Borderlands

It should not be a case of either/or. Destruction/loss of MOL is a serious planning matter. The plans could be improved to prevent this. Why don't you support this too?

Apologies, the date to register your comments about the amended plans is by 14 March 2020 - end of next week.

This whole scheme is run by the parking company so Southwark can basically wash their hands over any admin failures or complaints about how it is run - like when your address is not recognised online when trying to pay up so there can be a lapse of many days while this is checked up before payment is accepted! By they way, newbies to the scheme should know there is no grace period -even over a weekend - when your permit falls due AND there is no obligation on the council or the parking company to provide an advance reminder that payment is due on a particular date. Private Eye ran a story a few weeks ago about this when a huge windfall came the company's (and council's?) way via this wheez in Ealing. The schemes are trumpeted as supporting residents but this shows this is not true - it's just easy-peasy money making and a new income stream for the council for something we paid for via local tax; why not just give residents a permit if it is to help parking? As it is all the information about you and your vehicle/s and permits are held online by the parking company so they can issue fines pdq. Of course, this also means it shouldn't be a problem for them or the council to send an auto-alert to renew if you elect to have this. It would be good if the council could show support for their residents by forcing the company to do this. Oh, but then perhaps they don't care about having local support as much as a potential share of the extra cash.

Hi Please use the link below that clarifies why Sadiq Khan's view about taking over the MOL is simply wrong in planning terms and should be challenged: http://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/item/2508-london-environment-campaigners-s The slightly amended version of the plans seems to mostly concern aspects of the housing estate (minor changes), alterations to play spaces, and some insignificant/ cosmetic changes to the unsustainable 'linear park'. The main concern for many of us was/is about the taking of MOL land doesn't appear to have been addressed in any way. The designation of MOL is supposed to have extremely high levels of protection, for obvious reasons. Very disappointed that the Mayor of London doesn't think this is important and seems to he want to just dismissively swat the issue away. I am not sure what his record is on recognising the importance of planning protection for green spaces (parks, commons, greens, rail corridors, captive countryside, reserves)- but the GLA's report suggests he's not that interested (compared to his interest in traffic pollution) or whether he is aware of how important this could be in terms of setting a planning precedent for developers. But, as already noted, he's plain wrong in this instance and this needs to be pointed out to him (I don't think the deadline date in this link is important): http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/2020/01/write-to-the-mayor-about-green-dale- fields-mol/ Anyone concerned about the plans, anyone who believes they should be rejected, improved, or wants to standup for the MOL (after all this is not really about the future of the football club but about planning protection for open land) needs to get their comments in to Southwark by 16 March 2020 at the very latest. I suppose this deadline could be challenged as too soon for such a big issue. You can view the plans using by searching for application 19/AP/1867: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk

I don't argue for no development just appropriate design - scale, position and purpose. I don't see that the way ahead for DHFC improvements means accepting the current proposals as they stand or with slight alterations that still mean the loss of MOL, and I don't have the faith in the planning system and those who steer decisions through, that you may have. There are plenty of examples of poorly thought out developments in London, and yes, even in Southwark, that lie behind my concerns. 1. So the threat to MOL is not a concern to you? Surely this is an important designation that should be respected. We all benefit from open green space. 2. I'll look up S. 106 payments - no idea what these are. 3. Can't see why social housing would not be acceptable as long as the design/density was of a good standard this would be welcome. 4. I can't comment on the plans for the football stadium, but this kind of development of sports fields/ grounds seems now to be considered almost inevitable as green space and public land disappear and unstructured green space is seen as some kind of luxury: lucky times for the developer and friends. 5. BTW, about the proposed height of the 6 storey blocks: the actual height of the development in relation to nearby properties is not made clear. There are not pictures detailing graphically what the views from around the site would be. I am not a planner, or an architect or a developer, but I've seen enough applications for building where this lack of information has had to be challenged to reveal the likely effect on the skyline or to the local townscape. 6. Public transport is part of the mix for movement in and around the site perhaps, but the idea that current levels of buses and trains can facilitate an entirely new estate - rather than just football fans - is not something addressed in the plans that I have found yet.

I don't think the threat to MOL has been lifted at all in the new plans. Dunno why you think that. And I would question your claim that the DHFC being an "important cultural driver" whatever that is. It's just a football stadium for goodness sake - let's not suggest this is the primary reason for residents wanting to stay here or that this is what attracts others to want to live and work in the area.... What we're talking about here is planning permission for a large (compared to the mixed housing of the surrounding locality), every-expense spared design. It's not just that the proposed new estate is completely out of keeping with the district, but it pays scant regard for any consideration to do with parking, traffic, access to schools and healthcare. It proposes a number of 6 storey blocks - although the actual height in the existing landscape isn't clear from the pics in the submitted plans - but looks as if these will loom large above the existing estate. And, if we agree that we need more new homes in the area, these proposals aren't about providing social housing for families - which is what's needed around here ie., low rise family houses with gardens. Ain't going to happen - this is all about money, money, money. Take a look at 35%'s old blog about the Hadley Scheme: http://35percent.org/dulwich-hamlet-stadium/

Good. Pleased to hear it. I hope DHFC supporters will write and object to these out of scale development proposals and help prevent the loss of MOL as well. Sadly, the careful timing of the public consultation looks suspicious when lots of people who might be interested are away. Is there any particular group co-ordinating opposition to the proposals?

geh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "DHFC malcontents"? I mean those who may be justifiably be annoyed at the state of their club facilities and may not be concerned about the proposed plans and the extent to which this would change the local area.

Some dates seem to have now been provided on the planning portal but these don't include the standard consultation date or the standard consultation expiry date. Is this unusual? BTW: I remember when Sainsburys' was built and I think that some of this land was owned by the Crown Estate via Kings College Hospital which made objecting very difficult. At the time the developers made a huge song and dance about the ickle park - as a community benefit- like the new developers with their silly, unsustainable, linear park (by which they mean a few flower beds and large pavements which are no use to wildlife whatsoever) and teeny weeny play areas for children. But even then there were the usual concerted attempts to score cheap points about there being too much open space in the greedy south of the borough compared to the north, with the very decorative submitted plans including railway cuttings and privately accessed or limited access land to visually justify the reason to get rid of MOL that was wildlife friendly scrub land and so on. But I think the council's Development Plans at the time was also trying to open up more green space in the middle and north of the borough rather than go, yah-boo sucks to MOL in the south. This is surely the correct response to proposals to overdevelop in the low-rise south of the borough? What can we do to at least counter the large scale and inappropriateness of these proposals? Everyone knows this is a trojan horse development that is using the DHFC malcontents to attack the need to protect the local area and it's green and open feeling.

Just seen the correspondence on this. Rang Southwark Council "customer services" and they said to obtain paper garden waste bags I needed to send an email to environment@southwark.gov.uk. I did this in the full knowledge that this will be completely pointless. Why didn't someone proof-read the webpage and notice there was no link to place an order + payment? And why do we have to ring up to then arrange a special collection? Does this mean paper bags can't be picked up at the same time that garden waste in big brown bins are collected from my neighbours? I've paid the ?25 but I really can't see why I can't just leave any garden waste bags I've filled up in the way I have done for the past few years (having bought the bags from a commercial online supplier). Why is a special phone call needed for the one or two bags I might fill in a month? Idiotic. Are you listening Southwark Council? I don't want or need another huge unsightly plastic bin to add to the pavement clutter that already exists. What is to be done? katanita Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Councillors, > > There seems to be very little information about > the paid-for garden waste bag scheme. There is no > mention of this at all on the leaflets that were > sent out. I can see no mention on the main page > about garden waste on the Southwark website, and > have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the > FAQs before it appears. > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/ga > rden-waste-collection-subscriptions?chapter=2 This > copy says you can order bags from the main > website, but there is no apparent way to do this > from the front page of the site, nor any > information about how to book a collection. Is > there a reason that this is so hidden? Or am I > missing something? > > Please can this be clarified here and on the > website with more detailed information about how > this scheme works and a working link to order them > or book a pick up? I would also like to know if > the Southwark bags I have already for garden waste > will still be able to be used for this or whether > they are now useless and I have to order more. I > will have a bag ready to go soon and don't much > fancy trying to cycle to the waste recycling > centre with it. > > Many thanks

Please could you confirm asap whether those of us who objected to the last proposals will need to resubmit a completely new objection to St Aidans Group appeal proposals as well? Best

Hi I don't have any film equipment - not even an iPhone. Hope someone else can do this asap. Sorry

Such a good idea. Excellent. There's a couple of good walks going out Surrey-Kent border near Farthing Down, Old Coulsdon that you might like to investigate.

I sent in an objection a while back with notification just last week about the appeal - do I need to resubmit? I made sure I included the need for a site visit: this is really important. Having said that I was involved with one planning inquiry many years ago where we thought this might not take place - so filmed the site on a walkabout and submitted that at the start of the inquiry as far as I can remember. It was unusual - but the idea was that this was an aid to understanding the site in context and accepted as such. In the end a site visit for the inspector accompanied by developers and local objectors did happen. No idea if this was because the film was watched - but it was certainly important that everyone knew that there was a film... This was a VHS tape, now should be possible to simply film it and put on dvd. It's an entirely different thing to a set of photos which is never as glamorous or enticing as a graphic of new build even. Boring but dramatic rectangles always look more appealing to planners and inspectors.

It's going to take many weeks to get an NHS specialist appointment to deal with a blocked ear - no treatment so far has worked including syringing. Anyone know any private medical provider that can deal with this - I know it's not life-threatening but it is really getting the person concerned down. Very poor hearing now for a month or so. Please reply by private email, if possible. Much appreciated

Yes, Would be interesting to know how the flow of people coming in and out, vs the ticket machine, monitors and the ticket booth was considered when this design was considered. It's just the peak times when it is difficult from about 9ish till 4 there doesn't seem to be any problem.

Are you sure - it's not the general view of Melbourne Grove on this site.

Spare a thought for people who want more than an ATM. Oh - and what will happen to their ATM?? Surely that's useful.

After the fire in the 1980s "Dickie Dirts" (of jeans fame in Camberwell) helped contribute to the saving of the entire station block following a massive local protest at the prospect of it being demolished. British Rail wanted to get rid of it all. Then, I believe, the owner of the "Firkin" pubs helped with even more money and hence the main station block became a pub. When the hall was still open (and was the station ticket office) where the coffee shop is now, there was the same kind of bottleneck whenever it rained, trains were late or too many people turned up either going or coming. When we saw the misleading plans proposed for the new station (white paintwork and so on) we couldn't believe that they would be accepted because of just how mean they were: it's just an enlarged garden shed really - all the money went on the walkway and lifts, of course, with the downbeat styling of gulag watch towers preferred to anything more stylish. This was advertised as complimenting the Victorian station? yeah, right. They could either enlarge the shed say a third again in size, just need a few more sheets of board - or open a properly engineered exit only on to Windsor Walk: they had this temporarily when the work was done and it worked well.

Happy to recommend Norwood Roofing too. David O'Donnell checked out what needed to be done to cure damp appearing in the house. Number of different jobs quoted for including missing pointing (damaged by very wet summer), reflanching of chimney stacks shared with neighbours, and leaky guttering. Clear photos taken of work completed were provided. And the work looks to be very carefully done (with the pointing matching existing colour and so on) - we can see some of this without photos. AND no mess left outside or inside. Very pleased and relieved to have had the work done so quickly.

This is my experience too. When a planning decision is called in and oppositional arguments are clearly stated with very good illustrative material (and maps that aren't favourably adjusted with, say, red inner lining to a plot to minimise apparent impact) - AND most importantly an insistence that an inspector visits a site to see it fully in context, it is possible that objections will be respected - especially if an alternative plan is presented in some way,

In the 1980s Southwark Council was similarly minded to alow development all over the borough because of government wanting to favour development at whatever cost - it's not that different now. It took a huge amount of lobbying by individuals and local amenity societies to convince the politicians to not simply accept council officers' bland advice (and subjective views) and try to save a varied LOCAL townscape - and seemed to me to entail arguing endlessly about keeping more than the very best, most special, most rare. That's not what looking after local character is about. The fear of litigation seemed to numb them to the point where they tried their utmost to ignore the local electorate views. So fed up that this is happening again. We want to retain distinctiveness which these cottages give. Legal views are simply that. The council needs to be braver about resisting this kind of thing. Just think how much electoral support would be gained by standing up too off-shore companies cashing in their weakness.

That's usually with a view to salami slicing and partial development: this is exactly what happened in the 1980s and the Mid-Southwark Plan tried to separate off areas like the top-edge of Sydenham Hill Wood for development. I think that's why the London Wildlife Trust chased Local Nature Reserve status for the areas, because it presumably offers stronger protection for green space than MOL. The then GLC published a sort of "Domesday" series of green sites for every London borough - well worth looking out for as they show the same pressures that now face London's captive countryside (including former farmland that became cemeteries and parks)and gave in-depth information on the need for open spaces (preferably with wildlife potential) throughout London. It's what makes London different from many other densely inhabited cities.

Aren't the cemeteries, Sydenham Hill Wood, Dulwich Woods, the golf course, Peckham Rye Common (and park), Honor Oak all designated Metropolitan Open Land and thereby protected to some extent in planning terms? All have amenity, social, habitat and landscape importance arising from their history (and some of that will pre-date their use as, say, burial plots.

Just taken a quick look through the papers about the proposed new Southwark Plan having read a short piece in this week's South London Press. This mention the possibility of building on MOL that's included in it and the consultation papers. In one paper there is a proposal to alter DM57 which presumably protects MOL to allow school expansion. Even supposing that precious MOL (which has this designation because of regional and local importance) can be shaved off in this way because, say, local parents are keen for expansion, the larger document isn't so clear cut. There is no reference to such a restriction and importantly no listing of any of the particular MOL designations so this can be checked. This is just like in the 1980s with some Southwark councillors and most officers scared of opposing building in the face of a Tory-developer led government. Then too they were scared of financial punishment. There was a ton of greenwash in the Southwark plan of that time, when community and civic societies (from the riverside to Sydenham) combined with the London Wildlife Trust and the GLC to protect Sydenham Hill Woods and other green spaces in the borough. This took years of campaigning. Does anyone have any further information about what is proposed? An MOL designation is extremely important in terms of planning - it's our long thin borough's townscape/landscape at stake here. The designation protects our historic woods (captive countryside), the cemeteries, the parks, and the greens and playing fields. Once a way is found to circumvent this protection it will become a precedent even if no-one wants it to : a little bit taken away here or there eventually means it becomes less and less viable especially as habitat. BTW, whatever happened to imaginative refurbishment, tracking the number of empty properties and so on rather that demolition and building on green space? This kind of LB Southwark supported development in the north of the borough particularly (around London Bridge) goes to show how little they are really interested or passionate about our borough's specific character.