Railway Rise Action Group- Object To The Proposed Demolition Update

[Zak]

An ad hoc group has been set up (inc.No1) in order to alert people to/publicise the opportunity to object to the developer's appeal against Southwark's decision to refuse planning permission to knock down Nos. 2 & 3 Railway Rise and replace them with a horrible three storey building which (in Southwark's own words), would be "incongruous in this location and would harm the character and appearance of the townscape".

Everyone has until Sunday 17th January to send in their comments to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol. The easiest way to do this is on line.

Go onto the Planning Inspectorate Site https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk / and then enter the seven figure reference number 3135088 into the search box, in order to bring up the Railway Rise application. Then comment!

Attached is a flyer with a picture of what is being proposed, plus all the information. If you feel strongly enough about the issue, then print it out and hand it around. These are some of the oldest houses in East Dulwich (c1860)and it would be terrible to see two of them torn down in this way.

[healey]

Sent in a comment to the appeal. The proposal is horribly out of context.

If redevelopment can't be stopped, perhaps there could be a push for the architectural style and scale to be preserved. The example on East Dulwich Grove/Elsie Road sets a precedent, even if it is a tad too large for my liking.

[first mate]

It would help if one of those closely involved with the campaign and knows the detail of the application could come up with wording and pertitent points in planning terms, that could be posted on this thread and cut a pasted.

Sorry to sound lazy, I will object but won't be able to get across the detail.

[Zak]

Good point First Mate,

I think that there are perhaps five points that can be made in putting forward an objection, which are all drawn from to the reasons that Southwark refused planning permission in the first place.

1. The proposed building itself is unacceptable.

"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" It's a totally inappropriate building to erect in that space.

2. The way it doesn't fit in with the rest of the area

"would harm the character and appearance of the townscape". It's a brutal three storey block and clashes with the harmony of the remaining building, which is typical of the domestic architecture of East Dulwich. It's worth knowing that the developer has got his consultant to highlight all the three story buildings in the area to make the case that it's really fine! He's even trying to pass off the shops along Grove Vale as three storeys, because although they're only two storeys, they've got mansard windows in the roof.

3. It's impact on the remaining cottage next door

"Due to its size, bulk and siting in relation to the windows and the garden area at no. 1 Railway Rise, the proposal would be overbearing upon and would result in a significant loss of outlook for the occupiers of this property".

4. It provides poor accommodation for prospective occupiers

"The first and second floor residential units would not include adequate areas of private amenity space and the proposal would therefore fail to provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers"

5. These are important historical railway cottages built for employees of the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway in the 1860s and in any case shouldn't be demolished

The group of three cottages are of great historic value. On the 1868 OS map, it can be seen that they that they predate pretty much everything in the area, except for some houses along Grove Vale. The original entrance to the station was at the end of Railway Rise (where the builders? merchant is now situated). No 1 was the station master?s house and the two that the developer wants to knock down were for other station employees. As a group of buildings they?re a great bit of old East Dulwich and it would be terrible if two of them were swept away.

I hope this is helpful. The attached poster shows the new development alongside No. 1 and gives Southwark's chapter & verse for refusing points 1&2 in case anyone wants to know

Just go to https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk/ Quoting Reference: 3135088 and get objecting!

The deadline for objections is 17th January

[first mate]

Zak,

Excellent. Thank you.

[steveo]

Whatever the proposal, the problem is the demolition

[MarkT]

I've just submitted my appeal comment as follows,

MarkT

The proposal presented for this appeal is a changed version of the rejected application. The changes are in response to the reasons for refusal. This demonstrates acceptance of those reasons and hence the acceptance of the refusal. Surely this should be presented as a new application rather than an appeal.

The Southwark Plan designates this location as Suburban Zone. This is confirmed in the draft New Southwark Plan. The London Plan, updated 2015, in the Notes to Table 3.2, defines the Suburban Zone as 2-3 storeys.

The London plan specifies heights as numbers of storeys, specifically in relation to density of new development (Table 3.2 and Notes to Table 3.2). The appellant?s claim that the refused 4 storeys is somehow equivalent to 3 of higher ceilings is spurious.

According to the London Plan, other features of the scheme cannot be used to justify additional height and density. Policy 3.4 states:

?Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.?

Developments in the neighbouring Urban Zone, or any that predate current policies cannot be treated as precedents.

The only example cited by the applicant that does come within the Suburban Zone and current policies is the garden centre site, on which permission has been granted for a 4 storey development. The Council states that the garden centre site is a special case, that because of its civic role, incorporating a library, and its location directly adjacent to the station, the garden centre development ?has a legitimate role as a local landmark that is worthy of some presence?.

In claiming the garden centre site as a precedent, the appellant rejects the Councils claim that the garden centre proposal is special. I understand that it is the same developer who owns both sites; if so this suggests a cynical attitude; that the developer would seek to destroy that landmark potential which justified approval for the garden centre site.

[chazzle]

That's great MarkT. I think the appeal is about the original four storey block, but they've included some stuff about the reduced plan to try and imply that it's not so bad.

[Hare]

Goodness, the developer's consultant has skewed the evidence! Talk about partial and disingenuous - he's got it nailed.

I have found the notes from other people here extremely useful in considering my own submission (thank you, MarkT and Zak) so, in case it helps anyone else who is also struggling to make coherent sense of what I believe to be misleading representations and interpretations in the appeal documents, I have attached my own contribution to the debate.

The window for submissions closes on 17th Jan., which is Sunday, but you can upload comments to the online portal at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3135088 (make sure you get the right reference number, APP/A5840/W/15/3135088). Even if you copy sections that you agree with out of the other comments, it's worth doing because lots of objections will strengthen the case for rigorous review.

[Freddy1929]

Zak - hope you don't mind but have included your points in my objections as they were concise and to the point!

not sure how successful the objections will be, but we have to do something, it would be criminal to demolish those cottages and build a bland block of flats!

Zak Wrote:

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

> Good point First Mate,

>

> I think that there are perhaps five points that

> can be made in putting forward an objection, which

> are all drawn from to the reasons that Southwark

> refused planning permission in the first place.

>

> 1. The proposed building itself is unacceptable.

> "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" It's a totally inappropriate building to

> erect in that space.

>

> 2. The way it doesn't fit in with the rest of the

> area

> "would harm the character and appearance of the

> townscape". It's a brutal three storey block and

> clashes with the harmony of the remaining

> building, which is typical of the domestic

> architecture of East Dulwich. It's worth knowing

> that the developer has got his consultant to

> highlight all the three story buildings in the

> area to make the case that it's really fine! He's

> even trying to pass off the shops along Grove Vale

> as three storeys, because although they're only

> two storeys, they've got mansard windows in the

> roof.

>

> 3. It's impact on the remaining cottage next door

>

> "Due to its size, bulk and siting in relation to

> the windows and the garden area at no. 1 Railway

> Rise, the proposal would be overbearing upon and

> would result in a significant loss of outlook for

> the occupiers of this property".

>

> 4. It provides poor accommodation for prospective

> occupiers

> "The first and second floor residential units

> would not include adequate areas of private

> amenity space and the proposal would therefore

> fail to provide a satisfactory living environment

> for future occupiers"

>

> 5. These are important historical railway cottages

> built for employees of the London, Brighton &

> South Coast Railway in the 1860s and in any case

> shouldn't be demolished

> The group of three cottages are of great historic

> value. On the 1868 OS map, it can be seen that

> they that they predate pretty much everything in

> the area, except for some houses along Grove Vale.

> The original entrance to the station was at the

> end of Railway Rise (where the builders? merchant

> is now situated). No 1 was the station master?s

> house and the two that the developer wants to

> knock down were for other station employees. As a

> group of buildings they?re a great bit of old East

> Dulwich and it would be terrible if two of them

> were swept away.

>

> I hope this is helpful. The attached poster shows

> the new development alongside No. 1 and gives

> Southwark's chapter & verse for refusing points

> 1&2 in case anyone wants to know

>

>

> Just go to https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk/

> Quoting Reference: 3135088 and get objecting!

>

> The deadline for objections is 17th January

[BrandNewGuy]

Objections reported today in the South London Press:

http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=115417&headline=%E2%80%98It%E2%80%99s%20an%20act%20of%20vandalism%E2%80%99&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2016

[chazzle]

Great news to get the coverage in the SLP - Well done Zak!

[steveo]

Yes, great but I don't understand why there isn't a move to block any demolition?

[Hare]

Steveo: having ploughed through the documents to compose my own objection, I'm not surprised if you were put off by them. Here's my basic grasp of the reasoning behind why 'a move to block any demolition' is not the focus of action.

- A developer owns two of the three cottages.

- He has applied to Southwark Council for planning permission to demolish them and build a block of flats.

- Southwark refused planning permission, based on the reasons that Zak outlined above.

- The developer has appealed to the national Planning Inspectorate against the refusal.

- Members of the public can submit further evidence about the application at this stage.

- If the developer's appeal is rejected by the Planning Inspectorate, then the block of flats must not be built.

- This thread is to encourage people to object to the appeal.

- A rejection will stay off damage to No's 1&2.

- If an owner wants to demolish a house that belongs to them, then no Planning Application approval is needed.

- This is true even if it is in a Conservation Area.

- No legal campaign could simply block demolition.

- An application to list the cottages may be made to Heritage England and, if successful, may stay his hand but this is hampered by an earlier application that included the station buildings and was rejected.

This is my understanding, though others may have a clearer view and be able to add to it but meanwhile, I hope that it helps in some small way.

[chazzle]

I certainly did make it clear that the cottages should not be demolished, as part of my comments. But it is, I think important to emphasise those points that led to the original rejection as we are saying that this was the correct decision. I also said that I thought the original process was fair, open, based on the facts and allowed more than enough time for the developer to make his case.

I also pointed out the misleading and inaccurate parts of the proposal and appeal documents, including photos, stressing the need for a site visit. Hopefully then even the hardest hearted planning officer would see the madness of demolishing the cottages!

[ednewmy]

I have now raised my objections to this, which are pretty similar to all those previously mentioned. I have also added the problem of an increase in traffic along Melbourne Grove and Railway Rise as a result of the new flats/retail premises. I have urged them to make a site visit before making any decisions as well.

[steveo]

I just tried to start a Change.org petition but I'm not an appropriate 'decision maker.' I'd sign it though if there were any chance the council would take any notice.

Either that or we get Swampy in

[Zak]

I've checked with the Planning Inspectorate today and everyone has right up until the end of Sunday 17th January (11.59pm!) to submit their objections via the on-line portal. This link takes you straight to the page: just click the blue button on the top right that says MAKE REPRESENTATION and start by filling in your details, clicking Save & Continue as you go along.

https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3135088

If you're writing in by post, then of course it will need to arrive by Saturday.

[Eggybread]

Thank you for alerting me. I'll do it!

[Zak]

Just in case anyone is planning to submit an objection tomorrow via the Planning Inspectorate Portal, sometime between 8am-8pm, you need to know that they're closing it down for maintenance during that period

However, I've spoken to someone at the PI and apparently you can email the case officer directly as an alternative.

The email address is [email protected]

They also told me that people should include in the header line of the email her name: FAO Hazel Stanmore-Richards and the case reference number 3135088

[sue k]

hi everyone, great points raised ..I've just been on the site, and yes it's down for maintenance, so thankyou to Zak for the alternative contact. I've just written, so hope lots more do too!

[Zak]

I've just been re-reading the Developer's case to the Planning Inspectorate and came across the following claim:

"2-3 Railway Rise are currently tired in appearance and in need of some repair and refurbishment in their current unattractive state they have a neutral or negative contribution to the street scene and the design quality of the area...." (p13 of his submission)

How could anyone take that view - other than the developer. It's patently untrue and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it!

If you haven't already objected, then don't leave it to other people - there's still another day, and a bit, to go. The Planning Inspectorate in Bristol really shouldn't be misled in this way!

You can simply email your objection to: [email protected] with the case reference number 3135088 & make it FAO of Hazel Stanmore-Richards, the case officer

Or go via the Inspectorate's on-line portal

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3135088

[steveo]

Done

[chazzle]

Zak: The developer took a different view of the cottages when renting one out not so long ago

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-50027336.html

[Zak]

I rang the Planning Inspectorate today and discovered that they have received over 100 objections/comments via their portal - which must be pretty good going!

In addition, there will be further representations that were sent to them by post.

Let's hope they take notice!