Proposed Development - The Sidings, Railway Rise, SE22

[march46]

I see the objections have almost doubled over the weekend, with many concerns being raised about the impact on the neighbouring Charter East site.
 

Interesting to read this objection from a local business. The access through a narrow passageway (4 metres wide?) for 500+ pedestrians being shared with vehicular access for car parking, deliveries and taxis doesn’t sound sensible.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 10/10/2024 at 16:25, Penguin68 said:

 student accommodation is by definition short-term.... But I do suspect hidden agendas here.

1) Student accommodation is NOT by definition short term. Short term lets are for 90 days or less.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/housing-and-land/improving-private-rented-sector/guidance-short-term-and-holiday-lets-london

2) it's easy to imagine things are a conspiracy when you don't understand how they work.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Penguin68]

3 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Student accommodation is NOT by definition short term. Short term lets are for 90 days or less.

You are right, technically there is a legal thing called a Short Term Let, but student let's are unlikely to be for more than 3 years, and are frequently one year (and in fact only occupied often September to July) whereas the crying need is for family housing for several years continuously. Hence my use of (lower case) 'short term' to describe typical student tenancies. 

Lets to student nurses are more likely to be continuous and for a longer period than a year, but the Dulwich Society comment on the nature of the rooms on offer does suggest that most would want to move out to something less cell like if they could. 

 

Edited October 24, 2024 by Penguin68

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Plus ca change

During WWI, Vera Brittain worked as a VAD nurse at the 1st London General Hospital, Camberwell - the military extension of St Bartholomew's Hospital.

The satellite hostel was nearly two miles away on Champion Hill.

 

"...it seemed strange to be the quarter-possessor of a bare-boarded room divided into cubicles by much-washed curtains of no recognisable colour, with only a bed, a washstand and a tiny chest of drawers to represent one's earthly possessions...

to meet the needs of about twenty young women, was one cold bathroom equipped with an ancient and unreliable geyser...which took about twenty minutes to half fill the bath with lukewarm water."

 

Edited to add source: "Testament of Youth" by Vera Brittain published 1933.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Peckhamgatecrasher

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Totally bizarre narratives being pushed on this thread: student accommodation shouldn't be allowed because there aren't any universities nearby (news flash: London students commute like everyone else) and because only affordable housing should ever be built (news flash: that's not going to happen).

This is a little sliver of land on an industrial site over a transport link. If we don't let student housing get built here, it's just not going to get developed. Right now it is housing no-one.

[James Barber]

It seems we've lost focus on the proposals being for outlandish 8 stories high - way out keeping for the area. 3x higher than the norm for East Dulwich. 

 

[march46]

The objection on behalf of The Dulwich Society highlights the overdevelopment of the site but also the lack of habitat buffer to the adjacent green corridor and the missed opportunity to include a low line walking route, as noted in the Southwark Plan for the site. 

Well worth a read, they make lots of sensible points.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

5 hours ago, James Barber said:

It seems we've lost focus on the proposals being for outlandish 8 stories high - way out keeping for the area. 3x higher than the norm for East Dulwich. 

The existing student accommodation on Burrow Rd (a couple of streets away) is 7 storeys tall + a service floor. No-one has their knickers in a twist about that building.

In any case, we have a housing crisis. We can't carry on with the "norm". That's what got us into this mess. If we are not going to build dense on ex-industrial sites overlooking a train station, then where are we going to build more housing? On playing fields?

[march46]

This image from their daylight assessment doc is helpful to understand the scale and why so many objections have raised concerns about the student bedrooms in the development facing into Charter East classrooms.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Heber Rd primary school is surrounded by houses. Dulwich Wood primary school is surrounded by blocks of flats. A block of flats faces onto the back of Kingswood.  Alleyns wasn't shy to put up portakabin classrooms directly opposite the houses on Hillsboro Rd for years!

Meanwhile we've got the Dulwich Society objecting to construction that is "visible"...

[ED_moots]

On 26/10/2024 at 15:12, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The existing student accommodation on Burrow Rd (a couple of streets away) is 7 storeys tall + a service floor. No-one has their knickers in a twist about that building.

In any case, we have a housing crisis. We can't carry on with the "norm". That's what got us into this mess. If we are not going to build dense on ex-industrial sites overlooking a train station, then where are we going to build more housing? On playing fields?

Hambledon Court is not student accommodation. It's for key workers and NHS staff. It's also less than 1/3 size of The Sidings proposal and, as you say, not as high.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

7 storeys + a service floor is the same as 8 storeys without a service floor. It overlooks a school playing field. No-one is complaining about the existing building or suggesting it has rUiNeD tHe NeIgHbOuRhOoD

[Sally Eva]

https://www.samuels-solicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-view

 

There is no legal right to a view. This applies both here and at the Aylsham Centre vis a vis the view from the top of the car park

[pecksniff]

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=SHWOSNKBJXR00&activeTab=summary

It appears there have been some revisions made to this proposed development. They incl introduction of basement, lower ground, upper ground and up to 6 storeys. Unclear about commercial space. 

[johnrich]

There seems to have been further amendments dated 19th Dec on this, it's hard to keep up with what's happening here and obviously submitting this over Christmas is not helpful to anyone but the developers . This still looks like many of the original problems suggested by the locals haven't been addressed. Anyone with insight into the main changes? still seems an overdevelopment of the site.