Railway Rise demolition

[chazzle]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1477351,page=3

This seems to be back on the table again. If so, be prepared to be bored rigid with me moaning about it again.

[BrandNewGuy]

Please bore us rigid :-) When it comes to dealing with planners and developers, it takes temacity, persistence and eternal vigilance. 'Nil carborundum illegitimi' and all that.

[first mate]

Go Chazzle!

[Zak]

Yes, please keep banging away at it!

It will be a tragedy if they manage to get some dreadful scheme through, which results in the demolition of two of the three cottages.

Is there really no chance of getting them listed by English Heritage, as possibly the only remaining examples of occupied purpose-built station accommodation, developed by the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway in the latter half of the 1800s?

[James Barber]

hi Zak,

Howeverm uch we'd all like to keep that corner with the currently cottage look & feel - the actual cottages have been hugely knocked about over the year and I doubt have sufficient original features to get listed - which is why they sos far haven't I guess. Irony being with sufficient time and other examples going they would eventually have sufficient merit.

The planning system in Sotuhwark now feels extremely developer focused with the national government encouraging this.

The cuts ot council budgets have hugely ecnouraged maximising new council tax. Private homes often little use council services. If they have children the council gets cash per pupil for schools. So with more private homes they have more council tax to spend supporting existing services. The cynic in me suspect this is why the Heygate Estate isn't being replaced with similar levels of social housing.

[chazzle]

James,

We tried to get the cottages and the station building listed with English Heritage:

http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1423554&resourceID=7

I recommend you have a read, but the conclusion was:

"CONCLUSION While of local interest as key elements of the suburban expansion of East Dulwich, individually and as a group East Dulwich Station and Nos. 1-3 Railway Rise, do not possess the special architectural or historic interest in a national context required for designation."

I understand that Southwark does not keep a local list, so we couldn't seek protection that way. Although they have extensions on the back, they do largely retain their original look (and would never have had fancy interior features, given their use.)

I do hope that you will continue to oppose the destruction of these cottages when the plans come round again.

[dimples]

They are such a lovely set of cottages it would be a terrible shame !

[edhistory]

The decision on planning application 11-Ap-0024 (for the old garden centre site) has some planning requirements.

inter alia:

19. To complete three bat surveys before any work is started.

18. To provide 10 bat bricks whether or not bats are found.

There is a labyrinth of application variations to 11-AP-0024 (mainly 12-AP-3023) but I have not seen one setting aside the bat survey requirement.

Can anyone identify where the bat survey was published.

Pretty smart bats that obey Southwark Council and refuse to fly over Railway Rise to Railway Cottages.

John K

[chazzle]

I imagine that if there had been bats in the old waiting room at the station, they will have gone because the building has been left completely open. If I were cynical I would guess we might hear it has to be demolished on safety grounds soon.

[TheArtfulDogger]

OMG

Where will the railway children go if their cottages are demolished?

[James Barber]

Hi chazzle,

Yes, I had seen that and Cllr Roasie Shimell and I have asked for thedecision to be called-in and decided by councillors.

[Jenny1]

I'm sorry this has become an issue again Chazzle - although I know from your comments on the previous thread that you suspected it would.

I'm one of those who objects strongly to the demolition of the cottages on the grounds that they're a unique and characterful part of our architecture in East Dulwich.

You'll continue to have my support and, I suspect, that of many others. Do keep us up to date with what's going on.

[dimples]

Yes you have my support too

[chazzle]

So here we go again - arrive home from work to find a letter announcing St Aidan's is appealing against the decision to throw out their plans to demolish the victorian railway cottages at East Dulwich Station. The form states that they've gone for the grounds of "failure of the Council to give notice of a decision."

I can imagine they considered going for "this would be a really good development that would provide housing for the community" or "the development received overwhelming support" or "the proposal wasn't that bad, apart from the typos, the impenetrable bullshit and the impossible design", but opted for an administrative technicality.

The consultants have asked if I have any questions. I'll contact them when I've calmed down.

[ianr]

> The form states that they've gone for the grounds of "failure of the Council to give notice of a decision."

I think that line is just one of the two alternatives for appeal printed on the form, that they could have crossed out. See sections 9 and 23 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/419/contents/made

[edhistory]

This man:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07659727

is only a consultant.

Who now owns the land?

John K

[mikeb]

All based on public info:

Ivan Bateman bought this property in 2007. He is front man and director of St Aidans Group Limited (Guernsey based). He now seems to live on Jersey, in a nice place by the sea in the south-west of the island. But most of his developments seem to be south London (Crystal Palace, Norwood, Croydon, Brockley), so wonder if he was a local at some point.

For a previous development in Brockley, apparently this was for his own pension plan and not resale / further development. He seems to have started property development about 10 years ago.

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20Committee%20A/20090903/Agenda/a760b9cac780421e876bfa73ec7a33a8Units25AshbyMewsAppendix3September2009.PDF

[Jenny1]

Hi Chazzle. Just to say that I'm really sorry that this has raised it's head again.

There are a lot of people here who would support you in doing all that's possible to save these cottages. I was one of those who objected to the planning application on the grounds that the cottages are a unique and important part of the heritage of the local area.

Just let us know what's needed as the situation evolves.

[chazzle]

I've written to the consultants to ask for an explanation of the appeal. Also to try and find out whether there is a real intention to proceed with this, or if it's some kind of principle. I'm seeing this as a belligerent appeal - I don't believe they could think that they didn't get a fair hearing so will try to exploit any perceived inadequacy in the administration. I let you know what they say.

Question for James Barber: If this appeal were approved could you, and would you (with Cllr Shimell) call this in?

[intexasatthe moment]

chazzle - you will be sent copies of the applicants appeal by the planning inspectorate and comments will also be invited by them .http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/appeals/

Julie Greer of GreerPritchard http://www.greerpritchard.com/services/planningAppeals.asp lives locally I think ( Gilkes Crescent ? ) and is an appeals expert .

I don't know how much she charges though .

Really sorry you're going through this .

[edhistory]

Did you make contact with these guys?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,1576504

Did they find anything helpful?

[ednewmy]

Such a shame.

In my experience, having been on both sides of the appeal process admittedly, these things will almost always go the way of the party seeking planning permission. It essentially renders local planning decisions a complete joke, and just another hoop to be jumped through on the way to the appeal.

I fear for the future of these cottages.

[Borderlands]

In the 1980s Southwark Council was similarly minded to alow development all over the borough because of government wanting to favour development at whatever cost - it's not that different now. It took a huge amount of lobbying by individuals and local amenity societies to convince the politicians to not simply accept council officers' bland advice (and subjective views) and try to save a varied LOCAL townscape - and seemed to me to entail arguing endlessly about keeping more than the very best, most special, most rare. That's not what looking after local character is about. The fear of litigation seemed to numb them to the point where they tried their utmost to ignore the local electorate views. So fed up that this is happening again.

We want to retain distinctiveness which these cottages give. Legal views are simply that. The council needs to be braver about resisting this kind of thing. Just think how much electoral support would be gained by standing up too off-shore companies cashing in their weakness.

[MarkT]

ednewmy

you state: "In my experience, having been on both sides of the appeal process admittedly, these things will almost always go the way of the party seeking planning permission."

Now I've just done a quick check on historic appeals:

http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes

Taking Lordship lane, and a block either side from East Dulwich Station to the old police station by Whately Road, I count 36 appeals recorded. Taking no account of the nature of the application, I find only 9 of those were upheld for the applicant plus 1 partly upheld. Three of those 9 were for the same site address. All others - nearly 75% - are marked "Appeal Dismissed"

Notably the appeal the old garden centre shows appeal dismissed, which I note from higher up this thread is also St Aidens. Is that the same St Aidens who did the large blocks across the Rye? They lost the appeal to add extra storeys in Solomons Passage.

In my limited experience facing government planning inspectors, I find they will take account of a reasoned argument, including any evidence presented with regard to planning policies. This might include for example that in the suburban zone the London Plan limits develpment to 3 storeys.

[DulvilleRes]

In terms to background to development in Southwark, certainly one of the key factors with the SG Smith garage site I've been involved in was the developer - the Dulwich Estate - offered the Council free cash to go and build some social housing elsewhere, in return for getting pretty well unfettered permission to do whatever they wanted.

Having been on the inside of this for over it a year to felt to me that the all the serious negotiation with officers went on away from the public gaze, and that the planning consultation was largely a farce. I think to stop developments like Railway Rise, it needs pressure on the local politicians, who with the exception of our local Labour MP and the Tory Councillor, were useless. There were plenty of grounds to reject the application, as the tireless work of the Gilkes Crescent /Callton Avenue Resident Associations demonstrated.