As part of its programme to celebrate its 50th anniversary, the Society will be holding an exhibition at the Dulwich College Archive Centre called 'Dulwich 63'. The aim is to highlight the changes in Dulwich over the last 50 years and the Society's contribution to those changes. An application form for the Private View and Reception for this Exhibition in the Lower Hall, Dulwich College on Saturday 26 January at 6.30pm is enclosed in this copy of the Journal.
Integral with the exhibition will be a series of three Sunday afternoon talks, held in conjunction with the Friends of Dulwich Picture Gallery, highlighting the development of Dulwich from the mid nineteenth century to the present day.
Bernard Nurse, chair of the Society's local history group will start on 17th February with a talk called 'Setting the scene' - covering the period between 1850 and 1920 and this will be followed by two further talks on 17th and 24th March by Ian McInnes covering the post war period from 1945 to 1969, 'Wates and reinvention', and from 1970 to the present - ''Leasehold reform, conservation and wealth'.
In addition, on 3rd March, there will be a local history walk led by Ian McInnes along Dulwich Common looking at both the old and new houses there, as well as the sites of the Toksawa Hotel, the covered tennis courts , the old windmill and the tile kiln. Meet at corner of College Road and Dulwich Common at 2.30pm.
All the events will be advertised in the Friends of Dulwich Picture Gallery's 'In View' and booking is via the Picture Gallery ticketing system at the gallery or on their website.
The lasting legacy of its 50th anniversary will be the unveiling of twelve memorials to civilians killed in Dulwich during World War 2 which will take place throughout 2013 at dates nearest to the actual event. It is intended that these modest ceremonies will be low-key but hopefully memorable for friends and relatives of those killed as well as local residents.
There have been several articles in the press outlining the Government’s intention to change the rules over householders’ permitted development rights. While the headlines say that extensions up to 8m long will be permitted without planning consent, this does not apply in conservation areas and also does not apply to listed buildings – and the restriction that any extension cannot cover more than 50% of a property's garden will also remain. Large parts of Dulwich lie in either the Dulwich Wood Conservation Area or the Dulwich Village Conservation Area and those properties not in a conservation area, but which are subject to the Scheme of Management run by the Dulwich Estate, will also be unaffected as the Scheme of Management regulations overrule normal planning.
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a tax that councils are starting to charge on new developments in their area. The money raised is used to fund a ‘Project Bank’ which will pay for additional infrastructure that local community and neighbourhoods want but that the council can’t afford. On large developments it will replace the current Section 106 agreement but it will now be introduced on all new development including new single houses and basements and house extensions over 100sq metres in area. Once the rates have been agreed they are non-negotiable.
Southwark is currently consulting on the proposed rates for Southwark's CIL and has prepared a ‘Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule’. The suggested rates for residential development range from £400sqm on the riverside to £50sqm in central Southwark. Rates for offices range from £100sqm on the riverside to £0 elsewhere in the borough. Retail properties range from £0-£250 but education, health, industrial, and public funded sports/community facilities will be exempt.
The current consultation closed during October but there will be further consultation in January 2013.
The response to the solar panel survey in the last Journal was very disappointing. Only 35 members came back to us, just over 3% of our total membership. While this level of response could not be considered representative, of those that did respond:
The Society has set aside 4th March next year for an evening meeting with local councillors. The pattern will be similar to the one undertaken with the Dulwich Estate couple of years ago and will give local residents an opportunity to hear what the Council has planned for our area and to ask questions on any aspect of the council’s work. The meeting will be advertised further nearer the time with posters and on the website.
There was a good response to our request in the last issue for members’ email addresses, but we need more. The facility to send our members information and updates is essential and email will let us do this. The addresses would only be used for important local issues and upcoming Society walks and talks or other events which do not fit easily with the Journal’s regular time table.
The Planning and Architecture Committee is largely composed of architects and those with planning experience. They give a great deal of time and thought to the consideration of planning applications.
Fourteen applications were commented on by the Society in the August - five objections were made, and in two tranches of applications in September, ten license applications were considered at the first viewing and no objections were made. The objections at a second viewing included the following
Hitherwood Drive – “ Objection to ground floor rear extension due to excessive increase or disproportionate increase in the footprint of the house. Objection to the first floor and roof extension due to excessive bulk and the loss of amenity to neighbours. Objection to rear dormer window due to not complying with the guidelines.”
Half Moon Lane – “ Objection to front boundary wall and gates due to excessive height and loss of amenity. Advice note : A height of 1.2 metres with fewer brick piers would be better received. No objection to front garden landscaping. “
Woodhall Drive – “ Objection to replacement house due to lack of information on three dimensional aspects of the design, how the various materials would appear and relate to other properties on the Woodhall Estate, the bulk of the gable end towards the Estate road, what trees and planting are to be retained or included in the scheme, overlooking from the terrace at the rear into the rear garden of the neighbouring house. Advice note: A model including the position of the neighbouring house would be well received. Better and detailed information on materials, e.g. timber boarding.
Dovercourt Road – Objection to a lean-to store at the side and front of the house. Advice note: a front parapet would be better received.
Pymers Mead - Objection on the grounds that the information provided is inaccurate and insufficient to fully assess the impact of this external change. The percentage area of the rooflights to the roof advised is not accurately calculated. The drawings do not indicate the level of the rooflights within the house and whether there would be extensive overlooking. Advice note: It was noted that the Estate is largely screened from Rosendale Road by mature trees along the boundary with the playing fields and that the rear roofs face an internal common garden area. While there are satellite dishes on rear elevations in the Pymers Mead Estate the introduction of rooflights would be a new element. As a new feature a maximum of two small rooflights ( conservation size ) that are flush with the roof plane and confirmation that there would be no extensive overlooking would be better received. Further advice note : Even small rooflights to a top storey will provide a very high level of illumination to the space or spaces below.
Court Lane objection to the application on the grounds of inadequate parking provision due to the scale of the proposed development.
The scheme has been developed since earlier plans were informally discussed at a Dulwich Society’s Planning and Architecture group meeting on 13 June 2012. There is no objection to the existing building being replaced by a modern residential development with a high quality of design, incorporating an efficient use of energy.
However, there is a substantial problem with the scale of the proposal in that there is a lack of adequate off-street parking for a private residential development that comprises two large family houses each with five bedrooms where only two off-street parking spaces are provided. The application has omitted any assessment of the current street parking in the local area and how the proposal would impact on parking.
The probability of the need for on-street parking will compound the existing lack of on-street parking in the adjacent roads, putting local residents under even great difficulties in finding a parking space. For this reason I object to the application, which will seriously affect the amenity of local residents. A scheme that substantially reduced the accommodation and provided adequate off-street parking would be better received.”
Alleyn Park - The Dulwich Society has examined the application documents and visited the site. There is no objection in principle to the existing house being replaced by a quality modern design with high energy efficiency and no loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties. However, there is a loss of amenity to neighbours on both sides by way of overlooking into the rear gardens from the first floor level and the bulk of the rear extension. The justification given by the applicant’s agent for the rear projecting two storeys is that it is to align with no. 35 Alleyn Park, two houses to the North. However, this reasoning has little regard for the adverse effects this approach will have on the adjoining neighbours through loss of privacy and loss of amenity.
A design that, more reasonably, aligned the rear extension with the adjacent house and sufficiently controlled the issue of overlooking either directly or indirectly into the rear gardens of neighbouring houses would be better received.”
Dulwich Village : A modest planning application has been submitted which is described as, “ Demolition of existing single storey 20th C rear kitchen extension to allow the construction of a new enlarged single storey extension at garden level; providing additional accommodation for dwelling house.”
Of importance to the neighbours, the rear terrace above the kitchen remains the same size. There are no immediate grounds for objecting to the application.
Spinney Gardens : (Off Jasper Road) The planning application for four eco-flats on the spinney was refused by Southwark Council.
The Dairy Site, 13-19 Croxted Road
The Dulwich Estate will shortly be submitting its planning application to Lambeth Council for the redevelopment of the former Dairy Site. Further to the previous planning application which was refused consent, the Estate has been in discussion with the Council regarding an alternative use for the site and its revised proposals include a state-of-the art medical practice for the Rosendale Surgery alongside ground floor retail accommodation and residential over three upper floors. The Estate's intention is to bring the site back into productive use and to enhance the Croxted Road street scene in order to make a positive contribution to the locality.
Preparation of ‘Dulwich Gardens open for Charity 2013’ has just started.
This new edition will be published next March.