first mate

There is a limit to the number of residences allowed within a given space. James Barber said he would call in the last application as he also seemed to think they were aiming for loads of flats. They already had permission for 8 residences (I think it was) but then decided they wanted to add a 4th floor with two penthouses and this is where objections came in. So now they have submitted a 4th or 5th application keeping the penthouses but making the rest into office space. In earlier applications the case was made that there was no call for office space. Make of this what you will.

London Mix, sure perhaps it is for offices but the original three applications were all for flats and a case was made that there was no call/market for offices but great demand for flats. I am also amazed that a change of use for the third floor has so easily been achieved, if that is the case, since I know for a fact that there were two occupied flats on that floor only last year, and at a time ther is such demand for housing.

yeknomyeknom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ive never seen a small flat with double toilets. > A small office? Yes. Not a small flat. I have no > comment on the application itself but let's not > make up stuff so we have more to whinge about. With plumbing in place the space for two toilets is easily converted into a loo and bathroom- that's the point.

So still 4 stories high with penthouses on top and lots of, er, 'offices'; each office laid out with double toilets, separate kitchen area and general layout consistent with a small flat. So is this the next tactic? Rather than have the former application called in- as James Barber said would happen- they just submit a new very similar one?

Why not post a photo? It would help other i/d it. I am wondering if it is a wasps nest?

When horses were kept at the police station on Lordship Lane they used to be exercised in Dulwich Park.

It is clear that Iceland is closing and M&S in some form is moving in. What is not clear is whether a three storey building is to be made into four storey building. Addition of a fourth storey would have implications for the street height generally, and might set a precedent for higher buildings in future. James Barber had said the application for the fourth storey penthouses ( quite possibly proposed by the same developer who recently hit the news after knocking down a historic pub without permission) would be called in...but there has been no news since.

Will this common sense be applied to other roads where it was bring proposed to turn unrestricted parking into 'free parking' for one hour?

James, any news on the 4th floor penthouse application for the Iceland site? You did say it was being called in?

Wondering if James Barber has any news on the fourth storey penthouse application for this site and which he said was being called in.

That's no to increasing road closures and no to further parking restrictions. On another note 20mph is an absolute fiasco and Councillors should take a good look at what their meddling has achieved there. It is not adhered to. Buses are worst offenders, I would guess they have been told to ignore it.

Yes, please don't give the council an open door to impose yet more parking restrictions. It really won't help long term.

James, is there any news on M&S site and the penthouse, salami slicing, developer application? Last we heard the application was to be called in, is this still the case, has it happened yet? Any news very welcome.

I have put a question onto James' thread, just in case he is not monitoring this one.

Just to get this thread back on track. Can James Barber tell us what the latest is on the penthouse application. last we heard it was to be called in?

I agree, I wonder if this poster advocates filming all the various kinds of undesirable behaviour in the parks or does this just apply to dogs and owners? Yes, some dogs need to be better controlled by some but let's keep a little perspective.

Is there further news on the penthouse/adding another level application?

James Barber sounds as though he may know a but more about the timing changes, the decision maker and rationale for the changes. Perhaps he could elaborate?

Check out South Eastern Dog Training Society. They do lots of stuff and have many highly experienced collie owners http://southeasterndog.coffeecup.com I believe Warlingham DTC do agility.

Let's hope this does not, in reality, mean open to anyone, but only if you can afford it.

Can James Barber ask for a statement as to whether the light phasing has been changed recently and if so why?

Well, let's hope the committee is good and ready because at least one developer Mr Kieran Rafferty represents appears to have real form. In James' defence the current application does refer to office space. Though not impossible it seems unlikely that the developer having got permission to build 8 flats would not try for 10? I am also not aware of small office spaces with a high number of dedicated bathrooms, but perhaps I am behind the times.

There are currently two flats on the third level ( I think ). So either the current use is illegal, if designation is offices or if current designation is residential then they wouldn't they have to apply for change of use to offices in the most recent application? Or does new planning law make this unnecessary? Does anyone know?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But the offices are not flats James? Surely > you > > are not suggesting they will surreptitiously > and > > in breach of authorised user, build them as > flats, > > not offices? > > If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and > > frankly not something they could achieve > without > > detection. > > If that's not what you are suggesting, then > your > > point is not a good one - if the cut off for > > Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are > > entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they > and > > to instead build offices rather than flats? > Every > > developer is going to look to make maximum > profits > > within the rules, surely? > > > You'd be surprised what some developers think of > the rules > > http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/developer-to > ld-to-rebuild-maida-vale-pub-brick-by-brick-after- > site-torn-down-without-notice-10211892.html > > And they could still get away with it, the utter > utter @#$%&. Otta, good find. Mr Kieran Rafferty, mentioned in the Standard article, is exactly the same guy involved with this development. Good, now we can see how far they are prepared to go and to what extent they have any interest in adding value in the community.