ED in Daily Mail: millionare hipster gender-neutral organic battle

Is this what comes to mind when the rest of UK talks of "trendy East Dulwich"?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10785019/Neighbours-accuse-banker-trespassing-building-loft-conversion-close-1-5M-home.html

Think the homes in question are actually on the ED end of Bellenden Road.

Surely they must have applied for planning permission for all this?

And surely if there was a party wall notice it's a party wall on the boundary?

Have I missed something here?

The ongoing readers' comments, 1723 a minute ago, are interestingly robust.

In passing I see that the "flaunt" count in the celebrity sidebar on the right today is down to 4. That's seriously low. Two or three years ago it might reach several times that. Hard times indeed.

The problem is the infill, which extends beyond the party wall and across the boundary but only by a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was a sensible thing to do from the builder's point of view (it would have been daft to leave a huge maintenance gap), but doing it without consent was a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.

The real problem here is ending up in a legal dispute over something fairly minor with a neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors potentially aggravating things. I hope they sort it out.

"Think the homes in question are actually on the ED end of Bellenden Road"

What makes you think that rollflick ?

I would hope they have had a decent surveyor to assess the causes of the cracks.

Bellenden Road is Peckham is it not?

Blackcurrant Wrote:

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

> The problem is the infill, which extends beyond

> the party wall and across the boundary but only by

> a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was a

> sensible thing to do from the builder's point of

> view (it would have been daft to leave a huge

> maintenance gap), but doing it without consent was

> a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues

> should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.

>

> The real problem here is ending up in a legal

> dispute over something fairly minor with a

> neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on

> quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors

> potentially aggravating things. I hope they sort

> it out.

The new extension should have been built away from the boundary line leaving sufficient space for construction/maintenance/ventilation. First extension wins and can build up to the party wall line, second extension needs to build sufficiently back ... unless prepared to pay for new party wall and remodelling of existing extension to attach to new party wall ... not gonna happen

Infill was probably bodged and stuffed with glassfibre insulation, very nice for holding moisture and blocking ventilation allowing damp to infiltrate and cause plenty of damage ... as damage will only be noticed when penetrates through to interior!

Headlines like this sell, the DM online is the only news site making decent money and is the most visited english language website

Unfortunately, it draws me in also, for which I espounge myself of guilt by subscribing to the guardian

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> What's the relevance of the "hipster entrepreneurs

> who run gender-neutral kids' clothing firm"

> headline exactly?

It generates interaction, which is what counts. Unfortunately, nasty interaction counts just as much as nice interaction, and is easier to provoke.

Sue Wrote:

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

And surely if there was a party wall notice it's a party wall on the boundary?

Party Wall Notices can apply to walls/areas of work that aren't directly on the boundary e.g. foundation works that, if close enough, could undermine the neighbouring property...

redpost Wrote:

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

> Blackcurrant Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The problem is the infill, which extends beyond

> > the party wall and across the boundary but only

> by

> > a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was

> a

> > sensible thing to do from the builder's point

> of

> > view (it would have been daft to leave a huge

> > maintenance gap), but doing it without consent

> was

> > a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues

> > should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.

> >

> > The real problem here is ending up in a legal

> > dispute over something fairly minor with a

> > neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on

> > quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors

> > potentially aggravating things. I hope they

> sort

> > it out.

>

> The new extension should have been built away from

> the boundary line leaving sufficient space for

> construction/maintenance/ventilation. First

> extension wins and can build up to the party wall

> line, second extension needs to build sufficiently

> back ... unless prepared to pay for new party wall

> and remodelling of existing extension to attach to

> new party wall ... not gonna happen

>

> Infill was probably bodged and stuffed with

> glassfibre insulation, very nice for holding

> moisture and blocking ventilation allowing damp to

> infiltrate and cause plenty of damage ... as

> damage will only be noticed when penetrates

> through to interior!

It's standard practice to attach dormers, with or without a new raised masonry party wall. In this case consent was given to build on the party wall, but the existing dormer was slightly short of it, leading to the problem gap. Infill doesn't have to be structural. It could be soundproofing or insulation. But the top needs to be properly weatherproofed or rain will trickle in. A good roofer might have fixed this issue before it ended up in the hands of lawyers.

Lots of sleepless nights on both sides I suspect.

So much wrong (yet right) about the article... It gave me a giggle anyway. I'm assuming that Adam sits around at home all day looking wistful and plagiarising John Lennon, while poor Liz has to hold down three jobs just to pay for the nanny to look after their gender neutrally-clothed children, Casper, India and Namaste. Debbie probably worked in Marketing at RBS 20 years ago and is referred to as "banker" to make sure the Brexiteers REALLY hate her.

@Angelina - yes, technically Bellenden Road is Peckham as it's SE15 but it does *feel* very East Dulwich at that end of the road, and it's nearer to ED Station than either Peckham station, so we'll let them off. Some estate agents even call it "Bellenden Village"

The comments about the extensions looking like a shanty town and sheds are spot on IMHO. Perhaps an amicable solution would be to knock both extensions down and build a proper terraced house extension with a proper party wall. It would look a hell of a lot better anyway.

It does make me a bit sick how the tabloids trawl social media to find photos of people in their stories, in situations that are completely unrelated to the issue. But then there's probably a lesson to be learned about not posting your holiday snaps for the whole world to see.

I'm questioning the need for a business that makes gender neutral clothing for 3-12 year olds. It's not like you can't find jeans and t-shirts that aren't all pink princesses and blue diggers in Primark (although I support the idea of ethical / sustainable clothing and you certainly can't buy that in Primark). But hey, if it's made Adam and Liz into millionaire hipsters then good on them.

I still have this niggling thought that Adam has sold this story to the press to promote his band though.

The result is in

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-dulwich-couple-failed-bid-demolish-loft-extension-b1006274.html

Plaintiffs have been awarded ?200 for ?very minor? trespass but have to pay both sides legal fees of ?130,000.

Huggers Wrote:

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

> We in le petit Village Bellenden are happy enough

> to be in Peckham, we don't need to pretend it's

> East Dulwich.

Sheesh how you bell end den people have turned

Sorry autocorrect 😅

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> The result is in

>

> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-dulwic

> h-couple-failed-bid-demolish-loft-extension-b10062

> 74.html

>

> Plaintiffs have been awarded ?200 for ?very minor?

> trespass but have to pay both sides legal fees of

> ?130,000.

😮😮😮 But also 😂😂😂

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It was more of a rhetorical question to be honest.

> The Mail really is poisonous.

Poisonous? Wow! Not heard a newspaper described as such.

It's the first thing I read every morning (hard copy delivered by my lovely paperboy) and they really tell it like it is.

Bit more detail in this version

https://tdpelmedia.com/couple-loses-court-case-over-a-minor-trespass

The gender neutral clothing is at https://www.ourlittletribe.co.uk/pages/about-us.

While completely on board with the idea of clothes that can be handed down, describing the tshirts etc as designed to ?transcend siblings? made me smile.

The so-called ?banker? apparently works in regulatory reporting for a bank, so is unlikely to be minted, I can only begin to imagine what a nightmare this has been for her, having made what appears to have been a generous offer to settle.

I think it's a good outcome and very sensible.

Could all have been avoided. Reeks a bit of entitlement really.