Planning applications

Judith Kerr Primary School 17/AP/0118

The time for commenting on the Dulwich Estate’s application to build on the playing field/open space next to the Judith Kerr Primary School has now ended. The application prompted 313 comments, a very significant response. It is thought the decision will now go to a full Southwark planning committee. The response was overwhelmingly (98%) against the application and in favour of keeping the land next to the school as open space for the school. The final comment on the Southwark planning website came from the Dulwich Society, which said that the Society’s members were divided in their views and it therefore took a “neutral” view.

The Herne Hill Society’s planning group were unanimous in finding the application seriously flawed on planning grounds and objected. The Society, through its elected committee, considers that, if the Society is to play any part in the democratic local planning process it needs to be able to express views on behalf of the Society and to do so transparently. The weekly lists of applications issued by Lambeth and Southwark Councils are monitored and where it is felt that a comment might be called for, the application is referred to the Society’s planning group. Once a response is agreed the Society puts in an objection, a comment in support or says nothing. The vast majority of planning applications are not controversial and do not call for comment. The Society always welcomes any views expressed by members on planning issues. In the case of the Judith Kerr Primary School the Society has received no comments from members to say that they disagree with the objection submitted by the Society.

You can read the full text of our objection here.

26 Sunray Avenue 16/AP/4961

The Society had objected to what was felt to be a back extension that was far too large in the context of what are small houses with good-sized gardens designed in the garden suburb tradition. There was particular concern that the scale of the proposal did not respect the character of the Sunray Estate Conservation Area.  Southwark has allowed the proposal. Given an earlier decision allowing a large back extension it can be predicted that the Sunray Estate will now see many more such extensions and, the Society fears, a steady erosion of the Estate’s special character.

179 Mayall Road 17/00340/FUL

Mayall Road provides very good examples of Victorian artisan housing built shortly after the railway arrived in Brixton and Herne Hill. They are remarkable for their intactness and distinctive decorated parapet with concealed roofs behind. The houses deserve conservation area status. We therefore objected to a proposed mansard roof extension, not because mansard roofs are in themselves undesirable, but because these houses will lose their historic integrity. However, the pressure on local authorities to allow house extensions is inexorable. Lambeth allowed the proposal, as they have done in nearby streets with similar, albeit not so distinctive, houses (e.g. Effra Parade and Barnwell Road). In a few years mansard roofs in these streets will probably be almost universal.

Bath Trading Estate

There was a public meeting on 19 April convened by the Herne Hill Forum to discuss the future of this site (i.e. the Norwood Road shops, the railway arches behind and the land between them). The meeting generated considerable interest, partly it seems because many attending thought an actual scheme was under discussion. What in fact was under discussion were the planning policy proposals for the site in the draft New Southwark Plan. These proposals support redevelopment that preserves the current amount of employment floorspace,  a new link (through the railway viaduct) that would improve the “permeability and legibility” of the site and good quality frontages for Norwood Road and the railway arches with the possibility of residential development above the Norwood Road shops. We have indicated support in principle for these policy proposals, since this an area that clearly needs regeneration and there would be great advantages in having this part of Herne Hill better integrated with other parts of the area. But everything would depend on the detail of any actual scheme.

Carnegie Library (Lambeth 16/06270/FUL and 16/06271/LB)

We objected to the scheme that would see a gym installed in the basement with associated works. Essentially, we argued that the scheme goes against many of Lambeth’s own planning policies and signally misses the opportunity to come forward with a truly innovative and practical plan that uses the great potential of the building and its garden land to best advantage, while respecting the building’s historic quality. In spite of our objections, and those of other organisations and local residents, the planning application was passed.

You can read the full text of our objection here.

Herne Hill Neighbourhood Plan

A group set up by the Herne Hill Forum is making progress with a Neighbourhood Plan.


For your information: What is an S106 agreement? [external link]

Reader Comments

Posted by David Taylor March 21, 2012

Peabody are keen to hear local views. I have seen the outline scheme and am impressed. It has fewer units than the previous scheme and is designed in terraces to match the Victorian houses opposite on Milkwood Road, although in a contemporary style. There is still no car parking, as it so close to the station so let’s hope the CPZ soon comes in.

Posted by Patrick Roberts March 21, 2012

Peabody might make for better neighbours, but if there’s no CPZ in these streets, residents in that development could freely park in Gubyon and Fawnbrake: mayhem!!

Posted by Annie Park September 28, 2012

The parking in Gubyon Road is already a nightmare and dangerous, especially in the morning with commuters parking, others using it as a rat run, the Herne Hill School run mums parking willy-nilly. The residents of the new development must not be allowed cars!

Posted by Chris Schuler June 04, 2015

As a long-standing resident - I have lived in Holmdene Avenue for 25 years - I would be among the first to object to any development that I felt threatened the character of the area.

I visit Dee Dee’s perhaps once or twice a week, and walk past it almost every evening. Over the past two years, I have not seen the slightest evidence of any disruptive or unpleasant behaviour. It is a friendly, welcoming, orderly and well-run establishment. The bar attracts a friendly and mixed clientele of locals of all ages and backgrounds. The staff are polite, personable and totally professional, and always close within the prescribed licensing hours. The music and poetry evenings they put on make positive contribution to the cultural life of the area. The music is not played at an excessive volume and is hardly audible from the street.

In short, I believe that Dee Dee’s has enhanced the neighbourhood and its sense of community. I wish it every success, and hope it continues to flourish.

Posted by Bianca October 04, 2015

Have you responded to Bullfinch Brewery’s application? Comments close today / tomorrow? Applied to play music and sell alcohol 7 days a week till 11pm. Very inappropriate location on Rosendale Road.

Posted by Colin Wight October 06, 2015

Yes the Society has commented and the Bullfinch has withdrawn music from their application.

Comment on this article

We welcome your comments. Please complete the form to add to the conversation. An email address is required but this will not be published.

Thank you for your comments.

Please note: The Society reserves the right to edit or remove any comment.




Please enter the word you see in the image below: