Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is currently a planning permission with southwark to demolish a victorian house and replace it with a 3 storey building containing 3 flats on Hindmans road. Now of course not all will be effected by overlooking balconies, added cars for parking, removal of light etc, it would set precedent to destroy the victorian feel for development Opportunities.

To add to insult, the company asking for planning is registered in the Cayman , so I am guessing not much tax on any profit will be paid.



planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9568582

I have looked at the design and they look pretty good, personal preference admittedly.


I do think its a shame that there is a general objection to any new development, there's tons of ordinary Victorian houses and most of them aren't going anywhere soon. I think the best way for our time to leave anything behind is these small interventions, certainly better than the wholesale destruction that we are now seeing around Elephant and Castle

Everywhere is being developed / extended and so it should be with so much potential laying in original layout houses and such a shortage of properties available overall. The precedent was set decades ago.

The Govt has set things up so that's the way tax works.

It's unfortunate but unavoidably true that preserving the Victorian character of the area has a cost (which falls on people who don't own property here, but might want to, or to rent) and changing that character has a cost that falls the other way. It's a classic political decision, and there's no 'right answer'.


IMHO it's ludicrous to think that the current density of population in London's inner suburbs can be maintained indefinitely - what other city in the world has cosy little houses with their own gardens 10 minutes odd by train from the financial district? Better to have a plan to change incrementally and comparatively sensitively. By those criteria, this application should be supported. All the objections are essentially NIMBY. Complaining about parking is pointless - that's another political decision that has already been taken.

I'm against destroying the integrity of a Victorian terrace, but take a look at 30-40 Hindmans Rd on street view. It's hardly a preserved Victorian strip - look at the haphazardly bricked up shops and modern windows. I think in this case the new development would if anything improve that section of the road, and since No.30 is a peculiar detached house with a different roof pitch from the other houses I can't believe that replacing it would set a precedent for spoiling the Victorian character of this or any other road in East Dulwich.

Rackmans. have arrived.Who exactly is giving permission for the planning.

Why isnt there a local resident comitee overseeing these deals (oops sorry i meant permissions).

In a short time from now this area will look like a ghetto slum,there are people already looking to move out.7

Tarot Wrote:

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

> Rackmans. have arrived.Who exactly is giving

> permission for the planning.

> Why isnt there a local resident comitee overseeing

> these deals (oops sorry i meant permissions).

> In a short time from now this area will look like

> a ghetto slum,there are people already looking to

> move out.7


Calm down dear!!


I think you need to look at what Rachman actually did, i havent read of any bully boys scaring off tenants and neighbour with billy clubs.


The problem with only asking local residents is that nothing will ever change.


We need a professional and educated Planning department with which in Southwark, we are generally quite lucky, just be grateful that we dont live in the train crash that is Lambeth.

Rachman was a bullying slum landlord, exploiting tenants in existing slums which were hell to live in - rebuilding an existing building into 3 flats (which may be sold rather than rented) - and which don't seem in anyway to be now, or likely to be in the future, slums, isn't Rachmanism. The overseas taxation nature of the owner/ developer is an entirely different type of issue. Deplorable no doubt, but different.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I spoke at the council meeting last night to object. 400 people objected to the development. I, and I suspect everyone else, is not against development, BUT the size of this too BIG to accept. The council is held hostage by the developer who is promising 53 affordable homes. And in return they get to build 360 bedrooms for students. The original plan was all student accommodation. 8 stories is completely out of sync. It’s sets a precedent for future development. They have been taking to the council since 2022.  What did not help our cause whatsoever was Counsellors McAsh and Mwangangye speaking as ward counsellors at the meeting. As the Chair of the committee said, it’s not often ward counsellors attend such meetings. The counsellors will say they didn’t speak for or against the development. However, they did speak up for the benefits of the site bringing more affordable housing to the borough. They asked for a window to have frosted glass to protect privacy. They asked for residents to be consulted during the building phase. So let’s be really clear, they did not say anything about the “optimisation” of the site. They did not ask for the site to be scaled down. Now I know why James would not be drawn into discussing the development before now….   Make no mistake, this development is optimised for profit and the trade off is the developer profits at scale and the council have 53 affordable homes. The Southwark Plan says they should respect the character of East Dulwich. How can an 8 story building be ever respectful to the character of East Dulwich. It’s a hugely imposing building.  Unless we stand up together as a community, then we shall be stuck with it, although I suspect we won’t be stuck with our Labour counsellors for much longer… Feeling let down and disappointed this morning.   
    • Another glowing review for Niko the plumber. I found his details on the forum after we had a water leak. He was able to come round same day and fixed our problem. He was very reasonable and did a great job.    His number is 07818 607583.   Matt 
    • Putin's little helpers (like theTelegraph) TRUMPeting (sorry not sorry) the fact that UK only gets 10% tariff from uSA as a Brexit Dividend and validating Starmer's qauiescence  Which ignores so much The tariff was calculated on a childish  deficit/exports calculation and ignored any discussion 25% on cars remains in place for UK as well The difference between 10% UK vs 20% EU is a fraction of the cost of Brexit anyway (that cost was dismissed as "worth it" or hand waved away - whereas this relatively small "Win" is heralded as a major victory plus in any case even if UK was on 0%, teh global fallout from this will massively impact UK as a standalone country anyway   Of course not many countries escaped with 0% - oh but Russia did
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...