MarkT

According to Southwark planning policies, Dulwich, including the whole of East Dulwich, is in the Suburban Zone. The Zone definitions come from the London Plan which defines Suburban Zone as two to three storeys. MarkT

Southwark?s Residential Design Standards SPD states: ?Where there is an extant planning permission and a fresh planning permission is submitted for a revised scheme taking the total units above 10 units, the residential design standards for major applications will be applied. The council will seek to ensure that proposals deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold of 10 units will not be accepted.? James has referred above to the threshold of 10 units which applies to the provision of affordable housing and of family sized units. If the Council considers that the 2 applications for the additional 4th floor are ?deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold? then they must be rejected. MarkT

I can't find it either, but looking on the map: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes I see nearby at 100 lordship lane application 15/AP/1847 for "Retention of reduction in size of retail space..." That means the owners have already made a change use and are presenting the Council with a fait accompli. The consultation officially closed yesterday but my objection was accepted on-line MarkT

Ward boundaries and loads of other useful info here: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes MarkT

YellowRose, you state: "The garden is lovely because they made it that way ? when they moved in it was mainly a concrete road with some kind of motor servicing pit at the end." and "I think the land is or was deeded separately anyway so maybe not quite the same as building on a back garden?" Many gardens include areas of concrete, and the planning application in this case does indeed mention historic concrete, but clearly states that it is a single garden. Are you now however saying that the proposed development site is actually not a part of the garden to no51, but a separate brownfield site; a former motor maintenance yard? The Planning Application makes no suggestion of existing or historic boundaries within the site, and none are apparent on Southwark's maps, current or historical. MarkT

"MarkT, you say "The end of the garden of no 51 borders onto a conservation area in which all trees are under blanket protection, regardless of the wishes of individual land owners." I wasn't aware of that and glad to hear it - do you have any more info?" civilservant, See Southwark's on-line map: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes I find it really useful. On the right hand side, you can switch to historic maps. The left hand menu gives masses of current info, and planning history. You can see the ward boundaries discussed above, and the boundary of the conservation area. For an explanation of conservation area protection see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_area_%28United_Kingdom%29 MarkT

Otta, In many cases the threat to the tree is from the owner, so indeed the TPO must be imposed on the land owner. The end of the garden of no 51 borders onto a conservation area in which all trees are under blanket protection, regardless of the wishes of individual land owners. Jeremy, I think the point here is that there is a planning application in process, so the trees on the site are in effect under temporary protection. The planning rules and policies require a plan for their protection or for mitigation for their loss. In this case the applicant is proposing removal of 3 trees and planting new trees and a green roof, but that is subject to the approval of the Planning Authority. MarkT

In this case the proposal includes the removal of 3 trees, so arguments against their removal are valid. clockworkorange, the Dulwich SPD is valid until it is superseded. Policies don't just fade away. The Draft New Southwark Plan (bang up to date) contains a paragraph on Dulwich which indicates a continuation of the protection of gardens. Even as a first draft. the New Southwark Plan has some influence in the decision making, and on this issue it confirms the protection detailed in the Dulwich SPD. MarkT

Omega, Thanks for alerting us. It is strange that so many people have submitted comments to the Council in support of the scheme, and before most of the neighbourhood was aware of it, but it's not a ballot; it must be decided according to the policies. Here's an extract from the Dulwich SPD (Supplementary Planning Document). Note that ALL the criteria have to be satisfied for a backland development to be permitted. This seems to be a previously undeveloped back garden, so that alone should be grounds for refusal. 5.4.2 Back-land development can have a significant impact on amenity, neighbouring properties and the character of the area. Dulwich is generally not considered to be a suitable area for back-land development due to the character of the area and the large plot sizes which are characteristic of the area and contribute to its historic value. Dulwich is characterised by being leafy, open and green, with mainly low-rise suburban buildings. Building new dwellings or garden buildings that are disproportionately larger than the plot size in back gardens would alter and harm the character of Dulwich. 5.4.3 However, there may be some exceptions where back-land development is acceptable. We may permit back-land development where proposals meet all of the following criteria: i. It is on previously developed land. ii.The development would not compromise historic plots that reflect the heritage of the area, including the historic patterns of development and the cumulative impact of similar developments. iii. There is adequate convenient and safe access, suitable for the entry and egress of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. iv. The development would not contribute or add to parking problems in the area (we will usually require a local parking survey to demonstrate this). v. There is no loss of privacy and amenity for adjoining houses and their back gardens. vi. Schemes larger than 1 dwelling will require space for refuse storage and collection and the separation of pedestrian and vehicular access. vii.Suitable consideration is given to the retention of tree canopy cover and mitigation of any loss. viii.It can be demonstrated that proposals sustain and enhance the character and setting of designated or undesignated heritage assets. ix. An archaeological assessment has been provided, where appropriate, that demonstrates how the development proposal will preserve in situ, protect and safeguard scheduled ancient monuments and important archaeological remains and their settings.

Hind, Is that a separate building or an extension? do you know the house number? MarkT

I have just submitted an objection as follows: Southwark?s Residential Design Standards SPD states: ?where there is an extant planning permission and a fresh planning permission is submitted for a revised scheme taking the total units above 10 units, the residential design standards for major applications will be applied. The council will seek to ensure that proposals deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold of 10 units will not be accepted. In this case, permission has already been given for change of use of the existing office space to 8 flats. The 8 reconfigured office units included in this new proposal bear a remarkable resemblance in layout to the 8 flats so recently approved, and Councillors might consider it a deliberate attempt to circumvent the threshold of 10 units, in which case they must reject the application. Lordship Lane is in the Suburban Zone, so any development of 10 units or more must include 35% affordable housing and 30% of family sized flats of 3 or more bedrooms. This application meets neither criteria and so must be rejected. The London Plan Policy 3.2 limits heights in the Suburban Zone to 3 storeys. This proposal for a fourth storey must therefore be rejected. The SPD allows flexibility in calculating the density of mixed use developments where the majority of the floor space is non-residential. In this case, the combined residential use, proposed plus already approved, exceeds the proposed retail area, so the formula must be applied. The proposed density is about twice the 350 hr/ha permitted in the Suburban Zone. It must therefore be rejected. 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

I have just sent an email as follows, MarkT: Dear Councillor Williams, With regard to the proposed works at the Townley Road Junction, DCC applauded the proposed removal of the pedestrian pens, and noted the recurrent damage to the existing railings by vehicles, as evidence for the risk to a child caught outside of an overcrowded pen. The proposal introduces railings between the main roadway and the cyclist holding pens. Leading up to each of those railings is a line of armadillo humps. The stated purpose of these structures is the protection of cyclists but I believe that this will also create a new hazard for cyclists. Any cyclist has an option to avoid an overcrowded cycle lane and to remain in the main highway with the motorised vehicles. A driver of a motorised vehicle may, however, consider that the cyclist should move to the dedicated cycle lane. Councillor Williams, have you considered the risk to a cyclist of such a difference of opinion at speed? I consider that there is a high risk that a cyclist will be forced into a crash with other cyclists or crushed between a vehicle and the railings. As the cycle pens are an integral part of the option 8A now presented, I urge you to reject it entirely.

James, DCC Agenda 17th March Appendix 1 and Appendix 11 are Sections from the Streetscape Design Manual, from which I quote: DS132 "Vehicle Crossings" paragraph 3.7: "Broadly, in most instances restrictions are needed through and to 2m either side of each crossing" DS114 "Highway visibility" paragraph 1.2a: "research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at" Southwark's general strategy is to reduce speed on roads. Why should it ever apply a measure that may increase the speed that people drive across a pavement? MarkT

Robin, Yes, the SCI is dated 2008. No, the SCI has not been changed. The Council website states: ?We will be reviewing the SCI in 2010? The Council?s Annual Monitoring Report 2010-11 (the most recent published on the Council website) states that it intends to review the SCI. The timescale for creation or review of any Local Development Plan Document is years; the creation of the SCI took 5 years. A review could no doubt be speeded up, but if they had started it since 2011, it would still be in progress, and I am sure I would be aware of it. In the meantime, as it states on the Council website, the existing SCI must be complied with. The Requirements for the creation or review of LPDs, including the SCI, are set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Southwark?s SCI has set a minimum public consultation period, in all cases, of 3 months. Everything must go through public examination by an independent Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. HM Government clearly does not share your confidence that a Council always meets its legal obligations. Section 27 of the 2004 Act ?Secretary of State?s Default Power? covers the possibility that it may fail to do so. The local scheme of delegation set out in the Council?s Constitution contradicts the Statutory SCI. With a view to increasing local influence on planning matters, I suggest that asking the Council to comply with its SCI might be simpler, and more productive, than creating an entire new Parish Council, or Neighbourhood Development Plan. MarkT

Robin, Councillor James Barber is proposing that the power to determine local planning applications is returned to Community Councils. That power was taken from C.Cs through a change in the Council's Constitution. The Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) specifies C.Cs as Decision makers for planning applications. It also states that all planning policy documents are approved by all 63 Councillors through Council Assembly. The SCI states in its opening paragraph: "This is a legal (statutory) document that must be complied with by all planning processes including the process of agreeing planning documents and making decisions on planning applications." "...under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other planning legislation." By Law, the preparation of the SCI (it states) required extensive public consultation and independent examination by HM Inspector. Why does the Council's Constitution contradict the SCI? MarkT

RCH, Currently 4 of our 9 Dulwich Councillors are members of Borough Planning Committees who Determine Applications. All Councillors determine Planning Policy. And they all meet in Tooley Street. You are therefore describing the entire Dulwich Community Council: "the one-size-fits-all mentality from 5 miles away in Tooley Street isn't serving the interests of Dulwich area residents very well at all.? How does your Parish Council proposal work? Is it an independent Local Planning Authority or is it within Southwark Council, reduced to submitting objections to Southwark's planning procedures? Do we elect 2 sets of Councillors? How do you think it will better serve the interests of Dulwich Area Residents? I have an alternative suggestion: - Those Councillors who serve on Planning Committees should follow their legal and constitutional duties and determine planning applications in accordance with existing Southwark and London planning policies. - All Councillors should take part in the current review of Southwark's planning policies and ensure that the New Southwark Plan accords with the London Plan and addresses the varying needs across the Borough. MarkT

The requirement for double yellow lines is specified in the Streetscape Design Manual. The effect, if not the purpose, of the 2M extensions is to increase visibility. Section 114 of that same Manual warns that increased sight-lines can increase danger by encouraging speed. Will our councillors tonight give their approval to those extended yellow lines given such a warning?

Double yellow lines across a private dropped kerb, with or without the 2 metre extensions, give exclusive benefit to one household to the disadvantage of every other vehicle user. By contrast a disabled parking space, sited directly outside the applicants house, is not exclusive. It is open to any other badge holder.

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.

I do not know from the posting above, the precise questions posed in Cllr Lyons Members Enquiry, but I wonder if she is enlightened by the response from Mr Walker, Senior engineer. Consultation is mentioned twice. The first reference is to individual cases of the optional addition of yellow lines to existing dropped kerbs. The Consultation referred to in the last paragraph however relates to the creation of the entire set of rules - the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual. Mr Walker's statement: "the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual (SSDM) was approved by Individual Decision by the relevant Cabinet Member in December 2012 after a public consultation" is chronologically true, but, in my opinion, is not very informative. More can be gleaned from the Council website. The Consultation in 2011 was not on the SSDM, which had not then been written, but was on "the draft Framework Plan (formerly known as the SSDM Summary Guide)". This included one-line policy statements such as "SD03: Improved road safety and reduced road danger". Following that consultation, the Individual Member Decision in December 2012 gave the go-ahead for officers to write the SSDM. As Mr Walker states the sections cited were agreed in 2013 by the Head of Public Realm. The contents of the SSDM, such as the policy on road markings adjacent to crossovers, have therefore not been subject to consultation with the public or with ordinary councillors, and have not been formally approved by the Cabinet member. I would prefer that officers would quote documents rather than "summarise". With regard to that specific policy, Mr Walker states that the Council "will" apply double yellow lines across new vehicle crossovers, and "will" extend those markings for not less than 2m beyond the extent of the crossovers. However, the SSDM, in each instance, actually says "should". The SSDM clearly distinguishes the words "will" and "should". Each Section of the SSDM cited includes the introductory Note: "See standard DS 900 for definitions of terms used in this design standard. Note in particular the definitions for 'should', 'will'." I can't find DS 900, perhaps it will be published in due course. Meanwhile all the sections cited clearly indicate that "should" and "will" have different meanings. While Mr Walker's letter focusses on parking management. DS 002 (cited) is concerned specifically with the use of double yellow lines "for road safety purposes". To that purpose it too specifies that double yellow lines should be provided for the entire length of the Crossing plus at least 2m to either side. The road safety issue is, of course, visibility. In this context I think the importance of the word "should" is clear. It avoids possible contradiction between different Standards: DS 114 "Highway visibility" identifies a conflicting consideration: "research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at." I suggest that enhancinging sightlines with the 2m extensions might tend to increase the speed of vehicles crossing a pavement, thereby increasing danger to users of the pavement as well as the road. This might be the case for a crossover that would in other respects, such as location, be considered acceptably safe. The safety considerations for or against improved sightlines should be weighed perhaps on a case by case basis. This would fit with the actual wording in the SSDM 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

Villager, I don't think that Dulwich Community Council must approve this proposal if it is to go any further. If DCC has a view, for or against, it will be taken into account but the decision is for the Cabinet Member. 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

@Woodwarde, your link is not to an IDM but to a Community Council Decision. If Peckham and Nunhead Community Council can decide on parking issues within their patch, why cannot Dulwich Community Council do likewise? MarkT