chazzle

I think there was a bat survey on the Garden Centre plans, but not on this one. I've never seen any evidence of bats in the loft. (Although there is a tennis racket.) Can we get some? Do they eat moths?

The decision notice (attached) cites three reasons for throwing out the proposal which were roughly: (i) Too big (ii) Impact on neighbour (iii) Inadequate amenity space. Unfortunately, they couldn't include the demolition of the cottages as a reason nor the clear mistakes and inaccuracies in the plans. I guess the developers would have cried foul if they had. However, I would have thought that to reduce the bulk of the proposed block and provide some amenity space, they would have to reduce from five flats to maybe two or three. In particular, he would have to lose his penthouse. (Not much glory in a second-floor penthouse!) I suspect that wouldn't yield the profits required considering the rents that the 'spacious and desirable'/'poor quality and squalid' cottages currently provide. It's intriguing to see that some late amendments were submitted but too late for consideration.

FM - Wouldn't it be nice if the developer reflected on the criticisms and acknowledged that it was a bad idea all along and left it at that. Yeah, I know ...

Thanks James, I agree the hoardings will drop back eventually, but I'm coming to realise that 'eventually' becomes months and then years. Decorating the hoarding would be nice and it would be great to get Goose Green involved. However, I do think there's a safety issue having it blinding that corner. I'm interested (and increasingly cynical) about the 'fine tuning' of the approved scheme. I hope that doesn't include the re-addition of the penthouse from the rejected scheme next door! (He seems pretty keen about that penthouse)

Yes, great news. Application REFUSED There may be appeals and further applications, but time to be optimistic that the council has made a good decision. I would think that with 40+ critical comments, all will agree that it would be better to build on existing wasteland before they start knocking down Victorian cottages.

According to the letter we received, the consultation period is now closed. I've just had another read through the comments and it's great to see the eloquent, considered and heartfelt comments opposing these plans. I guess we now have to wait. I'm expecting a long process - the Garden Centre plans first emerged around ten years ago - but I hope that those deciding will see that this is a good opportunity for the clarity of just saying 'no, never', so that we don't go for the ongoing rigmarole of repeat applications, trimming and adding a small carrot for the community. I worry about being seen as a 'NIMBY', but seeing as the developers saw fit to include in their proposal speculation about the demolition of our family home*, it's more like 'not in my front room'. Cheers, Charlie (*Yes, they really did!)

Hi James, I posted a request on the "Old Garden Centre" thread.

James, If there is a 6+ months delay here, then can we ask that some work is put into tidying up the wasteland they have left? We've now had nearly ten years of worrying about this development and it would be good if they could show a bit more respect to the community. Looking at the plot at the top of Dog Kennel Hill and the Hospital site, we should expect to be in for a long wait. I would like to see the razor wire defences removed, and the hoarding tidied up, particularly on the station side. The Victorian station building should be properly shored up as there is a chance that if the development does fail this could be saved. Most importantly, the hoarding should be moved back off the pavement (presumably a temporary allowance) as this blinds pedestrians to vehicles driving (sometimes at inappropriate high speed) down Railway Rise. I have raised this with Southwark Building Control, who said it was the responsibility of the private company monitoring the building control, who said it was the responsibility of Southwark highways. I posted this as a hazard on the Southwark website, but I'm not sure it was in the right place and I've had no reply.

John K - That'll be me. I'm not sure whether I've ever seen an official document saying that Ivan Bateman or his company St Aidan's Group, owner of 2 & 3, also owns the Road. I expect it's been checked as part of the previous works and I've no reason to dispute it. MarkT's comment seems conclusive.

Positive article in yesterday's South London Press, page 3.

Comment from the Planning website: "Comment submitted date: Thu 26 Feb 2015 I seee no sense in retaining these nondescript buildings on a pice of land that could be used for a range of other uses. There are many examples of 19thC railway cottages in SE London, Blackheath for example, still retains them.East Dulwich is hardly known for its architectural stockpile, given its recent development. I have no issue with these squalid little houses being lost as part of a development process" (Squalid: wow!) Strange argument: there are others in south london, e.g. seven miles away in Blackheath, and not much of architectural merit in East Dulwich, so demolish what there is.

keekybreeks - We own and live at number 1. Very much opposed as you can see from this thread.

Jenny1 - I've had contact with councillors from all three parties. It makes me think (and yes, it's a little late on a Friday night) that there could be a more strategic approach where development happens but continues to make East Dulwich somewhere to live rather than just somewhere to sleep.

I got a reply today from the planning officer saying it is a technical hitch on the comments website. Also, he says we have two weeks to submit objections.

I've asked the planning officer about the mysterious missing comments and re-posted mine.

I think there is an optional automatic reply, with the actual posting later. There are fourteen public comments so far! http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9558549

edhistory (John K) - That's great knowledge. The sewer used to get blocked quite frequently even with just the three cottages. It passes under number 1, so don't think it could be upgraded. steveo - Give the old curmudgeon a red pen and s/he could mark up the spelling and grammar mistakes.

I'm writing to the planning officer to ask for the deadline for comments to be extended. We have not yet received a letter from the Council about this (which I'm sure is required) and there is some confusion over what the deadline is (10th or 13th March?)

There are no new public comments shown since Thursday. I guess that means the comments are moderated and will appear after they've been checked.

This from the application form: "2 small old and dated residential cottages of poor quality located in an area of redevlopment [sic] accessd [sic] by a private road." Bet they were thinking: wonder if they'll bother checking any of this? It makes you wonder why the developer once thought them to be charming and wanted to live there ...

ed_pete - Thanks. I've now contacted the Victorian Society on email and Twitter. I'll keep you posted.

Jenny1 - I don't know. I thought there was only the English Heritage route. Do you (or anyone else) know of other options?

Looking at these plans again, I found this which appears to be an accepted application to extend to 21 months the period before a viability review is triggered. This is dated April/May 2013, so that period has now expired. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=13/AP/0830&system=DC As the builders have pulled out and it is suggested above the Morrisons are not longer interested, it seems that this might be time for a viability review.

I mentioned earlier an attempt to get the station and railway cottages listed. This is the decision that English Heritage returned. http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1423554&resourceID=7 Although disappointing because this would probably have prevented the proposals from going forward, it is important to read through to the conclusion: "CONCLUSION While of local interest as key elements of the suburban expansion of East Dulwich, individually and as a group East Dulwich Station and Nos. 1-3 Railway Rise, do not possess the special architectural or historic interest in a national context required for designation."

The consultation period for the proposed demolition of two of the victorian railway cottages on Railway Rise, by East Dulwich Station, is now open. http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9558549