barry parade ( planning application)

[Nigello]

There is a very big difference between commissioned art (even if it is not to your taste) and the scrawl of territorial tagging.

[DulvilleRes]

The experience with the Dulwich Estate development on the SG Smith garage site in Dulwich Village (see the Dulwich Estate - Fit to run Conservation? thread) has led most of us involved in it to believe that infringements or otherwise of planning guidelines don't seem to bother Southwark Council in the least. It is all about what the Council officers recommend, and to that degree, the real agenda in the case of the SG Smith development seemed to be carried on outside the formal planning process. A deal was done with the developer, and despite the compelling arguments against the widely resisted proposals, it is going though. The best way to resist a development you don't like is to start a political process as early as possible. Talk to your MP, councillors, local media to bring pressure to bear.

[edhistory]

First determine the enemy's order of battle.

[Abe_froeman]

That doesn't necessarily help if councillors themselves use the local media to express support for a scheme before any sort of formal proceedings have been instigated.

[DulvilleRes]

If it is a benefit to any of you for us to share some experience, please PM me. The last year has been truly eye opening as to how things work in Dulwich.

[fazer71]

NIMBYs

What a great read for anyone who wonders why we don't have enough homes moans about sky high house prices.

I admit I almost gave up the will to live after the first 1/2 dozen posts and stopped,, so maybe I missed something?

I think the general gist is moan moan moan and why why why tooooooo big tooooo low tooooo busy body.

If anyone wants to know why the quality of housing in Southwark is so poor... Maybe they should look in the mirror.

[red14]

ooacoo Wrote:

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

> Please can everyone voice their concerns on the

> planning website if not already done.

>

> Planning ref: 15/AP/2698

>

> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-appl

> ications/

Southwark council is obliged to consider all objections up to the date that the application goes to committee (even if the consultation period has passed) so please do continue to voice your concerns.

[red14]

ooacoo Wrote:

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

> Please can everyone voice their concerns on the

> planning website if not already done.

>

> Planning ref: 15/AP/2698

>

> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-appl

> ications/

>

> Thanks

Reposting as the link above was cut off...

Southwark council is obliged to consider all objections up to the date that the application goes to committee (even if the consultation period has passed) so please do continue to voice your concerns.

[afrz]

@fazer71: Nimby-ism comes in two forms, a negative one as in "general obstructiveness to any change", and a positive one as in "don't do it unless you do it right".

Noone's yet stated, either here or on the logged planning application comments, that the site should be left open and derelict as it is.

It's a prominent location, and conservation area. As such, the planning authority has a duty to not simply wave "anything" through, but take into account a few key questions:

- does the design fit the status of the conservation area ?

- does it enhance the local business/residential environment ?

- is it of high quality ?

- does it make best use of the site ?

Thing is, neither of these is well-backed up by the proposal.

The design is "bog standard" and could've been cloned from the developments by Elephant&Castle (the triangular roof terrace is a dead match there) or opposite Old Kent Road Fire Station.

"High Quality" is really something else. I already called it "bog standard"; if you want inventive/challenging proposals that might be controversial but at least undoubtedly are high quality and innovative, look north across Peckham Rye at the Aura Court development. The "metal-box" penthouse there is a true landmark, and combines innovative design features with very-high-quality workmanship. Is it "nice" .. I leave that to the eye of the beholder, would it be conservation-area appropriate I'd rather not argue that point either; compared to the proposal for Barry Parade though, it's at least a "landmark" that deserves that title, and backs that up by the way it's been built. The Aura Court side is _not_ conservation area. Please do hold the developers to a higher standard, both in design and proposed materials & workmanship. If you don't ... then why bother at all declaring the conservation area ?

"Enhance ..."

It definitely does not enhance the local business environment, on the contrary - the loss of small units is absolutely not "balanced" by the addition of a supermarket at that site. All around Peckham Rye, not just the south side, lacks restaurants/cafes/takeways of any kind. Those that have been provisioned lately (The G Cafe, the Cafe on the Rye, the cafe on Barry Rd/Upland corner) are popular enough not the least because of that deficiency. The takeaways were ushered out letting the building fall derelict not by commercial unviability. There's other small businesses around locally (just south of the parade, and in the Tyrell Rd. small industrial site just behind the row on the other side of Barry Road), and Southwark council themselves have Barry Parade as 'shopping cluster' on the Peckham Rye action plan. Thanks for a "cluster of one supermarket".

It's debateable whether it enhances the residential environment. The flats proposed are surely of a great standard, above-average for the wider area. What's "enhancement" though ? The proposal severely overlooks neighbours, kills sunlight/daylight for 198/200 Peckham Rye, makes no attempt to blend with the conservation area. Traffic-wise this is a train-wreck-in-waiting, at least the way it's proposed right now (with underground parking exit, bus stop, loading/access bay and road narrowing all within 30m of each other, just south of a busy/congested junction).

Best use of the site ... well.

Let's continue to look at the residential side from that aspect. One can reasonably argue that London in general needs denser housing and some impact to neighbours' amenity is acceptable as long as that goal is achieved well. Though then, at the very least, make a commitment to provide affordable housing as well, because (again) there is more need for that than there is for 1M+ properties. Putting nine "extremely generously-sized" flats onto this site is only making sure to stay below the threshold for having to put affordable units in. The case should be made that were it justified to increase density to the level of the proposal then at the very least, swallow the toad, and provide one thing that does address a genuine need of the area - one or two affordable flats.

From the commercial side: For the developer, the supermarket is a wonderful thing to have. It makes it utterly easy and trivial to deal with the management side of it - you only have to find a single tenant for all of the commercial floor space, you'll let it on a very-long lease, and given the business is _not_ a restaurant/take-away there's no fire safety or insurance premium implications. The flats are worth significantly more if above A1/B than if there's A3/4/5 (or D - light industrial) underneath, and constructional details on fire safety of materials used, on site ventilation, sprinkler systems etc. will not apply if there's no food preparation provisioning. In that context, to serve themselves, they _must_ propose "anything-but" A3/4/5/D use classes. That even the immediate area (this "600m" threshold thing from the planning policies) is oversupplied with supermarkets and has long-established and well-liked local grocery stores is a point that the developer obviously can not admit; residents/locals must point that out, and the council's planning department should be held to their own policies in that context. Restaurants/cafes/takeaways are actually lacking there even though the site, with a sunny aspect on Barry Road and right by the green spaces, is perfect for a bit of "social" in this context. The proposal does e.g. propose seating / public amenity and that is good ... just why put it right onto the north side, where the shadow of the mass of the building makes it useless for most of the year ?

I'm all for a development on that site even tough I live almost opposite, and even though I hate the idea of the three years of major works needed to get something of this scale up. Thames Water has already requested a Grampian condition (a curfew on the planning permit to say they can't build until the sewers on Barry Road / Peckham Rye have been enlarged sufficiently to take the additional runoff/discharge), and the heavy machinery and lorry traffic for excavation works will disrupt traffic and detour the Barry Road bus lines for months.

I'd hope though, that as a little prize for putting up with all that, there'll be places created to go for food, a safer junction for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicular traffic alike, some local businesses that add to the barber or the veterinary to actually make it worth sitting at the site in summer. And if making it so dense, then take section 106 seriously and put an affordable flat in, because, "every little helps".

Nimbyism ... it should be allowed to state that the bigotry is _entirely_ on the developer's side. This proposal serves noone other than the developer's pocket; all items that lower their returns (that is, in particular food preparation units aka A3/A5, affordable housing, or properly-outstanding design and craftsmanship/materials) are disregarded in this proposal. It makes me sick swallowing these up. At the very least, if it gets approved as-is, one should be able to point out prominently and boldly how much bigotry there is in the proposal.

Unfortunately, cynical bigotry in a design-and-access statement isn't a reason for denying a planning application. Fortunately, it's transparent enough so that a good cause can be made why this proposal falls terribly short of what (well, "whatever", really) should be done on that site, and, in particular with respect to traffic, where it makes the area outrightly unsafe. Yes, please build something there ... something that:

- does enhance local business proposals

(and that means: _multiple_ smaller units, including A3/A5, not a supermarket)

- does enhance local residential/public amenity

(hard sell to neighbours due to the inevitable overlook/overshadowing)

(easier sell to the public if the public space is where it should be - facing Barry Road)

- does make a genuine attempt on quality above and beyond "let's use London stock brick"

- makes the junction safer; don't cluster all access on Barry Road

It's really not that hard to improve - there's just too much to improve. Fingers crossed.

[MissKing]

What is wrong with building more flats? We need more residential properties - it is a great use for the plot.

[fazer71]

This lot only want a specific type of development.

Not to big not to small ceilings not to high not to low.

Not too cheap not too expensive.

The list of requirements is endless.

Must look amazing but not too amazing.

Must be affordable.

Insane lunatic people.

Development

Can't

Just build it and let the market decide. Noooooooooooo

It's important that every neighbour and nosy parker had their say.

Bit like the Dulwich Estates development where a bunch of clueless old grunters make poor decisions based on maximising profit over style nimbys maximise stupidity over homes..

Sad

[first mate]

Afrz

Great post with excellent points. If you take a walk down nine elms it is easy to see what happens when the market decides...empty investment properties.

[DaveR]

I agree with lots of afrz's post, particularly in relation to overall design quality. The current application is not terrible in that regard IMHO, but it could be way better. I'm also sympathetic to more diverse retail space but that really is market-driven; my understanding is that the takeaway businesses previously on the parade were not pushed out to make way for re-development, but left for their own (differing) reasons, and I'm not sure about the viability of, for example, another cafe on that site. My earlier post was a response to a number of invitations to simply oppose the application, without any recognition that redeveloping the site is obviously desirable, and what we really want is for the planning authority to engage with the developers and get the best deal they can.

[fazer71]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Afrz

> Great post with excellent points. If you take a

> walk down nine elms it is easy to see what happens

> when the market decides...empty investment

> properties.

Peckham rye is hardly nine elms..

The extreme comparison is a great example of nimby logic ..

..

[first mate]

"nimby logic" great name for a band.

[MarkT]

Southwark Council's planning register states that application number 15/AP/2698 Barry Road Parade has been withdrawn.

MarkT

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks for the update MarkT .

[first mate]

Do watch the space though- it will be resubmitted,I can guarantee. Serial resubmission is the developers MO as they chip, chip away getting a little more each time and they also wait for any technical hiccup where they can swoop in and catch planning off guard, securing game, set and match.

[fazer71]

It's very sad that the planning system is designed to create planning jobs rather than decisions.

This farce of submitting plans and getting rejection for irrelevant reasons or because it upsets nimby's is a joke.

The planning system is unfit for purpose!

Who can blame individuals and developers when the system is purposefully vague "in order to create work for the planners their superiors and the local planning politicians who use it to gain votes and meddle".

Disgusting !

[moni69]

Just an update. I live close to the parade and try to keep a heads up on whats going on, albeit difficult to keep track of. The owner of the site wants to sell with planning permission (more money in the pocket) so will probably continue to submit proposals until he gets it. The proposal was withdrawn due to the public response to to Southwark against plans, so I would ask that if anyone becomes aware of future proposals, please do check them out at the planning website and voice your opinions, complaints against insane plans really do make a difference. Hopefully when something is accepted it will be a little more realistic! in the meantime keep your eyes peeled for notices on lamp posts.Of course it would be great to have the site developed, but a scaled down more in keeping with the area version of what was proposed is ideal, and as a local community your voice does count.