DulwichRob

Permitted development which allows development WITHOUT planning permission and therefore the Residential Design Guide SPD has no bearing on this. This discussion to me has less to do with the application site and more about development in general. (Its only my opinion about the design and I will have to disagree with your opinions on it). I attach a document which clearly shows what is achievable under permitted development. I'm not making this up and I would like to say that in general I do not agree with the permitted development laws and the possiblities are frankly frightening... http://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-The-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf I was merely pointing out that this could be the case in ANY garden being as the topic of this discussion is "Newbuilds in Gardens." I have nothing to do with the project intexasatthe moment - My girlfriend and I use her login name usually on the forum but I wanted to comment in person to this as its something I believe strongly about. I work in the construction industry and I am interested in new and innovative ways of building new properties. Some clients that I deal with look at the potential of developing sites behind existing buildings. I was interested to read opinions and point out the permitted development law.

The impact would be different that is true, intexasatthemoment. I was merely pointing out that permtted development allows for a potentially huge building, with no design merit or site specific consideration, in this or any other rear garden. This thread looks to discuss our thoughts on Newbuilds in Gardens and I am pointing out that newbuilds can be constructed without consultaion and there is little that any of us can do about it. What I suppose Im trying to say is that given planning law allows you to build a potentially huge building on this site that could be positioned anywhere within the site boundary (including directly opposite the white house i might add), maybe we should look at the merits of this type of design, which i think in this case, looks to reduce its impact on its neighbours, rather than looking at these types of developement with one broad brush that rejetcs all.

Just had a quick scan of the design and access statement and it does seem that the building designers have tried several things to mitigate the impact of the building on its neighbours. Without discussing the pros and cons of developments like this in general, it is worth bearing in mind that under permitted development (the process whereby development can occur without planning permission), an out-building of less than 50% of the total area of land around the original house can be built upon, as long as is required for a purpose incidental of the dwellinghouse as such. If on the boundary this building can be 2.5m high and can be positioned anywhere within the property curtilage as long as it is not cnnected to the existing building. There are examples where outbuildings have been built only 2.5cm from the existing. In this case therefore a future owner could possibly put in a very large enclosed swimming pool (or similar outbuilding) with a far bigger footprint than the proposal building in this application. It can also be constructed in any material.

`