Save Our Shed ( Do the right thing Southwark )

[lousmith]

Hi EDF readers. My name is Lou Smith, formally of Captured on the Rye creative party business which, like many other businesses, has been decimated by the Covid Pandemic. I am writing to ask for support to help persuade Southwark Council to reverse their decision to force me to take down the shed which has been my creative sanctuary for nearly two years and is threatened because of a single complaint from a neighbour. I have enlisted the help of local councillors and MP, and have created a petition which has already raised nearly 1200 signatures in just a few days. I would be grateful if you could take two minutes to read more about the petition and consider signing it too. At 1500 signatures it will qualify to be heard at Council Assembly, the highest tier of local government. Thank you for reading. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-shed-do-the-right-thing-southwark

[alice]

Your shed is beautiful.

[lousmith]

Thank you Alice. The council has actually not even seen it. It's so lovely the little vixen has set up home in the cat basket on the stoop.

[siousxiesue]

Signed, good luck

[lousmith]

Thanks so much. If you are the siousxiesue of legend, we met a couple of years back at an art show in Space @61. If not, I'm still happy to have your support.

[redpost]

I don't understand, your petition says "...which is of a size so as not to require planning permission..." so I assume you have checked the rules and it passes permitted development?

[lousmith]

The issue is that as a leaseholder of LBS they own the garden despite several attempts by myself to buy it. Yes the shed is of a size that would fall below the need for planning permission, but despite the complaining other leaseholder having a shed, the Council have at their discretion disallowed mine. The resident services officer stated that he didn't object to my having a shed, nor to its placement, but thought 'it was just too big' It is a subjective decision, not an objective one.

[kristymac1]

signed and I wish you all the best - sounds like you've had a particularly rough time x

[lousmith]

Thanks kristymac1. Yes, i was really hoping I was going to get a smooth run at life for a bit. Appreciate your effort.

[IlonaM]

Signed and sent a pm Lou.

[lousmith]

Thanks Ilona.

[Abe_froeman]

This seems awfully petty and obnoxious on the part of both the council and your neighbour and I wish you every success in your campaign to keep this shed which seems to provide you with such sanctuary.

[lousmith]

Thanks Abe. Appreciate it. Petty and unnecessary is right. Nobody wins if they win. The neighbour doesn't even live there. It's pure spite.

[EDguy89]

So I guess I'm curious.

Does the freeholder's say outweigh the leaseholder in every instance? I rent, and I know I'm not able to make changes to the property as its not owned by myself. Does the same hold true if you have a 100 year lease?

I imagine you wouldn't be able to add an extension to the back of the house or anything like that since eventually the lease would end and the property/land would revert back to the freeholder.

I imagine you'd need the freeholder's permission for that first. I'd figure the same would be true for a building added in the garden. Or is this incorrect?

[NewWave]

Signed!

The background to your story resonated with me having gone through a similarly dreadful time in the space of a year.

I sincerely wish you every success in this-you deserve to have this sanctuary and shouldn't be put in fear of losing your home.

Good luck!

[lousmith]

Thanks NewWave. Appreciate it. Sometimes life just keeps on taking. It's making me more resilient. Of that I'm sure.

[lousmith]

EDguy89 It would make sense to agree to a temporary structure to be erected in the garden of a property with a 100+ year lease as it could always be removed. The garden is owned by the freeholder though and that is the issue here. The fact that the other leaseholder has done and continues to do far more in the way of actual structural alterations and actual law of the land breaking without suffering any such blowback is what's eating me up here. If it was an isolated incident of I broke the rules, I got caught, then I would go quietly. Unfairness on this level though, I just can't stomach.

[Monkey]

Signed. Keep strong, Lou.

[lousmith]

Thanks Monkey.

[HTED]

Have signed and shared. Good luck Lou!

V :-)

[EDguy89]

lousmith Wrote:

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

> EDguy89 It would make sense to agree to a

> temporary structure to be erected in the garden of

> a property with a 100+ year lease as it could

> always be removed. The garden is owned by the

> freeholder though and that is the issue here. The

> fact that the other leaseholder has done and

> continues to do far more in the way of actual

> structural alterations and actual law of the land

> breaking without suffering any such blowback is

> what's eating me up here. If it was an isolated

> incident of I broke the rules, I got caught, then

> I would go quietly. Unfairness on this level

> though, I just can't stomach.

Ok, so essentially it boils down to you did something you shouldn't, but feel that you shouldn't rectify that issue as long as the other tenant who has also done something they shouldn't doesn't face any consequences?

[hibbs]

Signed! I hope it all works out for you.

[lousmith]

Actually there is nothing specific in my lease to preclude the building of a shed, it is a discretionary decision on the part of the council, whereas the other leaseholder has broken multiple clauses of his lease in addition to actual laws. That is the unfairness to which i refer. I'm sure you would feel the same in my position. I am unable to go into full details here, but to be in possession of all the facts is to understand my position.

[lousmith]

Thanks Hibbs.

[johnie]

Signed, hug