Railway Rise demolition

[Penguin68]

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"

However I do think you need to take into account re-submitted applications, where only minor or cosmetic changes have been made (if you haven't). I wonder how many, as it were 'overall' applications to make significant changes have, in the end, not got through. I believe some developers apply initially for something they feel has little chance of success, believing that a subsequent, slightly 'scaled back' application will be more readily acceded to.

[chazzle]

The developers have discussed scaled back options with the council officers but were knocked back. My understanding is that the appeal will be on the original four storey block. They have mentioned scaled back options in the appeal document, but I think these should be dismissed as being out of scope.

I had a reply from the Southwark planner yesterday saying the clock hasn't started yet on the appeal. When it does, they will be putting up the usual notices and informing locals affected. Made me feel a bit more positive as with a proper airing, I think it will be clear that the original decision was robust.

[first mate]

Chazzle, obviously a different kind of development, but with The old Iceland site there were robust objections which were accepted by planning and carried for a number if applications, then on further appeal those same objections were suddenly overturned and rejected by planning.

Do stay positive but try to make your objections as watertight as possible within planning law/policy for the area.

I have seen a number of cases where there has been clear breach of policy but planning has folded under repeated applications from the developer, and the same reason given each time, that planning fear if it goes to appeal and they lose that costs will be awarded to the developer....bad PR, setting precedents etc. However big developers know this as do Councillors, so what we end up with is an elaborate and protracted "planning dance" but with outcomes that may not concur with the local policy.

[Borderlands]

This is my experience too. When a planning decision is called in and oppositional arguments are clearly stated with very good illustrative material (and maps that aren't favourably adjusted with, say, red inner lining to a plot to minimise apparent impact) - AND most importantly an insistence that an inspector visits a site to see it fully in context, it is possible that objections will be respected - especially if an alternative plan is presented in some way,

[Jenny1]

Hi chazzle. Have sent you a pm about this.

[edhistory]

I was asked to post this planning decision in the context of Railway Rise

John K

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1521885,1592618#msg-1592618

[ednewmy]

Came back to East Dulwich after a week away to find a letter from the council about this.

For further objections, you need to do so by writing to the planning inspectorate, quoting the reference number APP/A5840/W/15/3135088. The Planning Inspectorate, 3/10B Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS16PN.

Letters must be received by 17th Jan. If you want them to acknowledge receipt of the letter you need to request this, likewise if you want to know the result of the appeal process.

Sad. The planning inspectorate push things through with little regard to objections in my experience.

[James Barber]

I have had success with inspectors upholding decisions. So Well worth submitting your views and evidence to the inspector. But the decline is a hard stop so please please please submit your views by the 17 January which means posting them before then. The 17th is a Sunday so it really needs to arrive on the 15 January which means posting no later than 13 January. Don't be caught out.

In any objection you should highlight you think a site visit is needed. That you'd like to attend. Over development, etc.

[chazzle]

You can also add comments via the Planning Portal here: https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3135088&CoID=0

If you do choose to add further comments, remember that the original decision rejected the proposal on the grounds of inappropriate size, overbearing of neighbours and inadequate amenity space (http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/0192&system=DC).

Bear in mind that the appeal is to try and gain approval for the original four storey plan. The appeal document describes this as "relatively modest in the context of the area" and amongst other buildings uses the flats on Dog Kennel Hill and the failed development at the former Garden Centre for comparison. Anyone who knows the area would see this as misleading, but the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol may not be aware of this. I will be emphasising these inaccuracies in my response to the appeal. I will also be following James's advice to recommend a site visit which would help to counter the errors in the plans.

[nunhead_man]

Re proposed layout - yuk!!! no imagination - surely after 5 years or more training an architect can produce more than a few square boxes - even getting the windows design to echo no 1 would have helped

[DulwichFox]

Yep..

Allowing featureless architectural structures to be built makes it easier to do so elsewhere in East Dulwich.

It will only get worse..

DulwichFox

[nunhead_man]

Indeed - as the rush to develop allowed by the City of London to avoid developments going elsewhere shows - eg Chancery Lane

http://www.derwentlondon.com/properties/40-chancery-lane

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=developments+in+Chancery+lane&gbv=1&sei=WZGDVoq7Nsf6UPvgh9gH

[Borderlands]

I sent in an objection a while back with notification just last week about the appeal - do I need to resubmit? I made sure I included the need for a site visit: this is really important.

Having said that I was involved with one planning inquiry many years ago where we thought this might not take place - so filmed the site on a walkabout and submitted that at the start of the inquiry as far as I can remember. It was unusual - but the idea was that this was an aid to understanding the site in context and accepted as such. In the end a site visit for the inspector accompanied by developers and local objectors did happen. No idea if this was because the film was watched - but it was certainly important that everyone knew that there was a film...

This was a VHS tape, now should be possible to simply film it and put on dvd. It's an entirely different thing to a set of photos which is never as glamorous or enticing as a graphic of new build even. Boring but dramatic rectangles always look more appealing to planners and inspectors.

[James Barber]

Hi Borderlands,

Submitting a short 5min video sounds like a brilliant idea.

Can you - will you - make this happen?

[Zak]

I also think that Borderland's idea is excellent. If you look at the developer's latest submission, you'll see that they do everything possible to make it seem like their proposals are entirely in keeping with the surrounding area.

If you can't find these easily from the above links, then PM me and I'll send you the PDFs in question.

If you are planning to submit further comments/an objection, then you need to bear in mind the exact reasons which Southwark gave for rejecting the original application (see below). They gave three reasons. The first of these, which relates to the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area, is perhaps most the relevant in this context (the other two, relate to the impact of the scheme on the adjacent property). Objections will carry most weight if they relate to these issues, which in turn relate to the Southwark's own plans etc

Extract From Southwark's Published Refusal To Grant Planning Permission For Proposed Railway Rise Development

?Reasons for refusal:

1 Due to its inappropriate height, scale, massing, siting and design, the proposal, following the demolition of the existing cottages, would appear as excessively dominant and incongruous in this location and would harm the character and appearance of the townscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies 3.12 (Quality in Design) and 3.13 (Urban Design) of the Southwark Plan (2007), policy SP12 (Design and Conservation) of the LB Southwark Core Strategy 2011 and Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012".

Applicant: Mr Bateman St Aidans Group

LBS Registered Number: 15/AP/0192

Date of Issue of this decision: 25/03/2015

Zak

[Borderlands]

Hi

I don't have any film equipment - not even an iPhone. Hope someone else can do this asap.

Sorry

[Zak]

I'm not sure if, among all these posts, there's an accessible image of what the developer is actually proposing to build in place of Nos. 2&3.

If you've not yet seen it, then take a look. It's about as bad as it could be and really needs kicking out. Object!

[bob]

Is that some one's attempt at a joke.

Bob S

[ianr]

The two image files extracted from Zak's Railway Rise New Development.docx file,

headed "Railway Rise ? Proposed Development Of No?s 2 & 3":

[edhistory]

Are those the giant "people" architects use in their illustrations to diminish the perceived size of a proposed building?

John K

[Borderlands]

Please could you confirm asap whether those of us who objected to the last proposals will need to resubmit a completely new objection to St Aidans Group appeal proposals as well?

Best

[chazzle]

Borderlands,

Comments from the original application will be passed to the Planning Inspectorate for the appeal. However, I will be writing a further brief submission to emphasise those misleading aspects of the proposal - like the use of the DKH flats and the failed Garden Centre development as a local precedent - which will not be as obvious to a non-local. I will also be suggesting a site visit.

[steveo]

Give us a shout when you want the barricades manned Chaz

[Jeremy]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Are those the giant "people" architects use in

> their illustrations to diminish the perceived size

> of a proposed building?

Yep. The poor guys in the picture will have to stoop just to get inside the new building!

[first mate]

Chazzle, the very best of luck, you will really have to be on your toes but I do hope you get a good result.

A view expressed in another thread is that the govt have made it impossible for planning to do much to protect residents interests, the dice are loaded against us.