Planning permission to demolish victorian house and replace with 3 flat

[Selma]

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

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's already happened in other parts of ED

[Aristide]

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

[KidKruger]

Everywhere is being developed / extended and so it should be with so much potential laying in original layout houses and such a shortage of properties available overall. The precedent was set decades ago.

The Govt has set things up so that's the way tax works.

[DaveR]

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.

[Katy Tonbridge]

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.

[Tarot]

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

[Aristide]

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.

[uncleglen]

It's Rachman fyi

[Aristide]

thank you

[Penguin68]

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.