Results of Bassano Street Committee Meeting 1st October 6.30pm

[Jim1234]

The design is horrible but we need homes. My criticism is why build such small houses when you could fit in a tower block and house hundreds.

[gerry]

Letters came out today, deadline now 4th August to make comments online

[gerry]

Any objections must be made before 4th August. Has anyone received their letters from the council?

[alice]

The design is exactly like lots of modern private and social housing is.

Good job

[fishbiscuits]

They look OK to me. Aesthetically I really do not like the sections of red brick next to the windows, but I guess that's just my personal taste. The fundamental design and materials look consistent with lots of other modern housing. I've never really understood the argument that new-builds should be "in keeping", do we really want mock-period architecture? I certainly don't!

I would like to see provisions for kerbside electric car charging considered for new build houses. Maybe a couple of pop-out outlets out the front (if such a thing exists!). The chances are that a family buying a fairly expensive house (850K?) are going to own a car, or at least be considering it.

[Boddle]

Sorry if I'm being a twit- how do I see the actual plans? clicking on the options in this link just seems to send me round in circles....T[planning.southwark.gov.uk]

[Cora]

It's social housing so they won't be buying it....

Boddle they don't make it easy but the plans are there with multiple images - click the related documents tab.

My point on aesthetics is not that they have to be the same as those around them but 'in keeping' which I think the consultation ones were but now they have changed them, presumably to save money, in particular on the second floor...so for people living opposite not only do they have their light replaced by a building but by a pretty ugly one....buildings hang around for years surely we can expect them to be designed in a way that is carefully thought out aesthetically as well as practically.

For the first time in my experience they are saying that comments can only be made via the link. They are not offering an email address for comments or saying that letters will be accepted....in my opinion this is discriminatory.

These links are not easy, especially if you are not used to using computers (see Boddle's comments) and if they really wanted people to engage then they would find better ways to genuinely have a dialogue.

[Cora]

I have just checked and to confirm Southwark Planning prefer you to comment by the link above but if you know people who would prefer to write or email comments then they can still be sent to the main planning email address quoting the planning reference (19/AP/1861) and their name and address. If they don't want their name and address made public then they just need to include a line saying 'please ensure my name and address are removed before putting my comments online'. Landlords and tenants can make comments.

[email protected]

Address:

Planning Department

Southwark Council

160 Tooley Street

London

SE1P 5LX

[gerry]

Thank you Cora. We have sent ours in so I hope others will do the same if they want to submit comments more than the allotted 2000 characters. Issues of density, amenity and possible noise and being overlooked are all suggested comments if anyone would like to object.

[Cora]

Planning application going to Planning Committee for those that wish to attend:

I refer to the above application on which you have submitted comments. It will be considered by the Council's Planning Sub-committee A which meets on 1 October, 2019 18:30 Council Offices, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH

Recommended decision:Grant permission

My report on the application can be seen on the Council?s website. You will find it in the list of documents for this application on the Register of Planning Applications. You can search the register athttps://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/ as well as viewing the agenda of the meeting athttp://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgListCommittees.aspx?bcr=1You can use facilities at your local library or My Southwark Service Points to access the website.

Please note that although the report states my recommendation on the decision to be made, it is for the Committee to decide whether or not to accept it after they have considered all the material issues and factors to be taken into account in determining the application.This meeting is open to the public and you may attend if you wish. Details of the procedure that will be followed at the meeting are attached.Please contact the Committee Clerk on if you require any further information about the arrangements for the meeting, including the location of and accessibility to the venue, carers' allowance for people attending the meeting, or any special needs such as transport or a signer/interpreter.I will inform you of the 's decision once the decision has been issued.Yours sincerely Simon Bevan Director of Planning...

[gerry]

We will be there. It seems Southwark are ignoring right to light. Does anyone know if this is a requirement in planning applications?

[Sally Eva]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-to-light

Looks as if it's a matter of private contract rather than planning law.

Seems to be something like squatting ie if you have received the light for long enough you are entitled to it. It is a civil matter (ie you have to go to court about it). Planning departments may take it into account or they may not.

https://www.123plans.co.uk/uploads/frontend/media/documents/rightstolight.pdf

Further explanation

https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/pbc-today-articles/rights-light-glance/20815/

[gerry]

Thank you Sally.

[suecharlie@btinterne]

Both the Bassano Street and the Henslowe Road garage developments were granted permission at last night's planning meeting (1st October). This will bring much need Council housing to East Dulwich.

Councillor Charlie Smith

Goose Green Ward Member

[Cora]

Councillor Smith were any of the points raised in the application taken into account or was it just accepted with no changes?

[gerry]

The council reps decided it was acceptable to ignore their own planning guidelines regarding density and proximity to nearest houses. So it was most likely decided before the committee meeting.

[gerry]

Density is 50% over the Council?s standard for East Dulwich but this was completely ignored by the committee. The architects designed for an urban setting when East Dulwich is designated suburban. Also completely ignored the impact on other residents. A shocking decision and an abdication of responsibility by our ward councillors, none of whom made any effort to understand concerns.

[James Barber]

Hi gerry, and other Bassanno residents.

Please accept my apologies for my part in this.

As one of the then Councillors for East Dulwich ward I proposed council housing for these two garages sites. I expected such housing to conform to the Southwark Plan which restricts density, heights, etc and respects our area as suburban.

Clearly the current council administration and more recently elected Councillors are happy with the areas suburban character not being respected. Hence the travesty of these approved schemes. Sorry.

[gerry]

Thank you James. Your honesty is appreciated. The density of the planned development is 510 habitable rooms per hectare, versus Southwark?s Residential Design Standards of 200-350. The gardens will also be less than half the size required. Too crowded for the people who have to live in them and too crowded for the neighbourhood. Why does Southwark produce these plans and standards and then completely ignore them. I hope the current councillors for this ward are honest enough now to admit that they and the council regard East Dulwich as an urban area and not the suburban one we all thought we were living in. We will remember the lack of engagement of our local counsellors at the next election.

[Cora]

James you have always been very supportive and worked hard with Planning Issues....for me it is a real sign of a bad democracy when planning departments are so ineffective and trawl out fake consultations. The Labour Council should be ashamed of the way these decisions are made...I too was not against using the space for more housing but that shouldn't mean a carte blanche approach regardless of issues brought up by the surrounding residents.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all,

Throughout the design process I have been keen to hear the views of residents and I have ensured that the housing team have listened too. As a result of feedback the designs were altered to respond to concerns about privacy and light.

Let's be clear what density means: it refers to the number of people housed in a given footprint. Higher density can mean very tall buildings, inappropriate for a suburban setting, but it does not need to. In this case, the new council homes are going to be roughly the same height as the existing buildings.

The higher density is a response to the dire need for council homes. The council does not own much land that it can build on, particularly not in this part of the borough. So when we have some we want to make the best use of it! We wanted to focus on family homes, the lower density option would have been to go for flats for couples or single people.

I cannot wait to welcome four families into their new council homes. Decent council housing has the potential to transform lives.

Best wishes

James

[first mate]

James McAsh, do you view this part of East Dulwich as urban or suburban?

[EPB]

Are the councillors aware of the award-winning new council estate in Norwich ?

[gerry]

Councillor McAsh, I am interested that you say that you have always been interested in taking account of the views of residents. You did not engage in any serious degree with the views of the Sage Mews residents. Nor were you or any of the other ward councillors at the planning committee meeting. Why does the Council set these standards and then drive a coach and horses through them? This development is between 50% and 100% over-sized as regards density. They could have had four 2-storey homes which would have met density standards and not overshadowed Sage Mews or three (instead of four) 3-storey homes which would also have met density standards. We all agree that more social housing is required. It should however be provided in a manner consistent with the Council?s published standards and without overwhelming other residents.

[Penguin68]

To go back to the question I asked (and have regularly continued to ask) - can you, do you, trust the council, its elected representatives or officials? Time and again what they say, or are meant to say, and what they do, part company. As regards their own housing density standards, this appears to be (another) case in point. I am sure the councillor feels he is doing good things - but local standards separate from him were set to allow us to judge that against fixed criteria. Housing density standards are not a starting point for debate, they are a rule, or rather not when it comes to Southwark apparently.