Proposal to build house in garden of 51 Crystal Palace Rd

[Omega]

Have received notification from Southwark planning on this proposal to build a new single storey house in the back garden of this house on CP Road ref. 15/AP/1654 (I'm afraid I don't know how to post a link to the site)

Am flagging this up as I can't see a list of consultees on the website so unsure how widely the council are consulting on this but it may be of interest to others apart from direct neighbours as I understand it may set a precedent for the area.

Amongst other issues my main concerns include the environmental impact - the back gardens in that area are very peaceful and support a fair amount of local wildlife, the proposed new house appears to have quite a large footprint and would inevitably impact negatively on this and would, in particular, include destruction of some beautiful trees.

Also, the back gardens on that stretch of road are all of similar size/length and presumably if permission is given for this house then this could mean that other similar developments could go ahead too which would potentially have a huge impact and completely change the character of this area.

I'm aware there was a similar proposal to build a house in the back garden on Hindmans Road last year, although the actual detail may have differed, but as I understand it it was withdrawn so never got to go through to a planning decision so I'm unsure of what the chances of this being granted are but would be interested to hear any thoughts on this.

[hind]

I've seen one nearly finished being built yesterday on CRystal palace road more towards north cross road

[Jeremy]

Not convinced that trees are valid grounds to challenge an application - people can do whatever they want with trees on private property unless protected by a tree preservation order.

[MarkT]

Hind,

Is that a separate building or an extension? do you know the house number?

MarkT

[DulwichFox]

. Sorry posted in wrong thread.

DulwichFox

[Jeremy]

.

[MarkT]

Omega,

Thanks for alerting us. It is strange that so many people have submitted comments to the Council in support of the scheme, and before most of the neighbourhood was aware of it, but it's not a ballot; it must be decided according to the policies.

Here's an extract from the Dulwich SPD (Supplementary Planning Document). Note that ALL the criteria have to be satisfied for a backland development to be permitted. This seems to be a previously undeveloped back garden, so that alone should be grounds for refusal.

5.4.2 Back-land development can have a significant impact on amenity, neighbouring properties and

the character of the area. Dulwich is generally not considered to be a suitable area for back-land

development due to the character of the area and the large plot sizes which are characteristic of

the area and contribute to its historic value. Dulwich is characterised by being leafy, open and

green, with mainly low-rise suburban buildings. Building new dwellings or garden buildings that are

disproportionately larger than the plot size in back gardens would alter and harm the character of

Dulwich.

5.4.3 However, there may be some exceptions where back-land development is acceptable. We may permit back-land development where proposals meet all of the following criteria:

i. It is on previously developed land.

ii.The development would not compromise historic plots that reflect the heritage of the

area, including the historic patterns of development and the cumulative impact of similar

developments.

iii. There is adequate convenient and safe access, suitable for the entry and egress of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

iv. The development would not contribute or add to parking problems in the area (we will usually

require a local parking survey to demonstrate this).

v. There is no loss of privacy and amenity for adjoining houses and their back gardens.

vi. Schemes larger than 1 dwelling will require space for refuse storage and collection and the

separation of pedestrian and vehicular access.

vii.Suitable consideration is given to the retention of tree canopy cover and mitigation of any loss.

viii.It can be demonstrated that proposals sustain and enhance the character and setting of

designated or undesignated heritage assets.

ix. An archaeological assessment has been provided, where appropriate, that demonstrates how the

development proposal will preserve in situ, protect and safeguard scheduled ancient monuments

and important archaeological remains and their settings.

[hind]

not sure of house number, if you walk towards North cross road, on the right hand side of the road. (probably near house number 115, not sure anymore) you will see some workers and you could actually see a freshly built house through the alley ..

[Otta]

Is this a home owner, or a landlord looking for more property to rent out?

[clockworkorange]

The nppf provides guidance about resisting backland development. How old I the spd noted above, pre 2012 and its probably out of date.

Trees are a concern and the London plan seeks to protect them.

Amenity, privacy, London housing spg 2012 standards, access, parking are all good reasons to object.

Don't mention profit, or bent planners and politicians - that will garuntee permission is granted. Call the case officer, your ward member and think more strategically.

[Omega]

Otta it's the owner of no. 51 that wants to sell up and downsize for semi retirement apparently.

Mark thanks a lot for that info it's extremely helpful to know the criteria. Yes the comments that were already submitted before we received notification are a bit odd but I assumed they were from friends/relatives of the applicant so thus they were already aware.

Hind I haven't seen the other house you've mentioned, I'm wondering if it is maybe not quite the same situation. The application submitted by no. 51 claims a precedent has already been set in the area but it's evidence to support this is a map showing the sheds and summer houses of east Dulwich plus some other developments on industrial sites and wasteland, but of course this is not the same thing. I think if there had been a back garden development they would have quoted it specifically, although of course you may be right.

Jeremy - I know trees sounds a bit weak as an argument but, hey, they're important to me and the criteria does refer to the green and leafiness of Dulwich so who knows?

[mancity68]

I have an existing backland development behind me. On a tiny plot but was there when I moved in. Now wants to dig a basement. I was wondering about impact on surrounding gardens very large and mature trees - wouldn't digging basement affect roots, therefore affect tree and therefore risk heave/subsidence if damaged?

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this sort of risk?

[Jeremy]

The problem with the trees argument is that as far as I can tell, the owner could just chop them all down tomorrow. Then there's no more argument.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Omega Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta it's the owner of no. 51 that wants to sell

> up and downsize for semi retirement apparently.

>

>....Yes the comments

> that were already submitted before we received

> notification are a bit odd but I assumed they were

> from friends/relatives of the applicant so thus

> they were already aware.

Sounds like a bit of a greedy, self centred prick

[Otta]

Indeed.

And RE trees, I think Jeremy is spot on, if the owner wanted to get rid then that's their right.

[hht10]

More info :

http://adf.ly/1HHwe7

[intexasatthe moment]

Well...not if Southwark puts a TPO on them .

[JohnL]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Omega Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Otta it's the owner of no. 51 that wants to

> sell

> > up and downsize for semi retirement apparently.

> >

> >....Yes the comments

> > that were already submitted before we received

> > notification are a bit odd but I assumed they

> were

> > from friends/relatives of the applicant so thus

> > they were already aware.

>

> Sounds like a bit of a greedy, self centred prick

If people can make a few 100,000 many are going to

do so.

I remember a lot of this happening in the 80s (people

with a big garden building on a bit of it and council

ok as it was 'in filling'.

[MarkT]

In this case the proposal includes the removal of 3 trees, so arguments against their removal are valid.

clockworkorange, the Dulwich SPD is valid until it is superseded. Policies don't just fade away. The Draft New Southwark Plan (bang up to date) contains a paragraph on Dulwich which indicates a continuation of the protection of gardens. Even as a first draft. the New Southwark Plan has some influence in the decision making, and on this issue it confirms the protection detailed in the Dulwich SPD.

MarkT

[Jeremy]

MarkT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In this case the proposal includes the removal of

> 3 trees, so arguments against their removal are

> valid.

I'm sure it's a legitimate concern. But I think you're misunderstood my point... if they're not protected by a TPO then there's nothing you can do. The owner could cut them down today if they wanted.

[Otta]

Also, can Southwark put a TPO on a tree on someone's land?

[Siduhe]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, can Southwark put a TPO on a tree on

> someone's land?

Yes they can. A TPO can be put in place if the tree is important in the local landscape/environment and/or if there is reason to believe the tree could be at risk. Our neighbours have a TPO on the tree in their garden - they wanted to trim it back considerably or remove it but couldn't because of the TPO.

[MarkT]

Otta,

In many cases the threat to the tree is from the owner, so indeed the TPO must be imposed on the land owner.

The end of the garden of no 51 borders onto a conservation area in which all trees are under blanket protection, regardless of the wishes of individual land owners.

Jeremy,

I think the point here is that there is a planning application in process, so the trees on the site are in effect under temporary protection. The planning rules and policies require a plan for their protection or for mitigation for their loss. In this case the applicant is proposing removal of 3 trees and planting new trees and a green roof, but that is subject to the approval of the Planning Authority.

MarkT

[adonirum]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, can Southwark put a TPO on a tree on

> someone's land?

Otta

A council (and other governing bodies ) can do whatever they like with your (third party) land and your property as when and if they are inclined to do so.

The greatest lie/myth ever perpetrated on us : An Englishman's Home Is His Castle

[Jeremy]

MarkT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the point here is that there is a planning

> application in process, so the trees on the site

> are in effect under temporary protection.

I didn't realise that was a rule. If so... what's to stop the owner just removing the trees before applying for planning?