Proposal to build house in garden of 51 Crystal Palace Rd

[healey]

Should be rejected, I hope. Not a good precedent to set.

[Jeremy]

It's either allowed or it's not... TBH personal circumstances of the applicants shouldn't be relevant.

[YellowRose]

Hi Jeremy - I'm not suggesting that personal circumstances would influence the planning decision, I was just upset at the ferocious nature of some of the comments here, especially those implying that comments had been planted and most of all the one talking about 'greedy self-centred pricks' which couldn't be further from the truth - I know from my own experience that these are extremely honest, hard-working people who spend a great deal of their time looking after others, I wanted people to be aware of that before they say unkind things.

[barrister1]

However lovely the applicant, however long she has lived at that address and however convenient it may be for that individual to down-size without moving far, building a house at the end of the garden so close to other properties and at the expense of a green corridor is objectionable. I am sorry that Yellow Rose was upset by one unpleasant post (from which I dissociate myself). But what is proposed will endure long after the needs of any one individual and, sympathetic as I am, I remain totally opposed to it.

[Jeremy]

YellowRose - fair enough. Personally I wouldn't automatically label someone as greedy, self centred, or indeed a prick without knowing the circumstances, but hey... this is the EDF and judgemental attitudes are rife.

I'm not totally against back garden development (potentially less harmful than the blocks of small 2 bed flats we've seen in recent years) but cases probably need to be judged objectively on a case-by-case basis.

[Earl Aelfheah]

To clarify, I did say the individual concerned sounded like a prick (based on the account posted). That said, It was a flippant and unnecessarily offensive comment and I apologise.

[MarkT]

"MarkT, you say "The end of the garden of no 51 borders onto a conservation area in which all trees are under blanket protection, regardless of the wishes of individual land owners." I wasn't aware of that and glad to hear it - do you have any more info?"

civilservant,

See Southwark's on-line map:

http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes

I find it really useful. On the right hand side, you can switch to historic maps. The left hand menu gives masses of current info, and planning history. You can see the ward boundaries discussed above, and the boundary of the conservation area.

For an explanation of conservation area protection see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_area_%28United_Kingdom%29

MarkT

[Renata Hamvas]

To confirm it is in Peckham Rye Ward,

Renata

[civilservant]

MarkT, thanks!

it's also good news that Renata has been involved in calling this one in for proper consideration.

[MarkT]

YellowRose, you state:

"The garden is lovely because they made it that way ? when they moved in it was mainly a concrete road with some kind of motor servicing pit at the end." and "I think the land is or was deeded separately anyway so maybe not quite the same as building on a back garden?"

Many gardens include areas of concrete, and the planning application in this case does indeed mention historic concrete, but clearly states that it is a single garden. Are you now however saying that the proposed development site is actually not a part of the garden to no51, but a separate brownfield site; a former motor maintenance yard?

The Planning Application makes no suggestion of existing or historic boundaries within the site, and none are apparent on Southwark's maps, current or historical.

MarkT

[What's going on]

There is a lady who lives on CPR who remembers this as a lovely garden in the 1950's. In the 1980's 51 was owned by a man who liked laying concrete and crazy-paving.

[LondonMix]

He must have also owned my house at some point. It was expensive to undo that horror!

[What's going on]

He did own quite a few properties in ED. His claim to fame was that he was a sparring partner to muhammad ali. Back on thread_ even he didn't try to ruin his garden by building a house in it.

[Omega]

Thanks for all the information and advice given both on here and through PM's, has been most helpful.

I see the date for receiving comments on the application has been extended to 25th June.

I don't know if it is common practice in planning applications but I would agree that the Design and access statement does appear rather disingenuous on a number of counts including in regards to the precedence of building in back gardens in the area and the suggestion that this is not really a back garden (I can see it from my house - it definitely is) and that this proposed development is really not much different from a summerhouse (it's extremely different).

I've also seen comments supporting the proposal referring to the garden as being 'prime land' which I find a bit sad and scary that this is the way some people view gardens as being a development opportunity to build on rather than valuing it for what it is.

I'm sorry if the applicant has been upset by comments made on the forum and I am sure that they genuinely thought that they were being considerate in their plans. However, they must surely have had at least some awareness that this would be a contentious proposal and have a negative impact, especially on their immediate neighbours, and I do not think it unreasonable for people to express their views on here on the proposal itself, however unwelcome some of those views may be.

[Omega]

Just belatedly updating this thread, the issue appears to be resolved by the applicant withdrawing the planning application, not sure why as was unable to contact the planning officer but possibly because they realised it would not get through planning.

[trizza]

Planning Permission is usually withdrawn because the council (informally) tells the applicant they will not get it and the applicant does not want an adverse decision on file as this impacts the value of the site and future applications.

[James Barber]

Also worth noting that withdrawal mean it can be resubmitted without a new fee being paid.

[ohg]

Just seen this application has been resubmitted.

15/AP/3454

Not that different to the previous application other than an attempt to justify building in gardens has precedent...

[Omega]

Yes having looked at the resubmitted application in detail it does look pretty much the same except they have tried to move some bits around and it's now going partially subterranean in an attempt to bring it below the fence sight lines. Still looks a mess to me. And yes they are trying to convince that a precedent has been set for building in back gardens in East Dulwich but none of their quoted examples are of houses being built in an actual garden. This would definitely be a precedent from what I can see and a worrying one too which would really have a negative impact on the area.

Thus I would urge anyone who previously submitted an objection to resubmit, plus anyone else who doesn't like the idea of losing back gardens in this area to property development. I'll try and set up a link tomorrow if I can, closing date for comments is not long, next Saturday 26th

[Tarot]

A friend of mine has withdrawn an offer on a house nearby,because of this buildin.

She said it is gross and ghettoised.

[Omega]

Thankfully planning permission for this application was refused.

Reason given for refusal was:

'The proposed development would result in backland development that would compromise the original and historic plots of the properties along this section of Crystal Palace Road and as such would be contrary to the guidance as outlined within the Residential Design Standards (2011) and Dulwich SDP (2013) and would also fail to accord with Saved Policy 3.11 Efficient Use of Land of the Southwark Plan 2007 and National Policy Framework 2012'

[intexasatthe moment]

Great news Omega and absolutely the right decision .

But ... I am very surprised by the use of the word " backland" as opposed to " garden " in the decision notice .

Southwark allow development on backland ,even where it includes a small area of garden and even where the backland in question has never been built on . Garden v backland is a very important distinction .So seems odd for Southwark to describe it as backland in this case .

[first mate]

Let's hope that the use of the term 'backland' is a 'deliberate' error that allows the developer to then appeal because we know that when there is an appeal Southwark backs down.

[intexasatthe moment]

That thought had crossed my mind first mate ,to the extent that I was slightly worried about posting in case it encouraged the developer .

But somehow I suspect that developers don't need any encouragement and aren't dependent on reading the EDF for tips .

[intexasatthe moment]

Apologies for getting in a stew over use of " backland " .

It's definition is quoted in the officer's report as

"Paragraph 3.8 of the

Dulwich SPD describes back land development as the development of new houses or

garages in back gardens. "

so nothing to see here -)