Planning applications

Land next to the Judith Kerr Primary School, Half Moon Lane (Southwark 17/AP/0118)

Green space next to the school provides a playing field for the children, who will number 350 when the school reaches full capacity. The Dulwich Estate wishes to build on this land, to provide accommodation for up to 20 elderly people. The present beneficiaries of the Dulwich Almshouse Charity will be moved out of the old almshouses in Dulwich Village. The Dulwich Estate has now put in its planning application, to which we have objected. You can read the full text of our objection here.

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. You can read the full text of our objection here. 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.

26 Sunray Avenue (Southwark 16/AP/4961)

We objected to a proposed large rear extension. Rear extensions are increasingly commonplace. However, the Sunray Estate is a Conservation Area, which brings into play particular planning policies. It is a rare example in South London of an estate built on “garden city” principles. We were disappointed that Southwark – to our mind contrary to its own planning policies – recently saw fit to allow an application of a large extension in Casino Avenue, one to which we objected. To allow extensions that are out of scale for cottage-style buildings will set a precedent and will erode the special quality of the Conservation Area, the very quality that its conservation status was designed to protect. The estate is also within the Dulwich Estate Scheme of Management. We have written to the Dulwich Estate to express our concern on this issue but have received no reply.

89 Shakespeare Road (Lambeth16/06927/FUL)

We objected to a proposed top-floor addition with mansard roof. The property is one of a terraced group built c1875 with a “London roof” and parapet. One mansard has recently been added to the terrace, but otherwise the houses retain their original form. Although we do not regard mansard extensions as objectionable in principle, we felt that their piecemeal addition is undesirable and that insufficient regard was being paid to the group character of the terrace, which has an architectural heritage value, particularly when mansard extensions are becoming so widespread.

Pavement outside 294 Croxted Road

Southwark have accepted that the telecoms box recently installed does not have planning permission as it is considerably larger than the one approved. There are now four boxes on the pavement. There is a long history of refusals and appeals in this location.

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: