Nisa Local Nunhead - Seeking at least three volunteers
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
I agree, but if this was to be the main entrance/exit the road outside would need to be much safer, with new crossings and widened pavements etc. -
By James Barber · Posted
Robin's tree ideas in Village ward described by here inspired us East Dulwich Councillors to have the cherry trees planted on the northern section of Melbourne Grove and elsewhere in what was then called East dulwich ward and now largely Goose green ward. -
By LadyLordship · Posted
Anyone know what’s happened on the Lordship Lane Estate? Lots of police, ambulances, areas cornered off, police tape everywhere. Lordship Lane side of the Estate near Melford Road. -
By James Barber · Posted
This is my take of the scheme and planning committee report: Railway Yard Scheme 402 objectors and 22 supporters. Huge local concern about this proposal. The scheme is out of character and contrary to The Southwark Plan and Suburban zoning for the site. The adjacent schemes 18-22 Grove Vale is ground and three stories, The Charter School North Dulwich is 3-4, the Tessa Jowel Health Centre is ground and two stories. This proposed scheme is significantly higher and bulkier. And the corrugated iron looking top floors will be visible for some distance from the site. All the views in the report demonstrate how out of keeping with the Suburban zone this scheme in. What is the point of having such policies if they are ignored? Council officers and members have agreed the site must be redeveloped with an indicative capacity of 53 new homes. The proposal is 3 to 4 times bigger than that with 53 homes and 360 student rooms and additional shared spaces. (2.5 student rooms equating to 1 home). The officer report incorrectly talks about buses going to Brixton, which makes me concerned about the PTAL calculation which partly I would imagine officers have based their acceptance of this over development. PTAL 4 for the site. TfL PTAL calculator. The social housing will likely be 3. The assumptions are crow flies. If it is time to access public transport then much of the remainder of the site becomes PTAL3 and the rationale for the officers recommends would be incorrect. Student accommodation demand comments appear to date from three years ago. Since then various research showing significantly reduced numbers which have not been included in the report. BBC 5 March states 14% drop in foreign students. The House of Commons library 25 March states most foreign students are now postgrads therefore questionable if this accommodation would meet their needs. ONS reporting that the number of children who will become students has been consistently falling. That Southwark itself is in the process of closing up to 17 primary schools! This will feed through to reduced undergraduate numbers. The report suggests circa £10,000 is spent by each student in the area. I would suggest vast majority is on accommodation and not circulating in local shops and facilities or indeed Southwark more widely. Additionally they receive free public transport so will not be contributing towards any required improvements. The report then suggests each student residing at this scheme would be spending around £5,400 in the immediate East Dulwich area each year. This seems extremely unlikely. The report states members should give some consideration for daylight and sunlight loss with 21 minor, 8 moderate, and 20 substantial adverse reductions. A good scheme would have avoided this. Any normal school in the Subriban South Zone would have avoided this. Overlooking. Officers state this as minimal. That the reduction in living conditions is acceptable. That is so easy to type in a report. Many objectors have stated the reduction is not accepted by local residents. Objectively the average person has reached a different conclusion. Members have the unenviable task of telling ordinary people they are wrong if you approve this scheme. I would suggest the residents who would suffer this as disagreeing! The blocks will loom over houses nearby. Down to 8.2m gaps on place! If the scheme were to be approved then corridors overlooking 18-22 Grove Vale, Railway Rise scheme proprerties as a minimum should be opaque or angled away. No one wants lots gawping students! I was amazed to see under fire safety a stay put policy would apply. Really? Could a Southwark Planning Committee post Lakanal and GRenfell approve a scheme that relies on that - especially when many students could have English as a second language. The trip generation stats. From the 53 homes and 360 students stated they would generate 0.76/78 trips per am and pm bus. The am buses are already rammed. And extra 2.4/2.5 people on each peak train. That would be 33 students and residents across 42 buses serving the 40/176/185 bus routes 7-9am each day. The P13 & 42 would be incredibly inconvenient so can be discounted. Plus only 9 trains 7-9am going into london so that would be 22 residents and students. So each working day officers have agreed with the developer only 55 people of the 360 students and 53 social homes would be on public transport in the peak times. This appears quite the fiction. The 53 homes alone are likely to have more than 53 people in employment! The report talks about limiting student moving in and out times. But the surrounding streets Comtrolled Parking Zone doesn’t cover weekends. Each weekend day we can anticipate an extra 50-100 vehicles needing to park before and after dropping students at this proposed development. This issue has not been covered and is unsolvable to the satisfaction of local residents. The report even talks about the local tube station which we don’t have! It would be hard to spread this into weekdays as that would risk clashing with the adjacent school start and finish times placing pupils at risk. This also requires the disabled parking spaces to be relinquished for several weekends each year. How does that work. Part time disabled? Real risk the controlled parking in the area would need to become 24/7 as a number of residents may have cars and they try and park outside the current CPZ operating times. 402 objectors and 22 supporters. This peaks volumes.
-
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now