James Barber

Very good point Sue. If a replacement franchise is successfully let then it would throw into question whether the Crown Post Office was unprofitable. The only obvious differential would be levels of pay for the staff and level od service for customers and any up tick in usage.

The Post Office is a still owned by the government. The decisions about whether to keep the Crown Post Office open or replaced with a downgraded version on Lordship Lane is a Labour Government decision.

A franchise Post Office is in fact a sub Post Office. It isn't able to provide the same services as the current Crown Post Office on Lordship Lane. Things like Road Tax, Passports, etc are not allowed via sub Post Offices. Likely the staff wont be transferred across as their hourly rate would decrease. It may be the hours of operating will increase. Crown Post Office staff are often unionised, sub Post Office staff are not usually unionised. Franchise sub Post Office commission for completing the various services is lower than for Crown Post Offices.

The developer is now onward selling the scheme to realise their profits. A developer contact tells me this happens when they can't believe their luck at getting planning permission and the promises they've had to make to a council to get their way. Any purchaser is likely to try and realise more profits by seeking changes to the approved scheme.

Approved scheme usually have three years to start. Start can be pretty minuscule in practice.

Ofcom states how to formally complain - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/make-a-complaint/complain-about-postal-services/royal-mail/ 1st step Royal Mail - https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/Complaint_Handling_Process_AUG_2019.pdf 03457 740 740 https://help.royalmail.com/s/contactsupport/wheresmyitem Failing that - you can seek compensation form Royal Mail - https://personal.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/325 I've never needed to tried these - so if anyone has please let us know. 2nd step Postal Redress - https://www.cedr.com/consumer/postrs/overview/

The US has been one of the most dynamic high growth economies for several years. They have planning zones. The two are not mutually exclusive. Two recent mobile phone mast applications in the area. Both of such terribly poor quality they were refused. They both broke the code of conduct all mobile operators singed up to. The agents were just trying it on. So huge cost of repetition and low productivity. Planning is blamed but it's just shoddy work. Recent case of the new Kent Thame tunnel talking about £200m of planning costs - which turned out to be design, project planning and planning. I would suggest mostly the former. It is lazy to blame planning process and generally by those who wont a no holes bar approach for their schemes without any consideration of the opportunity cost imposed on others.

Hi Hillbilly, Your obviously correct that the committee members must consider the scheme in the context of planning laws, Southwark Policy documents. Those policy documents are clear the site should be considered suburban. As a Councillor when this was decided I can assure we considered this site and all others in the then East dulwich Ward and the Dulwich Community Council area. Ignoring that as the officer report does unconvincingly in my view would be a poor decision. The officer report states I believe highly inflated economic benefit of students to help justify the scheme. I have a student currently and they really don't have the sums being talked about and nor do their network for friends. The council officers report states students will move in at the academic yea start over two weekends/4 days. 360 students will suggest worst case 360 cars. Unlikely to be perfectly balanced hence 50-100 vehicles per day. The proposed building top 2-3 floors look like metal cladding and not the local vernacular of bricks and tiled roofs. The top two stories and roof enclosures will be invisible for some distance. I don't think it unreasonable to call that out of character for the area. I think it would be hard to argue it would be in keeping. Yes, we have a housing crisis. But we have falling student numbers. The site could be used for more regular homes that the proposed 53. Southwark has the highest number of unoccupied homes for a borough. Southwark Council fixing that and they have plenty of powers to really dent those figures. The development will have a huge negative impact on the neighbouring streets in dominance of the proposed structures parking pressures, etc. Your username suggests you wont be one of those affected. Nor will I directly. But I hate to see injustice from a poorly thought through scheme. If you feel strongly you could attend the Planning Committee Tonight as supporter. Hi malibu, Far from. The homes completed on Bassano and Hindmans were sites I proposed to the council for them consider for new council homes. I have campaigned for the council to approve schemes with 35% social housing for many years. I dare not comment on people football team :-0 Hi the-permit, Southwark has zoning for density to protect the character of areas and to protect peoples confidence to move into, purchase and live and put down roots in areas. East Dulwich is under Southwark planning rules suburban. In the north of the borough the density rules are much higher. Yes they could. developers quite often get approval for a size of scheme. Sit on it and then come back for the same site but more. It might be a new feasibility study to say they can no longer afford that much social housing, etc. Classic developer gaming of the system. We don't yet know the pricing of the student accommodation but the Champion Hill student accommodation when open was priced around the £200 pw mark. Some is proposed to be discounted, but likely that will inflate the mainstream pricing. You have to be a rich student for such prices. It resulted in mostly foreign students affording that. Any developer is likely to set their pricing close to this. For transparency I live on Champion Hill.

Robin's tree ideas in Village ward described by here inspired us East Dulwich Councillors to have the cherry trees planted on the northern section of Melbourne Grove and elsewhere in what was then called East dulwich ward and now largely Goose green ward.

This is my take of the scheme and planning committee report: Railway Yard Scheme 402 objectors and 22 supporters. Huge local concern about this proposal. The scheme is out of character and contrary to The Southwark Plan and Suburban zoning for the site. The adjacent schemes 18-22 Grove Vale is ground and three stories, The Charter School North Dulwich is 3-4, the Tessa Jowel Health Centre is ground and two stories. This proposed scheme is significantly higher and bulkier. And the corrugated iron looking top floors will be visible for some distance from the site. All the views in the report demonstrate how out of keeping with the Suburban zone this scheme in. What is the point of having such policies if they are ignored? Council officers and members have agreed the site must be redeveloped with an indicative capacity of 53 new homes. The proposal is 3 to 4 times bigger than that with 53 homes and 360 student rooms and additional shared spaces. (2.5 student rooms equating to 1 home). The officer report incorrectly talks about buses going to Brixton, which makes me concerned about the PTAL calculation which partly I would imagine officers have based their acceptance of this over development. PTAL 4 for the site. TfL PTAL calculator. The social housing will likely be 3. The assumptions are crow flies. If it is time to access public transport then much of the remainder of the site becomes PTAL3 and the rationale for the officers recommends would be incorrect. Student accommodation demand comments appear to date from three years ago. Since then various research showing significantly reduced numbers which have not been included in the report. BBC 5 March states 14% drop in foreign students. The House of Commons library 25 March states most foreign students are now postgrads therefore questionable if this accommodation would meet their needs. ONS reporting that the number of children who will become students has been consistently falling. That Southwark itself is in the process of closing up to 17 primary schools! This will feed through to reduced undergraduate numbers. The report suggests circa £10,000 is spent by each student in the area. I would suggest vast majority is on accommodation and not circulating in local shops and facilities or indeed Southwark more widely. Additionally they receive free public transport so will not be contributing towards any required improvements. The report then suggests each student residing at this scheme would be spending around £5,400 in the immediate East Dulwich area each year. This seems extremely unlikely. The report states members should give some consideration for daylight and sunlight loss with 21 minor, 8 moderate, and 20 substantial adverse reductions. A good scheme would have avoided this. Any normal school in the Subriban South Zone would have avoided this. Overlooking. Officers state this as minimal. That the reduction in living conditions is acceptable. That is so easy to type in a report. Many objectors have stated the reduction is not accepted by local residents. Objectively the average person has reached a different conclusion. Members have the unenviable task of telling ordinary people they are wrong if you approve this scheme. I would suggest the residents who would suffer this as disagreeing! The blocks will loom over houses nearby. Down to 8.2m gaps on place! If the scheme were to be approved then corridors overlooking 18-22 Grove Vale, Railway Rise scheme proprerties as a minimum should be opaque or angled away. No one wants lots gawping students! I was amazed to see under fire safety a stay put policy would apply. Really? Could a Southwark Planning Committee post Lakanal and GRenfell approve a scheme that relies on that - especially when many students could have English as a second language. The trip generation stats. From the 53 homes and 360 students stated they would generate 0.76/78 trips per am and pm bus. The am buses are already rammed. And extra 2.4/2.5 people on each peak train. That would be 33 students and residents across 42 buses serving the 40/176/185 bus routes 7-9am each day. The P13 & 42 would be incredibly inconvenient so can be discounted. Plus only 9 trains 7-9am going into london so that would be 22 residents and students. So each working day officers have agreed with the developer only 55 people of the 360 students and 53 social homes would be on public transport in the peak times. This appears quite the fiction. The 53 homes alone are likely to have more than 53 people in employment! The report talks about limiting student moving in and out times. But the surrounding streets Comtrolled Parking Zone doesn’t cover weekends. Each weekend day we can anticipate an extra 50-100 vehicles needing to park before and after dropping students at this proposed development. This issue has not been covered and is unsolvable to the satisfaction of local residents. The report even talks about the local tube station which we don’t have! It would be hard to spread this into weekdays as that would risk clashing with the adjacent school start and finish times placing pupils at risk. This also requires the disabled parking spaces to be relinquished for several weekends each year. How does that work. Part time disabled? Real risk the controlled parking in the area would need to become 24/7 as a number of residents may have cars and they try and park outside the current CPZ operating times. 402 objectors and 22 supporters. This peaks volumes.

Keeping the central Chateau building was always part of the idea when we launched the campaign for a new secondary school in 2013. Adds quick gravitas to the school. We also hope the children would access via those main doors to help make their school feel extra special.

H Daniel, If Southwark Council did instruct a contractor to install this then it would be the councils responsibility to remove it and make good your wall even the contractor screwed up (no pun intended). Will be interesting to hear where this goes. Regards James.

It seems we've lost focus on the proposals being for outlandish 8 stories high - way out keeping for the area. 3x higher than the norm for East Dulwich.

Yes, any such scheme would involve a developer contribution to mitigating the impacts of the development on the local area and Southwark more generally. This would usually be via Section 106 monies. Some developments also have Community Infrastructure Levy against them. Yes, the replacement Grove Vale Library was funded almost entirely via S106 monies. Something I start campaigning for in 2005 and then delivered via my then East Dulwich councillor role 2006-18. The 2008 crash caused no end of problems and delays. So S106 can make a material difference for an area. My thoughts a much reduced scheme, 8 stories is bonkers, could help East Dulwich station towards modern standards - minimum platform width of 3.3m, sufficiently long to handle eight carriage trains. Main thing is to get a sensible scheme proposed. The current proposal is far from sensible due to size, height, materials, look, etc.

Perhaps this comes from a proposal by former Dulwich Society chair of Transport sub-committee Alastair Hanton to rename Sydenham Hill station South Dulwich. The argument being the station name doesn't reflect where it is. The train operating company told him it would cost £100,000 and that they had no plans to make this name change.

Until last April I worked for two mobile operators for eight years. The applications made by operators that I've seen recently in Southwark, including Dulwich, breached the guidelines they agreed with the government in a number of ways - "Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England". For example the scheme proposed in the centre of Dulwich Village breached this code in several obvious ways - not consulting the nearby school, proposed in the area of a listed monument. It would also have required the junction to be partially closed whenever maintenance was required. It was also just very poorly designed engineering. Being placed amongst trees the cell site would give impaired coverage. Every 3-5 years they would seek to have the trees severely cut back. So an expensive site to operate to boot. Plenty of places they could seek new masts that comply with the rules the mobile operators agreed with the government AND economic to maintain. The operators have avenues to liaise with the council about council property to his cell sites. Such sites tend to be tall giving excellent coverage. But they are more fiddly to organise.

They do mention "affordable housing". But this is usually far from affordable. They plan to place a block of "affordable housing" at the very end of the site in the SW corner.

EDITED 2 April - the Planning Application was granted Planning Permission earlier this evening. Effectively ward Councillors supported the scheme. Minimal weight was given to the area being suburban which does not bode well for other parts of East Dulwich and wider Dulwich area. A different developer afterwards commented they were shocked it was granted permission as they thought it a terrible over development of the site. Big shout out to all the residents who attended and especially those that spoke in opposition to the scheme. It obviously felt quite hurtful to see the scheme approved. EDITED 1 April - this scheme will decided at Southwark Council Planning Committee B tomorrow evening 2 April. The meeting can be viewed via YouTube live stream https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil/videos If you've like to speak to the committee about this scheme or wish to attend the committee meeting in person please contact the council officer [email protected] All objectors are collectively given 3 mins to object and the same for supporters. EDITED 18 October - planning application now submitted 24/AP2314 - public can make comments here - https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=SHWOSNKBJXR00 Scheme now 360 students room, 53 residential homes. EDITED 2/12 exhibition gave more details - proposed car free, 376 student rooms, 52 affordable home (shared ownership, housing association rent), 700m2 light industrial. Stated Melbourne Grove 50% vacant units - my count is 2-4 out of 19 unused. OIRIGNAL POST There is a propose redevelopment of the Jewson's Builders Yard, Railway Rise - behind Grove Vale Library and East Dulwich Station. Looks like hundred of new homes, student accommodation. Unclear if car free or not. Two access - one Melbourne Grove (north end), and Railway Rise. Buildings look to be 5 - 7 stories high. Scheme will likely overlook The Charter School East dulwich, residents on Abbotswood and Featherstone Mews. Increased footfall and vehicles especially on Melbourne Grove (north). Development website here - https://thesidings.whatyouthink.co.uk - very skimpy on details. Public exhibitions - Thursday 4-7pm 30 November and Saturday 11am to 2pm 2 December United Reformed Church (corner of East Dulwich Grove and Melbourne Grove. Do go along, take a look, and give your views.

Southwark Council no longer remove graffiti from private properties. Street cleaning is less thorough and frequent. All factors that are known to increase anti social behaviour which usually leads to more crime. If you can keep your street cleaner and if you suffer graffiti please do remove it. Also worth trying to report issues via FixMyStreet to Southwark Council which recently the council linked into. If you find issues don't get resolved complain via https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/complaints-comments-and-compliments/making-a-complaint

I wonder what mitigations are planned for alternative routes such as Gowlett and Amott Roads - full sinusoidal speed cushions, etc?

I think it telling TfL was consulting on reducing n.12 bus route service. After a short period this was turned into closing no.12 bus route. Extending no.148 along the no.12 bus route to Dulwich Library but at the reduced timetable originally proposed. Having such long route from Dulwich Library to Shepherd's Bush rarely goes well - they then cut the route up to make it more reliable. Eitherway, if you've red this thread or posted ot it please please please respond to the public consultation to actually have your voice heard - https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/busreview

London Mayor Khan is now consulting on scrapping the no. 12 and fifteen other London bus routes - 4, 11, 14, 16, 24, 31, 45, 72, 74, 78, 242, 349, 521, C3 and D7 https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/london-bus-routes-axed-tfl-cuts/ London Mayor Khan stood on a platform in 2016 of freezing TfL fares for four years knowing the government planned to with draw much of its TfL subsidy. He then screwed up Crossrail which even now ?4bn over budget and 4 years late is only opening in parts and not all connected - that's another year away. Having destroyed his budget COVID happened. COVID could have been ridden budget wise but not after the fares freeze and Crossrail financial disaster.

Hi P68, Many presidents are good and some bad. But you can vote them in and vote them out. Royals we get no choice. 2022 the queen receives ?86m from the state. All her formal expenses are paid on top. All the security is paid on top. But I genuinely hope lots of streets take advantage of the four day weekend to hold street parties. Regards James.

if you ever have a missed rubbish, recycling, or brown bin/food waste then spot 6pm report it here -https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/general-household-waste/report-a-missed-collection