Jump to content

architectsimon

Member
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by architectsimon

  1. Hi Atticus For the benefit of 'Pearson' and 'fyvum', it might be worth mentioning the theme of our first meeting and email exchanges about the possible outrigger works. Blaming professional advisors over the shortcomings of the Local Authorities is not too good!
  2. Atticus, As your architect on this matter, I think it could be time to set a few things straight here! Southwark Council's view on this has been formed by the following appeal decision against a property in the area: "In my opinion this advice is clearly relevant to the matter before me in the appeal. It is common ground that the scheme satisfies Class B. However, criterion (g) of Class A cannot be satisfied since the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse is within two metres of the boundary and is greater than three metres in height. Page 21 of the document states that "where any part of an extension to a house is within two metres of the boundary of the land surrounding the property, then the maximum height of the eaves that is allowed for all parts of the proposal is three metres". I therefore conclude that the proposed development is not permitted by the Order and requires planning permission. The appeal must accordingly fail." We have questioned this every step of the way. As a local resident of East Dulwich, there are lots of people having this work done by building companies as they are not fully up to speed on the regualations. A friend of my wife's, 6 doors down, has fallen for it through a local loft comapany. I have spoken with the case officer at Southwark Council and this is their stance. The head of planning would not take my call.....
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...