Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation?

[fazer71]

If Southwark allow the Dulwich Estate will deliver ugly oversized cake.

Yes Liz we can be sure of that.

[Loz]

No, really...

http://images.psxextreme.com/wallpapers/psp/the_cake_is_a_lie_515.jpg

And it's not even a socialist cake, either.

[fazer71]

Loz I know what it is.

Stop stating the obvious / diverting the thread.

It's bad enough with posts about Mansions which are actually just largish houses.!

When most are actually regular sized houses.!

This is about over development ruin by a bunch of old grunters who have been abusing their powers for years.

[fazer71]

Someone get the old grunters at the Dulwich Estate to look at this.

[DulvilleRes]

The Planning Decision for the SG Smith workshop/ garage development will be made this coming Tuesday 14th July by Southwark Council Planning Committee.

The Committee are meeting at 7 pm in room G02, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH.

Local representatives from Gilkes Crescent and Calton Avenue Residents Associations, along with others, will raise concerns about this huge - scale highly disruptive development and it's environmental and road safety implications for Dulwich children. The future of the stocks plaque will also be on the agenda.

If you want to support them, join them on July 14th at North Dulwich Station at 5.50pm for the 6.01 pm train to London Bridge.

The application reference is 14/AP/3104, and it will be first on the agenda.

See SG Smith petition on Change.org for more information.

A local show of concern and support can really help make a difference. Many thanks.

[kudo8]

More info:

http://adf.ly/1HHwe7

[Earl Aelfheah]

Someone should change the title of this thread, as it implies that Dulwich estate has any stated aim of conservation. It's only objective is to maximise its income. So is it fit to run conservation? No, it isn't and it doesn't claim to be.

[intexasatthe moment]

I hope those opposing this dreadful planning application concentrate on planning considerations and not so much on the non relevant traffic disruption /danger to children .

It's been said many times by more eloquent posters than me

" Qwe June 23, 03:41PM

Construction noise, traffic, disruption, danger, etc, are not relevant to the planning decision; these type of issues are not material considerations from a planning point of view - objections of this sort should be ignored by the planners. These objections may, however, raise the background noise level and may increase the chance that someone looks for another reason to reject.

"Any development in a conservation area must conserve or enhance the conservation area - this development does neither, in my opinion. The original layout would enhance the conservation area, and it is possible that the committee, who make the decision, may agree. This is a positive message: development in keeping would be supported by local residents and there would be no reduction in the number of new units.

There may be an angle under the Southwark Core Strategy 13 Environment. The basement is a totally unnecessary development and sets an undesirable precedent for other local developments. This would impact the ability of Southwark to meet their commitment to ensure that new build 'minimise' energy used in the development. The basement is a vanity addition to project, designed to increase profits for the developers, and results in additional, avoidable, cost to the environment - which would appear contrary to the adopted Southwark Core Strategy."

"Re: Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation?

Posted by Penguin68 June 23, 09:07AM

For those concerned about the enormous and unnecessary basement proposed on the SG Smith development site, and it's implications on child safety

Just to make it clear, the basement per se has no implications on child safety - although fears (unsupported by actual facts) about its construction process and resulting vehicle traffic have been raised. All building work has safety implications, of course. Indeed, all life has dangers; one of the jobs of parenthood is to teach children about these dangers so they can act safely. We all have to compromise on our lives at times in order to avoid dangers - compromising around building works has the advantage that these are time limited, and construction dangers are thus relatively short term."

"fazer71 June 23, 02:16PM

The best way to deal with this huge OVERDEVELOPMENT is to use what was originally on this site (ie prior to the bomb damage the horrid SG Smith prefab Garage) as a yardstick to the overall size of any future development.

[www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk]

This is the line of attack we must use against this monstrosity of a proposal.

A refusal from Southwark Conservation given the hundreds of objections is what we should expect.!

There is no way the proposed development meets the requirement of this site, it is blatantly over sized above ground, the scale of any development should represent what was originally built on that site around the turn of the century."

and so on

[fazer71]

completely agree with intexasatthe moment comments above...

I would add

Best NOT to mention the following at the planning meeting all irrelevant to the planning process and decision.

1. Disruption. (This is not a planning consideration all building work can cause disruption)

2. Traffic during construction phase. (Irrelevant to planning decision making process )

3. Danger to children (Planning is about the application nothing else!)

Don't waste time with points 1-3 or similar .

Stick to forcing a refusal on the grounds of over development, scale of proposed design, failure to blend in with or compliment the neighbouring properties ie not in keeping or similar line of attack ..!!!!

The Dulwich Estate have been responsible for numerous mistakes all over the DE this is another mistake which Southwark conservation should refuse.

Much info in the Southwark design plan etc but for conservation purposes scale / size height and design are key .. Apparently ... and this application appears to fail on all conditions ..

Get support with the local MP if you haven't already for the relevant points.

Again forget children noise etc bla bla as a line of argument ... waste of precious time . time you must use to put forward the REAL issues. !

[Earl Aelfheah]

Aboslutely right Fazer71.. appeals on the grounds of child safety will get you nowhere.

[Otta]

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Sorry, someone had to say it.

[DulvilleRes]

If anyone feels strongly on any of the issues this proposed development brings up, I would urge them to get down to the planning committee tomorrow night. Otherwise the way we are heading is a huge piece of over development that will make the two new houses at the end of Court Lane look like cottages. The plan is for a huge basement the size of two Olympic Swimming Pools covering the entire site, justified by the Estate with a rationale bordering on fantasy.

The Dulwich Estate application falls foul of a large number of national and local planning guidelines, but for all the efforts of local residents pouring hours into rationally arguing the case, pitting their efforts against the paid Dulwich Estate Planning Consultants, the Council Officers in their recommendations to the Planning Committee are pretty well fully endorsing the Estate's position. Their rationale seems to be they are getting some (largely off site) affordable housing out of it. No one I've spoken to is against either development or affordable housing, but on a scale in keeping with the area. A show of strength might help focus the Committee's mind on the fact that many see this as a rotten proposal on every level.

[Glemham]

DulvilleRes is absolutely right about the over-development on the site.

These large houses will be completely out of keeping with this conservation area. As has been pointed out on other posts, the Estate cares only about maximising profits for the Foundation schools. Several of these are now multi-million pound 'industries' with expansion programmes that completely disregard the residential nature of the local area so I'd like to see the Estate justify its pursuit of profit above all else.

The site lends itself well to a smaller development of housing suitable for local residents looking to downsize in retirement, thereby freeing up larger houses for families. There is excellent access to public transport and shops, and if needed, a car-sharing project could be incorporated into the development - ticking the boxes for Southwark's policy on reducing car use. There would then be no need for underground garaging, and consequently much less heavy construction traffic.

Unlike other local authorities neither the Estate nor the Council currently have any stated policy on the construction of basements - an area of some controversy in other parts of London. If the current proposal is given planning permission neither body will find it easy to deny permission to future developers.

Finally it's quite likely that these, in my view, ugly and highly undesirable houses will be bought up by investors seeking somewhere to park their cash and not their families.

[keane]

I will oppose the development Under the grounds of overdevelopment but agree with previous posters that the safety of children argument is not strong enough. Have to say the line about larger houses being freed up for families has made me laugh - I don't know of any families - mine included who could possibly ever afford the price tag of a house in Dulwich Village!

[intexasatthe moment]

How did the meeting go ?

[EDOldie]

Passed

[intexasatthe moment]

Of course ,so sorry .

Lots of conditions at least ? Amendments to design ?

Understand if no one has heart to reply .

[EDOldie]

No don't think so. I'm told it was five for, one against and two abstentions. Local democracy in action!!

[intexasatthe moment]

Sorry to state the Bl**ding obvious but something very wrong in way planning applications considered ,if only that councillors abstain on such an important issue .

But maybe I just don't understand .

[DulvilleRes]

The Planning Committee last night approved the Dulwich Estate's plans for the SG Smith site without a single change.

There was a great turn our from local residents and a spirited opposition in their allotted 3 mins of speaking on the grounds of overdevelopment, breaches of Southwark's own planning guidelines on basements, garden size, heritage and the Dulwich Village Conservation area, and concern over child safety in the Construction management Process.

Everyone who was there was of the view, whether true or not, that the result was a foregone conclusion - the feeling was it wouldn't have mattered who turned and and what was said. In fact our local MP Helen Hayes did turn up to speak on residents behalf, rushing from the Commons to do so, but against custom in these committees (Simon Hughes would do it regularly), she wasn't allowed to say a word. The Council uploaded some key documents about the basement construction submitted by Dulwich Estate, much of which looks highly dubious, only last Friday, so concerned local residents had no chance analyse or comment. The Planning consultants claimed that they didn't know Dulwich Village Infants School was split site. This is how much attention they pay to a 538 signature petition on child safety, and the feedback of local residents.

If you continue to feel strongly about this development you can:

write to John Major, in charge of the Dulwich Estate - the developer

Helen Hayes - your local MP

Your local councillors

The head teachers of Dulwich College, Alleyns and JAGS - schools which are all the ultimate beneficiaries of the cash raised by this development. Two of them, Dr Jospeh Spence (Dulwich College), and Dr Gary Savage (Alleyns), according to information I can find, are also on the Dulwich Society's Executive Committee. The Society, whose stated aim is 'to foster and safeguard the amenities of Dulwich' were curiously quiet about this development, and did nothing to list the heritage assets on and around the site. Or if you are a member, and feel strongly, you could resign.

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread - there has been a lot of useful information shared.

[Bicknell]

Sounds like the planning councillors just went along with what the officers said. Who runs this council? The people we elect or the officers sitting in Tooley Street?

[intexasatthe moment]

By why did 2 councillors abstain ? Surely they had a view on such a planning issue ?

[DadOf4]

I've only loosely followed this thread so excuse any gross oversights in my post.

First, I agree, this development looks like a nightmare and doesn't fit the "conservation" remit in any way.

However, I think its verging in naive to think that the LA planners were going to reject it. London is desperate for housing and developers all have lots of experience in pushing the planning limits to their acceptable boundary. So, if they don't see any clear breaches, theyre going to accept it.

A much greater chance of stopping this would be by applying pressure to Duliwch estate themselves: these are the people who are trusted to maintain the heritage of the area and these are the people who are driving this through.

This organisation are a law unto themselves, so I dont think there is any "official" route, however they are used to their very comfortable world of collecting money and giving it to 3 of the richest schools in the country (http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1396133,page=1) - and then having the cheek to say that their conversation/preservation work is unrelated. Its clearly not. There is clearly a conflict of interest here between the two.

Make their comfortable life a little less uncomfortable

[EDOldie]

Fully accept that we need more housing in London but this is the wrong sort of development for the area. We needed a much more 'mixed' scheme. There was scope on this site to provide further retail maybe some small offices and some flats both for social housing and people to 'downsize' to but be able to stay in the area. This is a real opportunity missed by an Estate purely looking for short term gain. The Estate and the schools have been here for hundreds of years and need to take a much longer term view to fulfill their obligations to all of their beneficiary's. It is a very sad and sorry day for Dulwich Village. On the council side this just shows how power should be devolved to people who live and work locally. The decision was made centrally and, as usual, very badly.

[fazer71]

Feast or Famine planning madness.

Previously nothing now anything goes.

Very sad.

This will make the ugly court lane houses look small and insignificant.

The Dulwich Estate only care about how much they can screw out of the local community any talk of conservation is biased s&%Te .