Decision 2 April - Proposed Development - The Sidings, Railway Rise, SE22

[James Barber]

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. 

[Sue]

Thanks for that, James.

Much of it sounds quite worrying.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, James Barber said:

402 objectors and 22 supporters. This peaks volumes. 

Never let it be said that Southwark Council have ever taken a blind bit of notice of what local residents think. Never let public opinion stand in the way of their grand plan....#comrade! They are charlatans.

[ianr]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Never let it be said that Southwark Council have ever taken a blind bit of notice of what local residents think. Never let public opinion stand in the way of their grand plan....#comrade! They are charlatans.

Who do you mean by 'Southwark Council'?

[first mate]

I would also like to thank James Barber for his full outline. Given what seem to be clear mistakes in interpretation of the plans by Southwark Council planning officers, there seems to have been a lack of due diligence. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

11 hours ago, James Barber said:

This is my take of the scheme and planning committee report:

... 

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. 

...

Each weekend day we can anticipate an extra 50-100 vehicles needing to park before and after dropping students at this proposed development. ...

...
402 objectors and 22 supporters. This peaks volumes. 

On what basis do you object to the economy spend numbers in the report and describe it as "extremely unlikely"? Is that objection based on data or is it vibes-based?

Where does this estimate of "50-100 vehicles" come from?

The objectors:supporters ratio doesn't speak volumes. Planning applications of this sort always receive objections from various curtain twitches and NIMBYs. It doesn't mean those objections are well-founded or sensible. The planning officers and councillors need to consider the issue objectively, not just count the letters. It's not a public vote.

Saying the building is "out of character" is meaningless out of context. It's an unusual building on an unusual infill site. It's not supposed to be a model for future development across Dulwich as a whole. 

We are in the middle of a housing crisis. London desperately needs more housing units. This is an opportunity to get a whole bunch of them on a small, unloved industrial site on top of a transit hub. Not building it because people like the Dulwich Society complains it's "visible" is crazy.

[LordshipPain]

Purely coincidental that there would be lots of Labour voting students living there.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, LordshipPain said:

Purely coincidental that there would be lots of Labour voting students living there.

If they were anticipating foreign students then they may well not be registered to vote! But certainly high student populations can even impact Parliamentary elections, let alone local ones. Wouldn't they be voting in one of the (very) few Southwark wards which have returned non-Labour councilors in the past? Hey ho. Democracy is so last century anyway - as they're finding in the former bastion of the free world. And in our local 'consultation' processes.

[CPR Dave]

My suspicion is they will drop the 53 affordable family homes once they have planning and will apply instead to add another student block there. No one wants to bring their family up on hit site of student halls of residence.

 

I would expect them to be completely unmarketable and would not be at all surprised if an amendment is put after this is granted planning permission tomorrow.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

My suspicion is they will drop the 53 affordable family homes once they have planning

This wouldn't surprise me. I never understand how approval to drop affordable housing commitments is granted post planning permission. Shouldn't be possible, but often seems to happen.

Edited 9 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Diogenes]

18 hours ago, James Barber said:

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. 

This is a great summary, thank you James. Will you come the committee this evening by any chance? It would be great to have you there.

[march46]

 

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

My suspicion is they will drop the 53 affordable family homes once they have planning and will apply instead to add another student block there. No one wants to bring their family up on hit site of student halls of residence.

 

I would expect them to be completely unmarketable and would not be at all surprised if an amendment is put after this is granted planning permission tomorrow.

Could the council put planning conditions in place that would make this impossible?

[exdulwicher]

18 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This wouldn't surprise me. I never understand how approval to drop affordable housing commitments is granted post planning permission. Shouldn't be possible, but often seems to happen.

There are a couple of legal loopholes that can be exploited - basically developers put forward their case and proposal and then magically "discover" that they've overpaid for the land, that if they actually build the proposed affordable homes that their profit margin will drop below an acceptable level and in some cases that it doesn't "fit" - so if you're building 40 luxury homes, well the new owners won't want paupers living next door will they now!

The consequence is that there are very few affordable new homes being built which, paradoxically, drives the prices of them ever higher. Really the only way they get built is to have them on greenfield sites out of the way but that then demands that the owners require a car to get anywhere or do anything - which is a very significant extra cost of living that many of the people buying these affordable new homes can't umm...afford.

Gets brought up in a lot of transport matters - in an ideal world, you'd build on brownfield sites near to existing services (such as here) but that puts the price of the land up because it's more desirable, more convenient etc. And that makes affordable homes non-viable - in the exact place they're needed most.

Pretty terrible planning system really, the Government have needed to get a grip on this for decades but house-ownership and house prices have become a very significant part of the UK economy.

 

[the_hermit]

https://ukfoundations.co/

They highlight the most important economic fact about modern Britain: that it is difficult to build almost anything, anywhere. This prevents investment, increases energy costs, and makes it harder for productive economic clusters to expand. This, in turn, lowers our productivity, incomes, and tax revenues.

In many cases today, as many of 40 percent of a new development’s homes must be subsidised for ‘affordable’ renters instead of being made available at market rates. These requirements function as a tax on new housing (and so local objectors often support them), redistributing income from every other private tenant to a lucky few. Countries with expensive rental housing also see movements for rent controls, and punitive rental regulations, like giving every tenant the permanent right to live in the property they occupy.

[malumbu]

So you are against affordable rents and ownership for those on low incomes, key workers etc.  Who is going to clean our buildings, serve in our shops, and look after us when we are old or ill?

Some state intervention, particularly social housing, extremely welcome.  Sorry if I have misquoted you.

Meanwhile with the quality of football I'm surprised that DHFC aren't considering relocating to Peckham Town FC.  

[James Barber]

7 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

On what basis do you object to the economy spend numbers in the report and describe it as "extremely unlikely"? Is that objection based on data or is it vibes-based?

Where does this estimate of "50-100 vehicles" come from?

The objectors:supporters ratio doesn't speak volumes. Planning applications of this sort always receive objections from various curtain twitches and NIMBYs. It doesn't mean those objections are well-founded or sensible. The planning officers and councillors need to consider the issue objectively, not just count the letters. It's not a public vote.

Saying the building is "out of character" is meaningless out of context. It's an unusual building on an unusual infill site. It's not supposed to be a model for future development across Dulwich as a whole. 

We are in the middle of a housing crisis. London desperately needs more housing units. This is an opportunity to get a whole bunch of them on a small, unloved industrial site on top of a transit hub. Not building it because people like the Dulwich Society complains it's "visible" is crazy.

Hi Hillbilly,

Your obviously correct that the committee members must consider the scheme in the context of planning laws, Southwark Policy documents. Those policy documents are clear the site should be considered suburban. As a Councillor when this was decided I can assure we considered this site and all others in the then East dulwich Ward and the Dulwich Community Council area. Ignoring that as the officer report does unconvincingly in my view would be a poor decision.

The officer report states I believe highly inflated economic benefit of students to help justify the scheme. I have a student currently and they really don't have the sums being talked about and nor do their network for friends. 

The council officers report states students will move in at the academic yea start over two weekends/4 days. 360 students will suggest worst case 360 cars. Unlikely to be perfectly balanced hence 50-100 vehicles per day. 

The proposed building top 2-3 floors look like metal cladding and not the local vernacular of bricks and tiled roofs. The top two stories and roof enclosures will be invisible for some distance. I don't think it unreasonable to call that out of character for the area. I think it would be hard to argue it would be in keeping. 

Yes, we have a housing crisis. But we have falling student numbers. The site could be used for more regular homes that the proposed 53. Southwark has the highest number of unoccupied homes for a borough. Southwark Council fixing that and they have plenty of powers to really dent those figures. 

The development will have a huge negative impact on the neighbouring streets in dominance of the proposed structures parking pressures, etc. Your username suggests you wont be one of those affected. Nor will I directly. But I hate to see injustice from a poorly thought through scheme.

If you feel strongly you could attend the Planning Committee Tonight as supporter.

 

1 minute ago, malumbu said:

So you are against affordable rents and ownership for those on low incomes, key workers etc.  Who is going to clean our buildings, serve in our shops, and look after us when we are old or ill?

Some state intervention, particularly social housing, extremely welcome.  Sorry if I have misquoted you.

Meanwhile with the quality of football I'm surprised that DHFC aren't considering relocating to Peckham Town FC.  

Hi malibu, Far from. The homes completed on Bassano and Hindmans were sites I proposed to the council for them consider for new council homes. I have campaigned for the council to approve schemes with 35% social housing for many years.

I dare not comment on people football team :-0

48 minutes ago, the_hermit said:

https://ukfoundations.co/

They highlight the most important economic fact about modern Britain: that it is difficult to build almost anything, anywhere. This prevents investment, increases energy costs, and makes it harder for productive economic clusters to expand. This, in turn, lowers our productivity, incomes, and tax revenues.

In many cases today, as many of 40 percent of a new development’s homes must be subsidised for ‘affordable’ renters instead of being made available at market rates. These requirements function as a tax on new housing (and so local objectors often support them), redistributing income from every other private tenant to a lucky few. Countries with expensive rental housing also see movements for rent controls, and punitive rental regulations, like giving every tenant the permanent right to live in the property they occupy.

Hi the-permit, Southwark has zoning for density to protect the character of areas and to protect peoples confidence to move into, purchase and live and put down roots in areas. East Dulwich is under Southwark planning rules suburban. In the north of the borough the density rules are much higher.

1 hour ago, march46 said:

 

Could the council put planning conditions in place that would make this impossible?

Yes they could. developers quite often get approval for a size of scheme. Sit on it and then come back for the same site but more. It might be a new feasibility study to say they can no longer afford that much social housing, etc. Classic developer gaming of the system.

5 hours ago, LordshipPain said:

Purely coincidental that there would be lots of Labour voting students living there.

We don't yet know the pricing of the student accommodation but the Champion Hill student accommodation when open was priced around the £200 pw mark. Some is proposed to be discounted, but likely that will inflate the mainstream pricing. You have to be a rich student for such prices. It resulted in mostly foreign students affording that.  Any developer is likely to set their pricing close to this.

For transparency I live on Champion Hill.

[the_hermit]

Quote

Hi the-permit, Southwark has zoning for density to protect the character of areas and to protect peoples confidence to move into, purchase and live and put down roots in areas. East Dulwich is under Southwark planning rules suburban. In the north of the borough the density rules are much higher.

There are excuses like this everywhere people want to build anything, which is why the UK economy is in such a state.  Each individual project holdup like this (and the mast on Dog Kennel Hill) seems small in isolation but the compound effect of it UK-wide is why we are so unproductive and why there is no money for anything else like the NHS, fixing roads, collecting bins and so on.

I'd be interested to know how the zoning rules (which of course can be changed!) compare to other much more liveable cities in northern and central Europe.  I doubt cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Zurich etc have inner areas like Darrell Road (to pick an extreme example) with bungalows!

The "confidence to move into" argument is just pulling up the ladder.  Before East Dulwich was built it was presumably green fields?  Should East Dulwich residents have right to preserve everything in aspic to disadvantage over the generations that follow?

Edited 7 hours ago by the_hermit

[James Barber]

3 minutes ago, the_hermit said:

There are excuses like this everywhere people want to build anything, which is why the UK economy is in such a state.  Each individual project holdup like this (and the mast on Dog Kennel Hill) seems small in isolation but the compound effect of it UK-wide is why we are so unproductive and why there is no money for anything else like the NHS, fixing roads, collecting bins and so on.

I'd be interested to know how the zoning rules (which of course can be changed!) compare to other much more liveable cities in northern and central Europe.  I doubt cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Zurich etc have inner areas like Darrell Road (to pick an extreme example) with bungalows!

The "confidence to move into" argument is just pulling up the ladder.  Before East Dulwich was built it was presumably green fields?  Should East Dulwich residents have right to preserve everything in aspic to disadvantage over the generations that follow?

The US has been one of the most dynamic high growth economies for several years. They have planning zones. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

Two recent mobile phone mast applications in the area. Both of such terribly poor quality they were refused. They both broke the code of conduct all mobile operators singed up to. The agents were just trying it on. So huge cost of repetition and low productivity. Planning is blamed but it's just shoddy work. 

Recent case of the new Kent Thame tunnel talking about £200m of planning costs - which turned out to be design, project planning and planning. I would suggest mostly the former. 

It is lazy to blame planning process and generally by those who wont a no holes bar approach for their schemes without any consideration of the opportunity cost imposed on others.

[ED_moots]

In case it hasn't been mentioned. Southwark planning committee voted to Approve the scheme.

None of the concerns were properly addressed. The myopic view of the panel was 'this gets us 31 social and 22 affordable properties' including our own Councillor Mccash who spoke broadly in favour of the scheme on this basis. 

Very disappointing for those objecting. 

Edited 1 hour ago by ED_moots