Jump to content

Planning permission to demolish victorian house and replace with 3 flat


Selma

Recommended Posts

There is currently a planning permission with southwark to demolish a victorian house and replace it with a 3 storey building containing 3 flats on Hindmans road. Now of course not all will be effected by overlooking balconies, added cars for parking, removal of light etc, it would set precedent to destroy the victorian feel for development Opportunities.

To add to insult, the company asking for planning is registered in the Cayman , so I am guessing not much tax on any profit will be paid.



planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9568582

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked at the design and they look pretty good, personal preference admittedly.


I do think its a shame that there is a general objection to any new development, there's tons of ordinary Victorian houses and most of them aren't going anywhere soon. I think the best way for our time to leave anything behind is these small interventions, certainly better than the wholesale destruction that we are now seeing around Elephant and Castle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate but unavoidably true that preserving the Victorian character of the area has a cost (which falls on people who don't own property here, but might want to, or to rent) and changing that character has a cost that falls the other way. It's a classic political decision, and there's no 'right answer'.


IMHO it's ludicrous to think that the current density of population in London's inner suburbs can be maintained indefinitely - what other city in the world has cosy little houses with their own gardens 10 minutes odd by train from the financial district? Better to have a plan to change incrementally and comparatively sensitively. By those criteria, this application should be supported. All the objections are essentially NIMBY. Complaining about parking is pointless - that's another political decision that has already been taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against destroying the integrity of a Victorian terrace, but take a look at 30-40 Hindmans Rd on street view. It's hardly a preserved Victorian strip - look at the haphazardly bricked up shops and modern windows. I think in this case the new development would if anything improve that section of the road, and since No.30 is a peculiar detached house with a different roof pitch from the other houses I can't believe that replacing it would set a precedent for spoiling the Victorian character of this or any other road in East Dulwich.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rackmans. have arrived.Who exactly is giving permission for the planning.

Why isnt there a local resident comitee overseeing these deals (oops sorry i meant permissions).

In a short time from now this area will look like a ghetto slum,there are people already looking to move out.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarot Wrote:

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

> Rackmans. have arrived.Who exactly is giving

> permission for the planning.

> Why isnt there a local resident comitee overseeing

> these deals (oops sorry i meant permissions).

> In a short time from now this area will look like

> a ghetto slum,there are people already looking to

> move out.7


Calm down dear!!


I think you need to look at what Rachman actually did, i havent read of any bully boys scaring off tenants and neighbour with billy clubs.


The problem with only asking local residents is that nothing will ever change.


We need a professional and educated Planning department with which in Southwark, we are generally quite lucky, just be grateful that we dont live in the train crash that is Lambeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachman was a bullying slum landlord, exploiting tenants in existing slums which were hell to live in - rebuilding an existing building into 3 flats (which may be sold rather than rented) - and which don't seem in anyway to be now, or likely to be in the future, slums, isn't Rachmanism. The overseas taxation nature of the owner/ developer is an entirely different type of issue. Deplorable no doubt, but different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Do also remember that, whilst this is the original there is an unrelated FB presence with a (very) similar name, which might also be prayed in aid. 
    • Yet another increase, its absolutely disgusting. I was charged £7.95 to send documents recorded delivery last week. I asked for the Signed for option that only costs £2.50 but the Post Office refused & said they would only send them recorded delivery. 
    • Thanks Admin for clarifying - I’ve now found the post they used to scrape my telephone number from. So it wasn’t a data breach from EDF, rather my foolishness posting it online 15 years ago…    Still leaving this thread here if that’s ok so that people are aware of this scam and don’t fall foul of it (also to think twice before posting phone numbers here as it can be used by any one as I’ve found out!)
    • There is deliberately nowhere to enter your phone number, name, address etc anywhere when registering an account on this forum. There never has been. There is no way to attach this sort of personal information to your account.  If someone says that EDF has given your phone number, then this is a lie. No personal information is sold to any third party and it is not collected in the first place.     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...