Community Infrastructure Levy

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. Retails ranges 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.

Permitted Development Rights

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.

Closure of Lordship Lane Police Station

Below is an exchange of correspondence we have had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police regarding the proposed closure of East Dulwich police station in Lordship lane.

Dear Susan Badman,

Thank you for your email dated 01 October 2012, in which you express concerns about the future of East Dulwich Police Station.

I recognise that there are a number of matters of great concern to Londoners and the confidence of the public in the MPS is dependent on the way we address those concerns.

Before addressing your specific points about East Dulwich Police Station, I thought it would be helpful to explain the context in which the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is examining potential changes to the policing of London.

Our approach starts with identifying ways in which we can improve our performance at cutting crime and deliver a higher quality public service to the people of London.  At the heart of this will be our commitment to safer neighbourhoods, and a specific promise to strengthen our Safer Neighbourhood Teams with an additional 2,000 police officers.  The provision of appropriate bases is vital to ensure we are able to respond to local demand, and we are clear that our current ward structure and borough partnerships will continue to be the foundation of neighbourhood policing.

We are also committing further resources to dealing with incidents to make London safer, with an additional 500 officers into the teams that respond to 999 calls. We believe that the provision of extra officers to our neighbourhood and response teams will be welcomed by Londoners, and it should therefore be central to our thinking around any potential changes.

In addition to this commitment, we have been reviewing the ways in which the public can access our services. This has changed considerably in recent years, with the introduction of a standard 101 non-emergency number; internet access; the opportunity to make diary appointments to see officers; and the commitment we have made that every victim of crime should be able to see an officer if they wish. We are examining the potential for further provision of ‘drop-in’ surgeries at community venues such as local authority facilities.

This Public Access review will make proposals for enhancing the quality of service provided by the MPS, in response to changing public demand. These proposals could include the permanent closure of East Dulwich Police Station, which has very low numbers of visits by the public. These will only take place when a local Public Access Plan has been signed off by MOPAC. Such closures would allow your Borough Commander to return operational officers to their primary role of emergency response and crime prevention in neighbourhoods.

The financial context in which the MPS is conducting this review requires us to save approximately £500 million pounds from our budget, and so we have to focus on how we can offer the best value to tax-payers at the same time as improving the quality of our service.

My commitment is to increase the numbers of officers working in Safer Neighbourhood teams. The exact numbers in each team will be decided as part of our Public Access review. But we are considering establishing a minimum staffing level for every team and giving local commanders the discretion to increase numbers according to the specific demands of each ward.

Once the MPS has completed its Public Access review, we will submit proposals to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime who will have the final say on the sale of any buildings. This will be undertaken by Christmas 2012 and MOPAC will then assess our proposals. We are clear that no decisions on closure of individual stations will be made until a new plan for Public Access has been approved as MOPAC will want to uphold the Mayor’s pledge that “no front counter will close unless an equivalent or better facility for public access has been identified”.

I can confirm that I had said in my interview with BBC in September that there will be consultation with local people before big changes are made to policing.

I hope that this provides you with the necessary reassurance you were seeking however should you have further concerns I would ask that you direct them to your Borough Commander in the first instance . Alternatively you may wish to address your concerns to Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne, via, who is leading on work regarding the Met’s local policing model.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner – 29 October 2012

 From: Sue Badman []
Sent: 01 October 2012 11:32
To: ‘
Subject: Closure of police station in the three Dulwich Wards, Southwark
Mr Bernard Hogan-Howe, QPM

Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

Dear Mr Hogan-Howe,

In a recent BBC report you were quoted as saying that the Metropolitan Police Force would consult local people before making big changes in local policing.

However, at a recent meeting of the Dulwich Community Council held on 18th September, the Borough Commander confirmed that East Dulwich Police Station would be closing imminently and that the base office for the Safer Neighbourhood Teams in Village and East Dulwich Wards would be in Camberwell. No mention was made of fate of the small SNT base on the Kingswood Estate in College Ward which we in this area rely upon for the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.

The closure of Dulwich’s only ‘front counter’ police station at East Dulwich is not acceptable without making arrangements for alternative premises.  The Camberwell station is about four miles from the most distant part of College Ward; it is not easily accessible by public transport from large parts of Village and College Wards because there are no direct train services and a bus trip would probably require at least one change.

On most days it could take up to 50 minutes to travel by road from Camberwell to Crystal Palace Parade in the far south of the Borough. This will lead to less efficient deployment of the local SNTs, PCs and PCSOs who will have to travel further and will have less time to spend patrolling the wards. Residents in these areas will feel more vulnerable knowing that the response times to attend incidents, or respond to information about suspicious behaviour in the area, are longer.

Mr Hogan-Howe, please will you confirm that you did make the statement quoted by the BBC, confirm that the intention is indeed to close the East Dulwich station, and direct me to the discussions or consultations with local residents that have preceded this decision.

Finally, will you please give me an undertaking that the decision to close the East Dulwich Police Station will be reconsidered, to give an opportunity for local residents to be consulted, and an alternative site to be identified and commissioned.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Susan Badman

Chair of Turney Road Residents’ Association

Guidelines for the Use of the Edward Alleyn Club Sportsfield

 Access to Edward Alleyn Club grounds Alleyn’s School has been asked by the Residents’ Associations of Burbage Road and Turney Road to clarify its policy with regards to access for local residents whose houses adjoin the School’s Edward Alleyn Club playing fields and Clubhouse.  These are now run as School grounds and this carries with it the need for us to be scrupulous in applying the School’s safeguarding and health and safety policies at the same time as increasing levels of upkeep and security. However, the School recognizes that permitting some limited access to the grounds by these local residents is unobjectionable. The following is a brief guide to the School’s current position.

  1. The Edward Alleyn Club playing fields are School grounds used primarily by the pupils and former pupils of Alleyn’s School. The EAC, as the old boys’ and old girls’ association, operates a number of sports clubs at the grounds. As such they are private property and local residents have no “right” of access or use. The School will review its position in relation to granting permission to access the site in light of residents’ behaviour and our needs and concerns with respect to the site. The School and the Residents’ Associations will meet from time to time to review the situation.
  1. At times when the School or the Club are not using the grounds for their sports and social activities, and when the ground staff are not working on the pitches, local residents with properties adjoining the grounds may come onto the fields in small numbers for the purposes of informal recreation (e.g. kicking a football around, jogging, walking etc.). No cycling, skateboarding or golf practice is permitted on the grounds. No fires or barbeques are permitted on the grounds.
  1. Local residents must leave when requested by any member of Alleyn’s School staff.
  1. Dogs, if exercised on the grounds, must be kept on a short lead or under direct supervision and control of the owner at all times and dog walkers should stick to the perimeters of the grounds, not exercise their dogs across the playing fields. Any dog waste should be bagged and disposed of offsite, not in the rubbish bins on site. Dog fouling is of particular concern to the School.
  1. No activity should take place in goal mouths, on the cricket square or on any piece of the grounds either marked as being under repair, as indicated in writing to the Residents’ Association representatives, or clearly needing to be rested.
  1. No grounds maintenance equipment or sports facilities (sightscreens, covers, goalposts etc.) should be interfered with or moved by residents.
  1. Young children must be supervised by an appropriate adult at all times.
  1. Any damage to the grounds or the facilities caused or noticed by residents should be reported to the Clubhouse Manager.
  1. Residents will be responsible for those accessing the site on their behalf clearing away any rubbish left by them and for the supervision of any equipment ( including vehicles) at all times as this may be extremely dangerous for other users.
  1. If residents wish to access to the grounds for any other purposes (e.g. property maintenance, access etc.) prior permission should be sought from the Clubhouse Manager, Susan Black on

The School continues to use all reasonable efforts to maintain the security of the site and to ensure that its activities on site take into account the residential nature of the surrounding area.  While the School is unable to bear responsibility for actions of adult individuals, sporting sides all operate under their respective codes of conduct in relation to such matters as foul language and respect for property, and both the School and the heads of the Club’s sporting sections will remind their players and the captains of opposing teams of the importance of ensuring that these codes are adhered to.  Any abuse should be reported back as soon as possible to the School via the Residents’ Association representative. Equally, we will issue instructions forbidding visiting players from climbing over fences or entering residents’ property to retrieve balls, etc.,  but would appreciate the cooperation of neighbours in returning balls, given that, inevitably, these sometimes come onto their land. A couple of key messages: Residents  are requested not to use the pitches when wet.  Balls over the fences are labelled with a telephone number for return and should be returned over the fence on the day if possible.  If not possible till later, residents are asked to contact Susan Black, Clubhouse Manager on to arrange a time to return the ball.  Footballs should not be thrown back over the fence at random times, as the ball could be picked up by other people using the field.

A resident’s comments on the velodrome planning application

Southwark Public Notice of the Velodrome Planning ApplicationHere is the letter from Andy Knox of Village Way about the Velodrome. There is also a letter from Roy Fielding of Village Way on the Southwark Web Site.

Comments regarding Planning application for 104 Burbage Road, London SE24 9HE

My property is 12 Village Way, Dulwich SE21 which backs on to the velodrome. I am lodging the following comments.

Yours faithfully

Andy Knox

1. Lighting – I understand that care has been taken to minimise light spillage and that an assurance has been given that light levels outside the immediate area of the track will be equivalent to “bright moonlight”. Assurances on the light levels and related testing should be built into any approval. Residents should be able to see a demonstration of the lighting before the end of the consultation. New or additional tree screening should be provided for those properties in line of the light spillage.

2. Use, timing, noise

Any approval should be conditional upon the site continuing to be used for cycling related activities with a low impact on amenity, together with the following:

a. The site should not be used before 9am and should be cleared by 9pm.

b. Usage of the site at weekends should be limited to a small number of events ( no more than 5) to be pre notified and with appropriate consultation

c. Noise pollution should be managed closely eg to ensure that any pa systems are high quality, focussed on the inner area and be restricted to information-based announcements not ongoing music. There should be no public announcements or use of pacer bikes after 6pm. Measures of noise levels (including pacer bikes) to be put in place and feedback on this issue to be collected after the first 6 months of extended use.

3. Security: A police survey should be undertaken pre any approval to assure on ongoing security given potential increased public access.

4. Parking – I understand that it is not anticipated that track extension times should lead to an increase in traffic and parking onsite. Assurance should be given in any approval on this and that there will be no change to the existing parking arrangements. A road safety survey is advisable.

5. Works noise – if planning permission is forthcoming all works will be carried out subject to the Estate’s usual works conditions (daytime only, no weekends etc)

Our comments to the Council on the Velodrome Planning Application

Logo of the Herne Hill VelodromThe Burbage and Turney Road Residents’ Associations have the following reservations:

We have not seen a business plan for the planned increase in usage of the facilities following the addition of a MUGA and floodlighting. This has made it impossible for residents to ascertain accurately the concomitant loss of amenity due to noise, traffic,  safety, light pollution and security issues. We can reasonably expect that the facilities will lead to more intensive use of the site ( greater volumes when open compared with present) and more extensive use of the site ( greater hours of opening) and are a foundation for greater development of the site in future.

On this basis we request that the following important concerns from local residents are enshrined in the present proposed planning approval:

1.      The site will continue be used for cycling related activities and associated social events, which are considered to have a low impact on amenity.

2.      The hours of use of the site will not be extended beyond typical summer usage currently. This is consistent with the stated focus on youth and disability based activities. In particular:

a.      The site will be cleared from 9pm onwards with lighting ceased strictly from this time and noise related activities ( PA systems and pacer bikes) ceasing at 7.30pm ;

b.      The site will not be open before 8am, with any noise related activities ( PA systems and pacer bikes) strictly forbidden before 9am.

c.       Usage of the site at weekends and bank holidays will be limited to a small number of larger events ( no more than 10 ). We strongly request these are pre notified to residents ( as this does not happen at present, to our great frustration).

3.      Within these hours of use, noise pollution will be managed considerably more effectively than at present. Specifically we request that the vintage pacer bikes, which produce highly intrusive levels of noise, are replaced by electric versions. We request that the existing PA system is improved considerably  so that it is focussed on the main track/MUGA and that it  is limited to information-based announcements, not continuous music.   We would like measures of noise levels (including pacer bikes) to be put in place and feedback on this issue to be collected after the first year of extended use.

In addition we ask the Planning Committee to consider and account for the following, before proposed planning approval is effected:

1.      Access to the site is extremely dangerous at present ( via a single track road, across a pavement used by parents and children on foot and bikes as a major local ‘Safe Route to School’ and  with severely  limited visibility for those entering and departing). It is our view that this site access cannot safely sustain any increased usage whatsoever, but especially for dark early evenings and for larger weekend events. Limited access causes parking congestion in Burbage Road currently, especially at weekends.  A road access and safety survey would be highly advisable and police coordination needs to be planned for larger events.

2.      Security for the many householders backing onto this site will be compromised by greater public access, particularly in the darker winter months. The entrance to the site is not supervised and a large amount of open land provides a threat to personal and property safety. A police survey of security risks would be advisable in our view.

3.      Existing drainage provision  for the site has been assessed by the Southwark Flood Risk Management Team as ineffective. Whilst the current plans are not considered to exacerbate local water run off risk to residents,  in our view either the freeholder ( The Dulwich Estate) or the lessee (the HHVT) should be accountable for putting a  robust, environmentally friendly infrastructure in place before development takes place.   The responsibility needs to be clarified and an acceptable plan be in place.

We draw your attention to the fact that we are relying for our support on the commitments already received –  but not yet evidenced –  from the HHVT to:

1.      Provide an example of the type, size and strength of the lighting to be implemented for all residents before planning consultation ends.

2.      Work with residents to implement a voluntary Code of Conduct covering emergency contact points, regular review mechanisms for problems arising and general obligations on behalf of the HHVT and residents. This should be in place before construction work begins and cover the construction process. Such codes already operate successfully between residents and  other sports facilities in the area.

3.      Provide tree screening for those houses which are directly in the line of spillage from the proposed floodlighting.

The Burbage and Turney Road Residents Associations actively represent the vast majority of the 400 households in these two Roads and have consulted our residents widely and frequently on the proposed developments. We therefore request that our nominated representative speaks on behalf of residents at the Planning Approval meetings for the two planning proposals.

Louise Wood and Susan Badman

Burbage Road Residents’ Association, Turney Road Residents’ Association

2nd November 2012