Government imposes ‘urban’ designation on East Dulwich
The continued threat of large parts of Southwark being designated ‘urban’ by a combination of the Mayor and the Government has been a continuing feature of this blog.
I reported that Labour’s Mayor has sought to impose an ‘urban’ planning designation on East Dulwich. Designating the area as ’suburban’ would mean that new developments would be 2-3 storeys high. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, objected to our proposed designation, arguing that the area should be categorised as ‘urban’ - meaning that 4-6 storey high buildings could be built.
That threat has now been realised. Ruth Kelly has written to Southwark Council directing us to change our main planning document so that East Dulwich, Herne Hill, Rotherhithe and Nunhead are designated as urban.
So why might a Secrtary of State with so much to do and who has never visited Southwark to look atthese matters or has sought to speak to anyone at the Council about this think she knows. best. Why does she feel able to overturn the advice of her planning inspector. Why does she know better than the people who live here - who have been consulted about this planning ndocument over a period of five years?
She has two reasons:
1.She says if we do not will not meet our housing targets set out in the London Plan. But this contradicts the conclusion of her planning inspector who says we will meet our housing target ( and who spent months considering the evidence) She does not appear to have considered any new evidence that might explain why this position might have changed.
2. She has had regard to the new definition of urban that Livingstone is seeking to push through in his new draft London Plan. The draft London Plan is a ’material consideration’ but clearly it should not be given more weight than the actual plan which has legal status and has been consulted upon and agreed!
The Council Leader Nick Stanton has already written to the Secretary of State seeking a meeting with her to persuade her to reverse this decision. Simon Hughes MP is also seeking a meeting.
The Secretary of State could reverse this decision if she wanted to. She must be put under massive pressure to do so.
Dave said,
March 7, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Caught you on the Today programme this morning.
So how high are the skyscrapers on Elephant going to be then?
Shame you have so little influence on central govt …
Rebekah said,
March 7, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Where in East Dulwich are the potential development sites for 4-6 storeys? Have any actrually been identified by Ruth Kelly at this stage? The Council has a lot of historical housing stock which could potentially be sold off for redevelopment but I’m struggling to think where major development could take place - the hospital site is remaining a hospital as far as I’m aware? And what are the timescales for the redesignation?
Richard Thomas said,
March 8, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
There are a few sites that might come on stream - not least the current police station which is under threat of being sold off. An urban designation would also increase the financial incentive for developers to bring sites forward.
Since the argument put is that we must do this to meet the tagerts for building new housing for the whole of London, then presumably Kelly and Livingstone believe there is potential for quite a lot of development in the area! If there is no such potential then why bother issuing the direction in te first place?
cllrrthomas said,
March 13, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Dave
You are of course right that the Government would be vastly improved by increasing my influence upon it!
Interestingly our very own Tessa Jowell apparently agrees with me on this (and is also against closing the Maudsley). She is in the cabinet but doesn’t have any influence! Your former boss, Harriet Harmen is another example of a senior Govenment Minister who speaks out against Government policy withouth apparently being able to change it.
I’ve never made a case against tall buildings (or medium or small buildings) in principle.The whole point of planning is that it should reflect local realities. The Elephant is not the same place as East Dulwich. And why should the council or local people have to shout to get our views heard on a matter that is patently one that should be decided at a local level? The onus is on Ruth Kelly to explain why she has got the time to interfer in our affairs.
See you in Cardiff for Wales v England …
Amelie J Smith said,
March 14, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
May I suggest that if Ruth Kelly really has ignored the conclusions of her own inspector then this is misconduct and she should be reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner accordingly? In the alternative, at the requested meeting, if it takes place, it should be made clear to her that she faces this if she does not reverse her decision immediately and apologise. I would also favour reporting her to the Ombudsman, to the Labour Party’s NEC and to her constituency party. Ministers get away with these things precisely because no-one ever makes proper use of the available disciplinary procedures.