Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

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.

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

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.
  • 1 month later...

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...

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/

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

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.

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.

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.
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.

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

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.
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.

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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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