East Dulwich Hotel - any info on what's happening?

[alice]

is that what happened to dog kennel hill estate?

[Jeremy]

Southwark did sell off a lot of the DKH... including the whole block over the Cost Cutter, and the derelict building on the corner of Bromar/Pytchley Rd (where five upmarket-ish houses now stand). But to be fair they're also using some of the empty space to build new council flats too.

[uncleglen]

Yes Alice

Okay rendelharris, fascism- synonyms- authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial, despotic, draconian, autocratic, Nazi, undemocratic, anti-democratic, illiberal, extreme/far right-wing, rightist, militarist

apart from the 'right-wing' words the rest are correct descriptions of the aims of the Left- fyi the WRP back in the 1970s were planning to set up a Worker's Militia- yes a Militia....so even the militarist synonym is correct. AND the WRP were going to lock up alcoholics and drug addicts because they reckoned that under their governance people would not need drugs or alcohol...

If you Wiki Nazism and replaced all the words appertaining to Jews or races that the Nazis viewed as inferior, with 'rich people or 'aristocracy'- it would read something akin to the far left views and aims

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you Wiki Nazism and replaced all the words

> appertaining to Jews or races that the Nazis

> viewed as inferior, with 'rich people or

> 'aristocracy'- it would read something akin to the

> far left views and aims

So you believe that those on the far left want to round up the rich and the aristocracy and send them to extermination camps? Tell me, doesn't the tinfoil hat get a bit warm in this weather?

[BrandNewGuy]

eddeal1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> southwark council have been selling not only land.

> they have been Selling 100s and 100s and 100s of

> houses and flats through Andrew Roberts auctions

> for Years.and All of you were Sleeping.

Not really. It's been discussed on this forum for at least two years how Southwark's policy under Labour is that any council tenancy which falls vacant and the property is deemed to be worth more than ?300K is to be sold rather than being offered to another tenant.

This is utter madness and can only lead to increased ghettoisation of both rich and poor. We're lucky living in a road in ED that is diverse as there are a number of council houses as well as flats, in addition to private houses and flats. If it were all private, we'd be proper la-di-da...

[TheArtfulDogger]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes it is, I know they've got to get a 3rd bedroom

> in to make them saleable but couldn't it be a loft

> room, not visible from the front.

Have you registered an objection to the planing application based on the height and the addition of the top floor?

If not it's not worth complaining on here as the council won't read or take into account this forum.

However good to use the forum to get people to object or support the development.

[alice]

I'm commenting not complaining. It will get passed. There's already something similar on choumert grove.

edit to say nobody has made an objection on southwark website

[TheArtfulDogger]

People have started to put comments up

Will be interesting to watch what permission it gets, obviously anything is better than what is there at the moment but let's hope it is in keeping with the surrounding buildings

[craigyboy71]

Yes please make comments on the planning application... it looks like over development to me despite the definite need for some form of works to be done. I'm not looking forward to all the HGVs coming down the street either! It has been bad enough with the construction work on the junction of Upland and Crystal Palace Rd.

The deadline is Thursday, 8 September so you have a couple of weeks yet.

[TheArtfulDogger]

2 comments so far, will add one soon as well, I agree with craigy boy this looks like an over development and not in keeping with the area

[Jo31]

The previous owner of the East Dulwich hotel put in an application for a 3rd story in around 2007. This was objected to by neighbours opposite and adjacent and Southwark turned down the application. The owner appealed to the Planning Commissioner who upheld Southwark's decision so the extra story never went up.

More recently (last year?) an application was made by the owner of another property a few doors down on the same terrace for a 3rd story extension and this was rejected. Hopefully these decisions will bode well for the 3rd story plan being rejected again - I'm in support of any improvement to the existing properties but in keeping with neighbouring properties.

[James Barber]

The more people that object the greater the chance the council will properly review the scheme.

I've submitted an objection and will also organise a councillor call-in if officers are minded to grant permission.

Reasons I've given are proposed height and massing - we live in a suburban area and what is proposed isn't. No cycle parking - but that would be easily resolved if the developed funded a BikeHanagar.

A construction management plan would be required as Upland Road pavements have been closed for nearly two years now and this development if it were to proceed should not involve the pavement being closed.

Please do object or offer your support - but get involved.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Two days left to get your objections in

So far 7 people have, 6 of them based on height, materials and overlooking other properties.

If you want to object (or support) then the more people who do the better

As said before the site needs something doing to it, but obviously not the plan as submitted

[EPB]

I've made a comment on the Council's website, which brings the grand total of objections to eight.

[Abe_froeman]

Presumably if they can't build four three bed houses they'll keep it to two stories and build eight two bed flats, meaning much denser living more pressure on parking etc. I think some of the objections made so far are misconceived.

[Abe_froeman]

I also think it's slightly unfair on the developer if the views of people largely unaffected by this, because they live over a mile away, are given any weight at all. The concerns of near neighbours are a different matter.

[James Barber]

Two aspects to this application. The actual heigh massing etc - the content of what will be built.

And the other aspect will be how it is built. We've had nearly two years of pavement closures along Upland Road so we need to ensure this application has a condition for a construction management plan. Should be virtually no need to close the pavement.

[Abe_froeman]

Why can't the council hold those people responsible for the pavement closures to account?

The cost of their behaviour will land in someone else's lap which seems more than unreasonable to me.

[Nigello]

The council cannot/will not even put right poor work done by its own contractors (see ponding along shops opposite ED Picture House on LL and near to Goodrich School) so I am not surprised it won't always hold outside firms responsible for their actions.

[craigyboy71]

I received notification from Southwark council today that the plans have been revised. Namely:

Change of materials on third floor and removal of front balcony;

Removal of bay windows on ground floor;

Use of brickwork on first floor in place of render.

The consultation period has been extended to 1 October.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Interesting, just looked at the updated plans which makes the ground and first floor more in keeping but they still have a new second floor which is out of keeping with the rest of the street

This is what they were proposing http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!6R4K5YZyvkyGo25oSLtxug%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

This is the new proposal http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!DNanE5pqlcqb7JSO38mXWw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

Question is , will the changes be enough to get it approval and will they seek variation of change once the plans are in to revert back to the origional proposal..

Thanks for the update craigy boy

[Aristide]

phew, what a stinker,

maybe they should have got an Architect, but then again look at the new Harris Primary!

[craigyboy71]

It's an improvement but the additional floor is the major issue. There has been an ugly loft extension agreed on the street, so it's likely to get the go ahead. The floodgates will open!

[EPB]

I wonder why they haven't put sash windows in the front. Surely it can't be an economy measure?

[jacks09]

50