LD929

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

We bought a 5 bed last year at around ?750k. Equivalent houses on the market now are going for around ?1.1m. The difference between then and now is that when we bid, we were one of many and therefore met asking; whereas now, those houses are likely to go significantly below asking. Houses just aren't turning as quickly, though that doesn't mean, I think, that on average prices in ED aren't increasing pretty steadily. As far as asking price, 3 beds seem to be at around ?800k for your standard terraced victorian.

I don't understand why you would want to leave ED

It was at peckham rye station (where you turn right when walking out) on Friday, June 12 -- I was there at around 9pm and saw police, no clue though what happened.

I hate ice cream vans, they pollute the air near playgrounds and they target obese children. I hope the one on Adys Road packs in.

Hi James, I would like to petition to have a zebra crossing where the flying pig / goose green playground are. That is a very busy area and people constantly try to cross there. How can we make that happen? -LD929

That junction really needs AT LEAST a zebra crossing but would be better off with a traffic light. People drive way too fast down east dulwich grove, and people turning onto east dulwich grove from LL often do so quite hastily without regard to foot traffic. Bermygirl, the problem is there are a lot of people walking up and down LL and not any effective means to cross what is a busy junction. Just as cars don't want to be left standing neither do pedestrians. Not a good situation for anyone really.

I actually think the design looks quite nice and pretty appropriate given the street.

Hi, I just had a new heating system put it. I have recently noticed an issue that is frankly baffling me: the boiler will not turn on in the evening (it turns on fine in the morning) despite that the thermostat / central heating saying that it is on. I made a small video showing the problem. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

V511 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you clarify those percentages, BrandNewGuy? or > do you have the link/source? > > Just as they add up to 113%... ;) I think they can add up to 200% because in the consultation you had the choice of favouring both (not one or the other).

So, I actually think that houses in ED are pretty undervalued given the location, number of amenities, and green space. I just bought here by taking on more debt than I can dream of, but I am happy with the choice. Michael -- just for your information, the below quote is just incorrect. If you measure by GDP per hour, Americans are some of the most productive workers in the world. Take a look for yourself: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL Michael Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >look at the Yanks: > they work extremely long hours and take 2 weeks > leave a year, yet a lot of that time at work is > only posturing - ie. they are seen to appear to be > working, rather than actually putting in the hard > graft.

It looks surprisingly nice on the inside.

Did Southwark Council ever give a formal response to the proposed extension? ... Nervermind, I found it: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1867/southwark_calls_for_bakerloo_line_extension_via_old_kent_road_and_camberwell_and_peckham

I am actually all for making other people miserable. I can deal with the planes but would rather share the burden. Happy to have the post Annette and I signed the petition. For the rest of you -- you can read the headline. If the subject doesn't interest you, don't read the post. Pretty simple. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look folks, it's quite simple - the only way > (short of closing London airports) of shifting > flights away from where you live, is to shift them > towards where other people live. This is the > biggest NIMBY issue we have, as (unlike those who > wish to avoid something new, and possibly actually > stop-able, like housing) the planes are there, > will be there, and have to fly somewhere. > > What this petition is actually saying is 'not over > my back-yard, make someone else miserable'. If > flights were (miraculously) steered down some > tortuous path which didn't over-fly housing not > only would this add considerably both to flight > times and flight costs, but these paths would tend > to be so narrow and tortuous that the risk of > in-air accident would soar. > > This issue has been exhaustively discussed on this > forum - some are clearly genuinely made miserable > by the noise, most (I suspect it's most) can > either live with it, or have found ways of not > noticing it. > > We are not 'attached' to our planes (fond memories > of Concorde notwithstanding) - but we (most, by no > means all) have learnt to live with them, and > indeed generally ignore them.

For ED standards, those houses are big.

What a let down -- 2045??? My guess is by then OKR will no longer be an "opportunity area", the southeast will be really ballooning by then. Anyways, interesting that the document doesn't say much about buses.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we will get a store there IF the developer can > work out who owns the access - one objector was > clear they owned half the access and would be > closing it. Well that'll be interesting. How can this not be established already?

Can we still email/write in to voice our opinions, or is that process over and now its just up to the town meeting. Are these meetings perfunctory in nature?

A lot of 4 bed houses have been sitting on the market.

Thanks, Simonethebeaver. Anyone know a good way to find original plans for an early 1920s house? You think the planners use this? http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/index.jsp?tooltip=yes

OK -- but this is only if planning permission is sought. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess you've looked at these > > 5.6 Extensions 5.6.1 The residential design > standards SPD (2011) sets out the standards that > should be required when considering proposals for > extensions that require planning permission. > 5.6.2 Where extensions are proposed, they should > be in keeping with the character of the area and > for the most part follow the guidance set out in > the residential design standards SPD. In some > cases, however, larger development that exceeds > the 3 metres by 3 metre threshold set out in the > SPD could be considered. In particular detached > and semi-detached properties with substantial > gardens may accommodate a larger extension > providing the openness of an area is not > compromised, the design is clearly subservient to > the main part of a building and it would not add > appreciably to the building?s bulk. > 5.6.3 Roof extensions and changes to the basic > roof form within the conservation areas are > generally likely to be intrusive and unacceptable. > In those few cases where the roof is already > altered or hidden from view, some alterations may > be possible. In such cases, we will normally seek > low-key solutions minimising any adverse visual > impact through the use of sympathetic designs and > appropriate materials. Further information is > contained within the relevant conservation area > appraisals. > 5.6.4 The principle of roof extensions outside of > conservation areas is generally acceptable > provided that the scale and design of the > extension follows the guidance contained within > the residential design standards SPD. A roof > extension, therefore, should normally be confined > to the rear elevation of dwellings. It should be a > subsidiary element to the building and thus set > down from the ridge of the main house, in from > either side of the roof slope and up from the > eaves. > 5.6.5 A roof extension will not be permitted if it > would unbalance the proportions of a building or > harm > the architectural integrity of a group, including > an unbroken run of butterfly roofs. Also, a roof e > xtension will not be acceptable if it extends over > the full length of the outrigger as this would not > be considered a subsidiary or subservient element. > Further information is contained within the > residential design standards SPD > 5.6.6 Roof extensions and extensions to the rear > of a property can also have an impact on bat > activity. All British bat species are afforded > protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act > 1981. As Dulwich is a known area for bat activity > we may require extra information to be submitted > with an application. Further information is set > out in section 6.5 of this SPD and our Sustainable > Design and Construction SPD. > > from the Dulwich SPD > ?http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplemen > tary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1247/dulwich_ > spd/1 > > and this > > Side extensions > Side extensions should > ? Be subsidiary to the main building > ? > If the side extension is proposed to be more than > > single storey, the upper floor should be set back > > from the side building line > ? > Have roofs that match those of existing buildings > > in terms of roof shapes and pitches > ? > Avoid the infilling of gaps between properties, > where this is an important townscape feature. > > from > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplement > ary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1253/residenti > al_design_standards_spd

Thanks. I appreciate the definition of "original dwellinghouse". I think, in order to fall under PD, I could only extend the original rear extension and not the side return. I would think that I could rebuild the side return without seeking planning permission because its currently existing on the property. If I got comfortable that we fall under PD, I presume that I could start building (assuming other issues addressed -- eg. party wall act) and could apply for a certificate of lawful development at the same time? Any reason why architects automatically assume you need planning permission?

Hi, I know this is an often asked question, and at risk of being repetitive, I thought I would ask again. We have just purchased a terraced house in ED. The house has a side return that was likely built after the original structure was built but at least in appearances is over 30 years old. We would like to rebuild the side return (it was built with a very poor quality) and extend on the ground floor only about 2 meters. We would stay within the applicable height restrictions for the roof (i.e., eaves height of 3 meters). Simple question is whether I need planning permission? I did a search on the Southwark planning permission website and did not find many certificates of lawful development for extensions (in comparison to, say, loft conversions) and found a few rejections. I just can't really figure out why what I would like to do would not fall under PD rights. My architect first said we absolutely need planning permission but is now suggesting that PD would be an option. Would be grateful if someone could offer a clear explanation.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's hope with all this arty cinema we get some > classics like 'Debbie Does Dallas' and 'Party at > Kitty and Studs'. > > Louisa. Whoa there.

You know where they need a walking bridge ... between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. Waterloo doesn't need another bridge.