Rejected overdevelopment on Lordship Lane being appealed - Deadline 10th March

[Cora]

Editing this thread to say that the rejected planning application to overdevelop the corner of Lordship Lane above ESPH gym, next to the cinema, is being appealed and is going to the Secretary of State. The deadline for comments is the 10th March. Please, if you didn't know about this (it was first applied for during Covid Lockdown Christmas and then again during the school holidays last year) or get round to commenting during the first round please take the time to do so before 10th March.

Comments can be made online at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

or in writing to The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2, The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN

You must quote the reference: APP/A5840/W/21/3286708

I've added our original objection below so that you can get a feel of some of the issues, particularly the effect it will have blocking the skyline in this popular part of East Dulwich. Other comments and the original planning applications can be found on the planning website (21/AP/2284)

'We would like to object to this application for the overdevelopment of 116 Lordship Lane which will overshadow the low lying original buildings opposite and adjacent to the site and set an unwelcome precedent for the area as a whole.

The re-design following the withdrawal of a previous application (20/AP/3185), although an improvement aesthetically, does nothing to address the overdevelopment concerns.

Overdevelopment/Light:

The existing building is presently seen as a low, ground and first floor brick building on the corner intersection of a row of brick houses/flats, going down Bassano Street, and at the tail end of a beautifully converted church that now houses the Picturehouse Cinema on the Lordship Lane fa?ade.

The area is an allocated suburban area which has maintained a 'villagey' feel at the heart of East Dulwich. This is due in large part to the many small independent shops and restaurants housed in original low-rise brick buildings on this small unique stretch of Lordship Lane (much more so compared to other areas lower down Lordship Lane which experienced bomb damage in the past and were therefore re-built at a later date).

It welcomes a large number of visitors throughout the week who benefit from the natural light afforded from the low lying buildings, particularly from this corner. A developing trend, especially in these Covid times is for alfresco drinking and dining along the stretch and natural sunlight is an important attraction.

The application suggests that the development merely reaches the height of the neighbouring buildings, failing to point out that the neighbouring church has a tall, sloping pitch roof which the existing 116 building joins at the bottom of the pitch to continue the flow of it at the low end of the slope. Adding two more storeys will completely break the existing flow of the skyline. It will also block a significant amount of natural light to the high street, particularly after midday, as the buildings are on the west hand side.

Although a previous planning application has allowed for half a third floor addition to the building, it was placed towards the back of the site and would not therefore affect the fa?ade going onto Lordship Lane. This application proposes to swamp the corner by filling and squaring it off. An earlier, withdrawn application (20/AP/3185) attempted to make light, within its copy, of the sheer size, scale and impact of the proposed scheme, describing it as 'the erection of a lightweight extension'. This revised scheme is at least the same size as the previous one. Adding two full storeys to a suburban building is not a 'lightweight extension' and although these words have wisely been removed in this amended application, a re-design cannot disguise the incongruous scale and impact of the build.

Design:

The design is apparently trying to display two distinct looks; the existing 'historical' and 'contemporary Industrial' with a 'choice of material clearly defining the past from the present' - It doesn't say why. We suspect that maximising profit margins over maintaining or improving the local aesthetic is the reason. It is disingenuous to build an overdevelopment around the 'historic theme' of the existing building to then just slap two more storeys on top supposedly 'to fuse the historical with the contemporary' for no justifiable reason except in an attempt to 'sell' the project with estate agent speak.

The historical nature and scale of the original should be maintained in this unique area at the heart of East Dulwich, not compromised for profit margins in the disguise of architectural fusion.

As well as the overwhelming size of the development we would like to object to other, more logistical weaknesses in the plan, notably parking, bin storage and noise issues.

Parking:

Nothing is mentioned about car ownership in relation to the additional units. Bassano St and the surrounding roads already have a shortage of parking both for local residents and for the necessary short-term parking needed by shoppers who keep the local shops afloat and visitors to the gym. A development of three new council houses has already been approved on Bassano St which will already add to the parking pressures. Adding more potential cars to the neighbourhood is unsustainable. Providing cycle racks does not prevent car ownership. Would conditions be added preventing future owners from owning cars and from being issued with CPZ permits?

Refuse Management:

We are also very concerned about the logistics of the bin storage. In the existing and proposed plans it looks like the bin space is the same. This is with a minimum of 14 extra bins (7 green and 7 blue + compost). If the storage space is deemed sufficient, we would like to know more about the logistics. The paths on Bassano Street and Lordship Lane are very busy with pedestrians and, especially on the corner, there are already a plethora of bins from existing residents, the cinema and gym. It is at times already difficult to ensure easy access for pedestrians. Do all these bins get brought out onto the street on a Tuesday for emptying? No-one will be able to get past. Who's responsibility will it be for the bins to be put back in straight away? As well as mobile pedestrians, there is a need to consider pushchairs and those with mobility issues, including clients of the gym below who are often visiting for physio appointments.

Noise:

As residents of Bassano Street, we are pleased to see that the balconies running along the street have been removed from the initial application but are still concerned that the many large windows could still encourage outside access and noise issues. Acoustics on the street mean that if we have our window open, then every word can be heard across the road. Luckily we do not play music very often.

We would request a condition put on any development of the site that windows on Bassano St should be sealed or partially opening only.

The balconies originally proposed for Bassano Street have been moved to the other side of the units and added to the 'Outside Amenity Area' on the roof. These are still likely to result in noise issues for existing residents whose bedrooms back onto the same site. To prevent just these noise issues, the cinema (which these 'balconies and 'Amenity Area' would back onto) was asked to cover the courtyard within their own renovation, thus successfully containing the noise.

Outdoor spaces add a premium onto a flat and help get applications passed if they need a certain footage of 'amenity space' to get passed, but the reality is that they can cause a great deal of disturbance to existing neighbouring residents.

Finally, the sketch and photo given in the application are taken at an angle, and as such (purposely?) do not, we believe, show the reality of the height and impact of the development face on. We would ask planners, residents and councillors to visit this unique site themselves to truly appreciate the affect this development will have on the surrounding area before making any decisions based on paper images.

*We would also like to highlight that once again this developer has tried to push through a large development at a time when a great number of local residents are away and not available to review the application. The previous application was during Christmas week, while the community dealt with the pandemic and this time round it has been submitted during the summer holidays. These tactics should be taken into account when looking at the fairness of the consultation.

Below is the original post:

This is a large development for flats (none of which are for social housing), proposed to be 2 storeys above the existing building facing Lordship Lane. No extra parking spaces, no extra space for bins and most importantly to all who enjoy the feel, particularly of this little stretch of Lordship lane with its alfresco dining and views of the old church, turned cinema, it will massively change the low level skyline.

Following their cynical attempt to put in this overdevelopment application in during the Covid Christmas (see withdrawn application 20/AP/3185 for initial design and objectors comments), Parkhill are now trying the 'summer holiday' planning application for a revised but similarly sized development: Made at the beginning of the holidays and all done and dusted before everyone comes back!

PLEASE don't let their underhand methods prevail, and take time to look and comment on the application (even if it's from the beach!).

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QVIPI3KBGSO00

The reference is 21/AP/2284 and details can be found on Southwark planning website.

[https://planning.southwark.gov.uk]

For ease I have attached a couple of photos.

Thanks in advance for taking the time.

[Nigello]

Four storey housing on a main road isn?t OTT. My transient fuzzy feeling about how lucky I am to live in SE22 as I swing my bag of Mons cheese and lick my Oddono?s gelato as I contemplate which mid-week art house film to see really doesn?t trump the right of others to live here.

[rachp]

Although Nigello, as I?m sure you agree, until Southwark sorts out it?s woeful approach to rubbish disposal on high streets, more people with no access to bins on Lordship Lane is not a good idea.

[JohnL]

Still seem to be allowing gas fired central heating in each home then. I thought that would be designed out by now.

[Nigello]

Yes, I agree that the rubbish aspect has to be improved on but that is not a reason to deny new housing. Who knows about car ownership - perhaps those who move in won't have a vehicle anyway, or not be that bothered about parking on street? Some developments are egregious but I don't think this is, at least not with tweaks.

[kford]

That'll kill the evening sun on Bruno's seating area

[redpost]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Yes, I agree that the rubbish aspect has to be

> improved on but that is not a reason to deny new

> housing. Who knows about car ownership - perhaps

> those who move in won't have a vehicle anyway, or

> not be that bothered about parking on street? Some

> developments are egregious but I don't think this

> is, at least not with tweaks.

The planning application includes rubbish and cycling storage

They're adding 2 storeys which I don't think is excessive at all for a main road

Although I would like to see a clause forbidding car ownership for occupiers

[Nigello]

The O P said no space for extra bins - which is correct? I can't see provision for refuse storage being allowed to be exempted, so if that can be fixed, then I wouldn't be against it.

[Jules-and-Boo]

People have to live somewhere.

Although I don't know why anyone would choose to buy an overpriced property on a very polluted high street.

[Beej]

Oh come on, it's hardly the streets of Delhi!

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> People have to live somewhere.

>

> Although I don't know why anyone would choose to

> buy an overpriced property on a very polluted high

> street.

[Cora]

From what I can see the bin storage is the same in the existing and proposed plans.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am interested to know how the logistics would work, where the bins are going to go on 'bin day' or do the bin men go in and collect? Nice service! That area of Bassano street is already chocca with the bins from the cinema. The path isn't wide as it is.

Personally I think light in our high streets is really important and I doubt there is a shortage of expensive flats for sale in East Dulwich.

[first mate]

Will the bus stop remain? It doesn't seem to feature in the drawings. The plans also indicate that a route for foul/ sewage water is at this time not known. Perhaps this is entirely normal for plans at this stage but one wonders if it might entail large scale roadworks at some point?

[alice]

I think it's entirely in keeping with the rest of lordship.

[Metallic]

It looks good.

[Cora]

10 days until the 10th August deadline.

Here's our objection:

'We would like to object to this application for the overdevelopment of 116 Lordship Lane which will overshadow the low lying original buildings opposite and adjacent to the site and set an unwelcome precedent for the area as a whole.

The re-design following the withdrawal of a previous application (20/AP/3185), although an improvement aesthetically, does nothing to address the overdevelopment concerns.

Overdevelopment/Light:

The existing building is presently seen as a low, ground and first floor brick building on the corner intersection of a row of brick houses/flats, going down Bassano Street, and at the tail end of a beautifully converted church that now houses the Picturehouse Cinema on the Lordship Lane fa?ade.

The area is an allocated suburban area which has maintained a 'villagey' feel at the heart of East Dulwich. This is due in large part to the many small independent shops and restaurants housed in original low-rise brick buildings on this small unique stretch of Lordship Lane (much more so compared to other areas lower down Lordship Lane which experienced bomb damage in the past and were therefore re-built at a later date).

It welcomes a large number of visitors throughout the week who benefit from the natural light afforded from the low lying buildings, particularly from this corner. A developing trend, especially in these Covid times is for alfresco drinking and dining along the stretch and natural sunlight is an important attraction.

The application suggests that the development merely reaches the height of the neighbouring buildings, failing to point out that the neighbouring church has a tall, sloping pitch roof which the existing 116 building joins at the bottom of the pitch to continue the flow of it at the low end of the slope. Adding two more storeys will completely break the existing flow of the skyline. It will also block a significant amount of natural light to the high street, particularly after midday, as the buildings are on the west hand side.

Although a previous planning application has allowed for half a third floor addition to the building, it was placed towards the back of the site and would not therefore affect the fa?ade going onto Lordship Lane. This application proposes to swamp the corner by filling and squaring it off. An earlier, withdrawn application (20/AP/3185) attempted to make light, within its copy, of the sheer size, scale and impact of the proposed scheme, describing it as 'the erection of a lightweight extension'. This revised scheme is at least the same size as the previous one. Adding two full storeys to a suburban building is not a 'lightweight extension' and although these words have wisely been removed in this amended application, a re-design cannot disguise the incongruous scale and impact of the build.

Design:

The design is apparently trying to display two distinct looks; the existing 'historical' and 'contemporary Industrial' with a 'choice of material clearly defining the past from the present' - It doesn't say why. We suspect that maximising profit margins over maintaining or improving the local aesthetic is the reason. It is disingenuous to build an overdevelopment around the 'historic theme' of the existing building to then just slap two more storeys on top supposedly 'to fuse the historical with the contemporary' for no justifiable reason except in an attempt to 'sell' the project with estate agent speak.

The historical nature and scale of the original should be maintained in this unique area at the heart of East Dulwich, not compromised for profit margins in the disguise of architectural fusion.

As well as the overwhelming size of the development we would like to object to other, more logistical weaknesses in the plan, notably parking, bin storage and noise issues.

Parking:

Nothing is mentioned about car ownership in relation to the additional units. Bassano St and the surrounding roads already have a shortage of parking both for local residents and for the necessary short-term parking needed by shoppers who keep the local shops afloat and visitors to the gym. A development of three new council houses has already been approved on Bassano St which will already add to the parking pressures. Adding more potential cars to the neighbourhood is unsustainable. Providing cycle racks does not prevent car ownership. Would conditions be added preventing future owners from owning cars and from being issued with CPZ permits?

Refuse Management:

We are also very concerned about the logistics of the bin storage. In the existing and proposed plans it looks like the bin space is the same. This is with a minimum of 14 extra bins (7 green and 7 blue + compost). If the storage space is deemed sufficient, we would like to know more about the logistics. The paths on Bassano Street and Lordship Lane are very busy with pedestrians and, especially on the corner, there are already a plethora of bins from existing residents, the cinema and gym. It is at times already difficult to ensure easy access for pedestrians. Do all these bins get brought out onto the street on a Tuesday for emptying? No-one will be able to get past. Who's responsibility will it be for the bins to be put back in straight away? As well as mobile pedestrians, there is a need to consider pushchairs and those with mobility issues, including clients of the gym below who are often visiting for physio appointments.

Noise:

As residents of Bassano Street, we are pleased to see that the balconies running along the street have been removed from the initial application but are still concerned that the many large windows could still encourage outside access and noise issues. Acoustics on the street mean that if we have our window open, then every word can be heard across the road. Luckily we do not play music very often.

We would request a condition put on any development of the site that windows on Bassano St should be sealed or partially opening only.

The balconies originally proposed for Bassano Street have been moved to the other side of the units and added to the 'Outside Amenity Area' on the roof. These are still likely to result in noise issues for existing residents whose bedrooms back onto the same site. To prevent just these noise issues, the cinema (which these 'balconies and 'Amenity Area' would back onto) was asked to cover the courtyard within their own renovation, thus successfully containing the noise.

Outdoor spaces add a premium onto a flat and help get applications passed if they need a certain footage of 'amenity space' to get passed, but the reality is that they can cause a great deal of disturbance to existing neighbouring residents.

Finally, the sketch and photo given in the application are taken at an angle, and as such (purposely?) do not, we believe, show the reality of the height and impact of the development face on. We would ask planners, residents and councillors to visit this unique site themselves to truly appreciate the affect this development will have on the surrounding area before making any decisions based on paper images.

*We would also like to highlight that once again this developer has tried to push through a large development at a time when a great number of local residents are away and not available to review the application. The previous application was during Christmas week, while the community dealt with the pandemic and this time round it has been submitted during the summer holidays. These tactics should be taken into account when looking at the fairness of the consultation.

[KalamityKel]

Have to say I admire your conviction and persistence. Sadly, they've approved so many similar structures already along the lane, the M&S site is a classic example, AND with the same types of objections and failures in procedures along the way that I can't see planning paying much attention to what people who actually live in the effected areas think.

Apparently "change" should be embraced *sighs

[Cora]

Deadline for comments this Tuesday for those that may have just returned from holidays....

[Nigello]

I think they do pay attention. Just because a result does not go in your favour does not mean that attention has not been paid. (Your = nobody in particular)

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

I used to live in a converted block of flats in North London where residents were not permitted to get parking permits. I expect many new builds and conversions will be like that in the future.

fwiw I think in a few years with more electric engines Lordship Lane will be much quieter and the air cleaner. Being a couple of floors up will help.

" I doubt there is a shortage of expensive flats for sale in East Dulwich"

Flats in East Dulwich aren't going to get cheaper if we don't allow any more of them to be built!

[Cora]

Have updated original post with details of the new deadline for appeal comments.

[CPR Dave]

If you look at what they have allowed above the old House of Tippler (alongside the M and S development) then it seems anything goes on Lordship Ln now.

Sorry about that.

[Cyclemonkey]

That development above M&S is rather ridiculous, it always seems to have chunks knocked out of it due to the deliver lorries, suggesting the space is rather over developed.

I also realised, having to use E Dulwich station a number of times last month, it is very very close to the station, you can see rifht in to some of the flats

[goldilocks]

The chunks being knocked out of the station development are the lorries turning into the woodyard up the lane. I guess ultimately that will all become housing too and then the problem will end. But there are probably a good few years of having the corner of the block knocked off!

[first mate]

Given the building yard existed many,many years before this development the regular damage to the new development by delivery lorries points to poor design by developers (greed) and poor planning decisions by S'wark.

The M&S site on Lordship Lane suffered similar issues, where the blindingly obvious shortcomings of the site footprint and access were systematically ignored by developers and planning.

[Cora]

Little nudge.

Deadline in two days time, on Thursday 10th March.