 floors. It would be great if the Chinese & Indian takeaways came back.

[intexasatthe moment]

Mmm - probably squeeze a couple of schools in there ...

[Jeremy]

My only concern would be for the chap who runs the Barry Rd convenience store, who has done a great job of building his business and customer base... but won't be able to compete with a Tesco/Sainsburys/etc.

[Otta]

Why does another supermarket seem unnecessary? For me that little area could do with it.

Is it the supermarket proposing the plans, or a developer intending to rent space to a supermarket?

[DaveR]

It's the obvious use for the land, and an improvement on the current buildings. Five floors strikes me as one too many though, even with the surrounding tall period buildings. I hope the vets and the barbers stays, and I had heard that one of the big supermarkets had previously expressed an interest but then pulled out.

[Callie]

The vets & barbers are staying,it's only the boarded up bit that's being done up from what I understand. I personally would find a small supermarket handy. I do love Barry's though & would definitely use both since it's nearer to me from home.

[DaveR]

The proposed development clearly extends over the whole site ie including the vets and barbers ( and the estate agents). I have no idea whether their existing leases will enable them to stay. If the existing structure is demolished as appears to be planned, I doubt it.

[first mate]

Looks like vet does not figure.

[T&G]

I spoke to the guys who boarded it all up ...they said it will be a Sainsburys and will not happen due to wrangling over sight for about 2 years !

[intexasatthe moment]

Yes it looks like the only retained business will be the estate agents .So goodbye lovely vets with handy parking and great location .Farewell friendly social hub barbers with refreshments on tap/bottle .

The application pointedly omits mention ,always making reference to the " existing uses " being " primarily minicab offices and takeaways " .

I presume ( can't work it out ) that the estate agents get offered alternative premises because they are a B type use /office and the hairdressers and vets aren't .

To my mind the development looks too big and incongruous .

The proposal is a bigger footprint - 577sq m.to 640 sq.m and the ground floor extended 1.9m beyond the existing plot line .

The proposal says " The maximum height specified by the Planners is 3 storeys to Barry Road, 4 storeys to

Peckham Rye, and articulation of the corner at maximum 5 storeys."

Extracts from Southwark's requirements quoted for this conservation area are

"? Heights of three and four storeys and,..... in each situation buildings should remain within the range of heights of the block of buildings in which it is situated;

? Rooflines typically to particular blocks within the Conservation Area must be maintained. Extensions and changes to the basic roof form are generally unacceptable even where set back from parapet lines."

and "4.5.1. There is limited potential for development in the Conservation Area. The most obvious example is Barry Parade, which as a single storey development makes poor use of the site. Its prominent location is worthy of a good 3-4-storey corner building"

and "? Building to be no higher than 4 storeys on Peckham Rye;

? Building to be no higher than 3 storeys on Barry Road;

? One additional floor at the corner may be possible but it should be a marker and not extend significantly back along Peckham Rye and still less along Barry Road "

IMO it's too high along Barry Rd . See the elevations http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/2698&system=DC

And finally - if Southwark ,talking about this conversation area says "Do not introduce design details or features that are out of character with the area, such as the use of windows and doors made of aluminium or UPVC or other non-traditional materials. "

how are the following proposed finishes ok ?

" Ground floor shopfront windows to be polyester powder coated aluminium frames in RAL 7022 (Umbra grey) p Residential windows to be polyester powder coated aluminium frames in RAL 7022 (Umbra grey)

Louvres, railings and external doors to be polyester powder coated in RAL 7022 (Umbra grey)"

[Jeremy]

It's in a conservation area? Really?

[first mate]

Jeremy, yes it is, it is there in the detail.

ITATM, agree with all you say and also noticed the selective description trotted out for existing businesses. An oversized, incongruous development, happy to bulldoze existing, flourishing businesses literally off the premises.

[civilservant]

yes, it is definitely in the conservation area.

i'm not at all surprised to see that the number of proposed residential units is the magic number 9, hence the development is outside the social housing requirement.

what's happening to Roy Brooks and the vets'?

as ITATM and FM point out, absolutely no reference to them in the current uses listed in the application.

[first mate]

I think it is all the empty and manipulative rhetoric about how enhancing this development will be for the local area, providing a great backdrop to the park and adding value for all - really vomit inducing.

[intexasatthe moment]

Roy Brooks is staying ,but there is no mention of any other business being retained and mention made of one being lost .

But I guess just because the application shows an estate agency on sit and doesn't show the vets or anything else apart from a supermarket it doesn't necessarily mean other businesses won't be relocated on site or elsewhere .

I can't quite get my head round the relevant bit of the Southwark Plan http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2284/the_southwark_plan pages 30 - 33 ,but I think Southwark are beholden to the London Plan which requires them to conserve and expand office space - hence estate agents ( class B ) Roy Brooks is retained .

But I think ( really not sure ) that the site meets these criteria ( policy 1.4 )

i. The site fronts onto or has direct access to a classified road; or

ii. The site is in a Public Transport Accessibility Zone

which in turn means that the hairdressers and vets etc should be offered alternative accommodation or relocated within the new development ,because ,as Southwark explains " Small business premises are often vulnerable to

displacement by other uses and therefore need special protection and support"

"Policy 1.5 Small Business Units

159 The LPA will protect and encourage appropriate business and commercial developments which

meet the needs of small businesses in the following ways:

i. Any proposals for the change of use or redevelopment of employment sites which include

small business units and to which Policies 1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 apply shall make equivalent

provision for small units within the replacement floorspace for Class B uses unless the existing

Small Business Units have been vacant for 12 months or there is comparable alternative

provision provided by the applicant; "

But I could be completely misunderstanding .