first mate

LM, thanks for the detail, I shall take a look. I remain dubious because, as I said, I know of two cases where work has been done and I have senn for myself the before and after impact on the neighbours- definitely less light and definite loss of outlook- I was simply amazed that planners had okayed it.

LM, Just to clarify, and you may not know the answers, do these light studies show that there is absolutely no impact on the neighbour from a side return infill terrace extension, or is it about degrees of shadow? Additionally, does any of this depend on the design of the extension, that is sloping or flat roof, material used, slate or glass? Who does the light studies do you have any sources for your assertions - I'm not being picky or prickly, I just wonder if you happen to know?

LM, I meant the prospect of an automatic right to extend out to the back by 6m is rather worrying because of the inevitable effect on those next door- that is if I have understood this correctly? I also wonder how many of those who have had this sort of work done offer for their neighbour's property (relevant paths, windows etc..) to be properly cleaned at their expense, when building works have finished. It seems to me that this is a courtesy that should be a matter of course. If Anna is still around, just as a matter if interest what height is the actual boundary/party wall with your neighbour, before it slopes up into glass?

Jeremy, I don't think you can refuse a party wall agreement, if you don't sign up then you automatically go into dispute and party wall surveyors are called in to sort it out; because the party wall is jointly owned you cannot refuse as such. I stand to be corrected though by others who know more about planning. As for the right to object, well if it's PD the right to object may not really help- I guess it's a bit like MP's expenses, those who 'err' may be strictly legal but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. 6m is approx 19 ft, this added on to an existing 6m kitchen , plus extension to the side, makes for a huge space- that would surely run parallel to a significant stretch of the neighbour's garden? Most terraces have quite narrow gardens and if there is a also a loft conversion I cannot see how there would not cause an increase in the amount of shadow thrown.

Jeremy, Oh yes, people should be able to reconfigure their home in whichever way they choose within the orginal building footprint, it's just that seriously extending the footprint of the building as well as the overall height may have a nasty knock-on effect on neighbouring homes. Specifically, where terraces are concerned, it is quite difficult to increase the footprint without affecting your neighbour- the key point is whether they are okay with it or not and to what degree there should be give and take. I don't like the attitude that goes: I want this, I think I can probably swing it within the rules, and the neighbours will just have to like it or lump it. Anna27, I'm sure your home is lovely and it sounds as though you compromised and simply did not go all out for as much space as you could possibly grab. It's great that your neighbours are happy. If neighbours are consulted and are happy then one can ask no more. It's the situations where neighbours are deeply unhappy and where no comprises are forthcoming that concerns me, and such cases certainly do exist.

Red devil said, "Most people just want a big @#$%& off open plan living/dining/kitchen space..." I think you have the heart of the matter and don't forget the light, airy feel, it's all about the space and the light.

Penguin68, I think that if there is something on the table for the neighbour whereby they also gain that is altogether different. Sadly, in the cases I have observed the gain is all one-sided with significant losses on the other. Add to this the imposition of major building works, the noise, the dust, and mess, a small terrace owner will have to endure right up close to their own kitchen. Again, the owners of the homes being extended did not offer any cleaning for their neighbours property etc..- pretty poor, don't you think? Again, I stress the irony that objectors are castigated for 'moaning about light' but the USP of the extensions and conversions is all about light, light, light.

I have seen some horrendous, stalinist loft conversions, less so side extensions. I'm sure that most people go for the best they can afford. I also do understand that people want more space and more light, but please do honestly consider the impact on your neighbour. In one of the instances I am aware of, young professionals new to a terrace house completely bulldozed the elderly couple living next door- they were going to have what they wanted and the resaonable concerns of their neighbours were simply ignored. It caused the older folk a lot of stress and heartache. Part of me felt that if the youngsters wanted and needed a significantly larger house why hadn't they bought one in the first place? In my view, it would be the height of selfishness to go ahead with building work in the full knowledge that the quality of life you gain by so doing reduces that of your neighbour. Terraces are so close that realistically we should always consider the impact we have on those next to us.

igline1, Truer to say that most people are obsessed with light. Do you hear anyone who has had any sort of extensive building work talking about it in terms other than as a light and airy space? Generally people are after two things, more space and more light. It is all very well those who have had this work done to say that it has had no negative impact on their neighbours (well they would see it that way wouldn't they ) I do know of people that have had their quality of living seriously diminished by these extensions -often elderly as it happens. Anna27, Obviously I don't know the distance between your home and your neighbours along the side return, but some terraces are quite close together there and obviously any new structure that is very much closer as well as higher will take light both from the kitchen and from the rear window of the neighbouring sitting room. The view from the bedroom that overlooks the side return will be pretty dismal too. It is also horribly oppressive as there is less of a sense of space and a feeling of being closed in. In this sense the extension can be a massive imposition on your neighbour. I visited a friend's house where this had been done, together with a loft conversion, and the effect on them was quite appalling. The extension had also been built in ugly red brick, which was totally out of keeping with a victorian terrace- as was the horrendous loft conversion. Natch,the neighbours who had built the eyesore of a wall as part of their grand design it did not have to look at it day in day out. You say that you think your neighbours are doing the same thing. It occurs to me that such would be the loss of light that the only way of getting it back is to extend in a similar way- of course there will be those who cannot afford to. It's kind of survival of the fittest I guess.

I agree, not all extensions will involve a loss of light to the neighbour, but many will, epsecially if there is also a loft conversion as well. I know of at least two different cases where people have been very distressed at their neighbours complete lack of consideration for the impact their extension would have on them. One elderly couple had their kitchen plunged into permament gloom by one of these. There is a big difference between a 6ft fence and then a sense of some space and light above and a massive brick wall of possibly double the height- which is what they ended up having to look at. Who in their right mind would want that?!

The problem is terrace houses and light. The properties are so close together that even merely extending to the side and not beyond the depth of the house, is going to affect your neighbour and the light that they get in their kitchen as well as their living room. Similarly, extending beyond the depth of your house is bound to impact on the light your neighbour gets in the garden closest to their house- often where people have a patio. So your gain is probably going to mean your neighbour's loss.

So.. the upshot is we're all in favour of banning dogs?...Yes? Errr, no!

I'm slightly puzzled by James' statement that architects 'believe' the current Dulwich hospital building to be of poor build quality. James could you elaborate? What is thought to be wrong with the building, is it structurally unsound and in danger of collapse? It seems to me that it may be easier for various vested interests to do what they want with the site if the entire building is demolished and they can start from scratch, in that any attachment to the past has been erased and objections subsequently weakened. I'd hate to see that bulding entirely disappear, especially if the rationale that the existing building is of 'poor build quality' turns out to be a 'belief' born of some political agenda and not a reality.

Robin, Thanks for the information. Does this mean that other roads will be done by Thames Water in the same way? I thought that the bulk of terraced houses had shared sewers...?

TeriG, Please let us know if there is any more news about these thugs and whether the police manage to find them. It seems reasonbaly clear that had it not been for the awful human on human violence you probably wouldn't have posted on the matter. I hope your b/f recovers and is able to continue to enjoy a jog in the park in future.

Borderlands, Not at all, I intend to get involved, just wish that campaigning organizations would think a little more about information gathering and the like, nicely couched promises to 'just keep your details, but we won't do a thing with them' don't wash with me I'm afraid. Back on thread, this is such an important issue. Had a quick look at consultation questionnaire and there seems to be no way of circumventing the design. It feels like any way you answer can be used to support one of the proposed options. There is no opt out.

Seriously, the whole thing is going to be ripped down?

Sadly, I was slightly put off signing that petition because one has to give an email and agree for info to be stored and updates sent etc.... Shame one couldn't just give a name and postcode without the obligatory database attached.

The idea of an outfit like Concordia and the infamous MGP having even more sway over the health decisions of local makes my blood run cold.

I agree, around cafe and tarmaced areas dogs should be kept on leads, bicyclists should cycle very slowly (I see so many power cycling at great speed) and children on scooters should do the same- these are all reasonbale ways to behave and show other park users that we are considering their needs as well as our own. It is the case that the dedicated dog walk areas in the parks are also used by joggers. Dogs are allowed to be offlead on the dog walks and on the field areas. In this sense, it is likely that the paths of joggers and dogs will sometimes meet. My advice to dog owners is, try to ensure that your dog is sufficently well trained before being let off lead to return to you immediartely when called and not to jump up at people (there are plenty of training classes around). I would ask joggers not to 'foot nudge' dogs out of the way as this is likley to excite the dog and antagonise its owner. I'd advise calling to the owner and asking them to get their dog. The odd young dog may get over-excited and want to play and yes this is annoying because it interrupts your jog but that is the nature of a shared space- we all have to live and let live a little. Having read Teri G's last post it is clear that the b/f was attacked on a tarmaced area where, in my view, dogs should be on a lead. However, it is also clear that the dog was not aggressive, it irritatingly got tangled up in the joggers legs in a way that would have interrupted the jog. Ordinarily words would have been exchanged and that would have been it, in this case the owners of the dog reacted dispropotionately and committed a crime of violence. The dog is a side issue. These men might have reacted in similar vein to someone who 'looked at them the wrong way' or whose 'eyes were the wrong colour'.

This thread should, quite rightly, focus on the awful human on human attack. The side issue of to what extent dogs should be on leads in the park is for discussion elsewhere. Human agression is the issue here.

TeriG, What an awful experience, these men sound horrendous and deserve to be punished. I also hope that their dog is taken from them and put into responsible hands. If they are prepared to beat up a human for absolutely no reason I cannot imagine what they'd be prepared to do to a dog. One can only hope that if they are caught those concerned are severely punished. From the little description you give it sounds as though the dog got under your feet in an annoying way- and of course this should not happen- but am I correct in thinking the dog did not 'attack' you- it does not sound as though he put his teeth on you, or is this not the case? Badly trained and owned dogs can jump up at people they do not know, but the motive is not usually aggressive- though I appreciate that bully breeds can look so menacing that any jumping up, friendly or not, can feel scary. Quite simply, owners need to be educated in teaching dogs manners, at all times. As ever, it is the wretched, stupid and irresponsible humans that are the real cultprits here and it sounds as though it was the humans and not the dog that inflicted injuries on you. Please correct me if this is not the case. Edited to say it does sound as though these guys were looking for any old excuse to beat someone up...for some idiots random violence can be both a hobby and an outlet.

uncleglen, that kind of humping is something both dogs and bitches do and is non sexual, it's more just general excitement. Anyway, don't wnant to go off thread.

James, Thank you. At best it smacks somewhat of a lack of organisation or a very over-stretched department. I think it is also irritating because those objecting had relatively little time to do so. Nonetheless, if it is simply an oversight all well and good. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I'd still like to the decision posted on the website.

A bit of a tangent but perhaps a pointer: there is some evidence to suggest that female dogs that lie between male dogs in the womb are more likely to develop more masculine (testosterone mediated) behaviours, that is they might be more reactive and assertive, they are more likely to develop sexually dimorphic behaviours like leg cocking at urination. The thinking is that the developing male pups produce more testosterone in the womb environment and this impacts on the developing female pup. I don't know if you are au fait with the science of foetal programming, but this is an area of research most likely to describe a host of hormonal influences and their effects on brain and organ development in the womb. Sexuality is a different matter, of course.