Newbuilds in gardens - Hindmans Road

[first mate]

"we agree that precedent should not be set for building in all back gardens"

It is likely that if this development goes through it will be viewed as a precedent by other developers and perhaps planning departments in future.

[intexasatthe moment]

The argument about whether the existing building is " incongruous " is a red herring isn't it ? Or is it just to pave the way to get a very incongrous design accepted ?

And thinking about the existing property ,someone has pointed out to me that houses with 130 or less sq metres are not considered suitable in this area for subdivision . I wonder if that might be a factor here in wishing to demolish and replace with 2 units ?

Regarding building in back gardens - can you give an example where this has happened ? Actually built in a back garden ,not on a garage court ,not on a site previously in use as a commercial property ( be it joinery/police station/garden centre/plant nursery )?

While I agree that all applications are unique and that 30 Hindmans is unusual it is by no means true that long gardens are a rarity in East Dulwich .You've only to look at map to see the space behind Barry Rd ,Friern Rd ,Forest Hill Rd etc

The Dulwich Supplemental Planning Document is described as

This SPD will be part of our framework of planning documents. It will be a material planning consideration in deciding planning applications. It will help ensure that the council makes decisions transparently and provides clarity for members of the public and developers .

and has more weight than you imply .

And you do little for your credibilty by making wild statements like " the SPD is a very good and useful document but if always totally adhered to we would have no new flat developments in East Dulwich and the housing crisis would be further enlarged."

[jimmah]

What happens to the view of the green roof if the new owners lose interest in maintaining it? What does it look like in that situation?

Also aren't the single storey garden developments you mention such as summer houses etc seen as temporary structures and not for residential use unlike the dwelling house you propose (although beds in sheds springs to mind)

[MarkT]

.

[Selma]

To quote SL Architects : "No one wants to see all gardens removed, but there are multiple examples of large single storey summer houses and outbuildings in and around the area".

How they are comparing a wooden shed, with no amenities and no one living it in (our wooden shed with garden stuff is one of the ?large single storey summer houses and outbuildings ?), to a property with two 2 bed flat in it.

Most people living in East Dulwich moved here for the gardens, peace and quite and lovely neighbourhood. By setting a precedent that it is OK to build in gardens will ruin the reason we live here.

The argument is not about the main building, but by squeezing in as much as possible (i.e. a further house in the current garden) purely for profit.

Neither the architect nor the developer will live with the consequence?s of destroying the gardens and all that means for the residents who has invested time and money to make this street. They will just pocket the money and run.

[Renata Hamvas]

The application for no.30 Hindmans has come under my radar and I have been in discussion with Planning about it.

Renata

[intexasatthe moment]

Did anyone submit comments on the application for 30 Hindmans ?

None shown online http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9557120

Surprised .

[MarkT]

TEX,

Yes, I did, and I received acknowledgement of receipt.

On past cases, I have asked the case officer why objections have not appeared, even after the 10 days promised in the letter of acknowledgement. On one occasion, having received no acknowledgement, I followed up with an email to the other address (.applications or .consultation) I was informed that the inbox advertised for objections had been full with other cases. That would suggest that some objections may not have got through at all.

For the record I objected on the grounds that as the garden is a previously undeveloped, the proposal is contrary to policy

MarkT

[technotom]

Thanks to everyone who assisted us with objecting to the first application. We were very glad to see it withdrawn.

Just a heads up that a revised application has been submitted:

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9558767

Thankfully the garden development has been removed, although as an immediate neighbour the proposed basement excavations are more than a little scary.

We have several objections to the design that we will articulate in another objection letter, although it does appear to be moving in the right direction.

[tiddles]

I love the way the elevations are upside down

[technotom]

We have just submitted our objections to the revised proposal.

Fewer issues in this application that affect anyone beyond the immediate neighbours, but it is worth noting that the proposal removes off-street parking and adds multiple apartments with no parking provision. This is an increasing concern with the nearby developments such as the old police station due to increase demand further.

[Callie]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> I love the way the elevations are upside down

lol, too much to ask they load up right way round.

You just can't get the staff :O/

(not at southwark council anyways)