Planning application to build new house between Friern Road and Barry Road.

[Inkmaiden]

Was mildly surprised to see this planning application attached to a lamp post on Goodrich Rd. As far as I can gather, no-one in the immediate area has received any notification of this through their doors and there is nothing posted outside the property itself so many who may be affected by it might have missed it.

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9576025

[MarkT]

Thanks Inkmaiden for the alert. It continually amazes me that the Council Planning Dept will validate applications that are clearly contrary to Policy. In this case the Dulwich Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is explicit. This is previously undeveloped backland so the application must be refused.

I have just submitted an objection as follows:

Here's an extract from the Dulwich SPD. 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.

MarkT

[intexasatthe moment]

None of the above prevented Southwark granting PP for both these previously undeveloped backland sites with restricted access

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9553701

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=11/AP/0006&system=DC

[JDR]

Also is it technically undeveloped if knocking another building down, even in part?

[Aristide]

I must say i quite like it, not sure what the use for that land would be otherwise.

[intexasatthe moment]

There are all kinds of pieces of backland like this scattered around and I am tempted to agree with Aristide on the "what use for that land otherwise " theme . And I like the turntable idea to make vehicular exits easier .

Of course consideration of the impact on neighbouring properties is crtical .I used to think that planning guidelines could be relied on to ensure that consideration was fair and proper .

But I don't anymore .It's particularly irritating when advice/guidelines/procedures ( which it's taken years of consultation to produce ) are published and then applied in a seemingly random way - PP refused because access too restricted for 3 small properties but deemed ok if the application is for two large propeties.

[ryeme]

There is a recently built house in 'backland' Friern Road which was open to the public a few years ago on Open House weekend. It may be a different situation but I think they said it had got planning permission because the site was originally a market garden.

[intexasatthe moment]

Ryeme - yes that's one of the dev I linked to above .

Southwark's lovely historical maps show no evidence of any activity on that site

https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?overlays=Planning&mapcfg=Historic%20maps

Interesting discussion covering Southwark's varying views on what constitutes "backland" and the Planning Inspectorate's view that the house was an imaginative response to what it agreed was previously undeveloped land .

in the appeal decision

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=11/AP/0006&system=DC

[achilles1]

to many idiots with money thinking they can build where ever they want

[Aristide]

the two sites to the south of goodrich were market gardens, others in the area were for farriers, light industrial etc.

I just cant see why it should be housing, as long as planning policies on light, overlooking are complied with.

[intexasatthe moment]

Aristide - lots of areas marked as Nurseries on old maps of the area ,some to the south of Goodrich Rd .

But I can't find any maps showing land to rear of 190 Friern and land to rear of 153 Barry Rd as a market garden . And ,with regard to the Friern Rd plot the Planning Inspectorate acknowledged the plot as being previously undeveloped .

Lots of maps around - which one are you using ?

[dresswaves]

OS maps on Southwark site from 1896, 1936 to 1952 & 1916 show several greenhouses on the site.

[intexasatthe moment]

Isn't that only for the Barry Rd site not for the Friern Rd site .?

And if the green houses at Barry Rd were a market garden or a nursery it seems odd that they weren't marked as such ,given that others close by were .Which makes me think they were domestic in use rather than retail .

[Aristide]

sorry i missed the nt off should,

[JohnL]

achilles1 Wrote:

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

> to many idiots with money thinking they can build

> where ever they want

New planning rule came in last week say more or less they can

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53625960

[mayo]

I keep getting an error when I try that link and nothing coming up with the reference number either - could somebody please give me the address / title of the planning application so I can have a look? Thanks

[JohnL]

mayo Wrote:

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

> I keep getting an error when I try that link and

> nothing coming up with the reference number either

> - could somebody please give me the address /

> title of the planning application so I can have a

> look? Thanks

11/AP/0006 is one

The other is using a port 8190 so not sure it'll work - OH It's 2018 :)

[mayo]

Thanks but 11/AP/0006 dates from 2011 and I think relates to Pear Tree House which is one of the backland developments referred to upthread but not the one that Inkmaiden is referring to I don't think?