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'

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

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.

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.

In reply to Pipsky2008, Yes they are, this is within Peckham Rye Ward

Otta it's the owner of no. 51 that wants to sell up and downsize for semi retirement apparently. Mark thanks a lot for that info it's extremely helpful to know the criteria. Yes the comments that were already submitted before we received notification are a bit odd but I assumed they were from friends/relatives of the applicant so thus they were already aware. Hind I haven't seen the other house you've mentioned, I'm wondering if it is maybe not quite the same situation. The application submitted by no. 51 claims a precedent has already been set in the area but it's evidence to support this is a map showing the sheds and summer houses of east Dulwich plus some other developments on industrial sites and wasteland, but of course this is not the same thing. I think if there had been a back garden development they would have quoted it specifically, although of course you may be right. Jeremy - I know trees sounds a bit weak as an argument but, hey, they're important to me and the criteria does refer to the green and leafiness of Dulwich so who knows?

Have received notification from Southwark planning on this proposal to build a new single storey house in the back garden of this house on CP Road ref. 15/AP/1654 (I'm afraid I don't know how to post a link to the site) Am flagging this up as I can't see a list of consultees on the website so unsure how widely the council are consulting on this but it may be of interest to others apart from direct neighbours as I understand it may set a precedent for the area. Amongst other issues my main concerns include the environmental impact - the back gardens in that area are very peaceful and support a fair amount of local wildlife, the proposed new house appears to have quite a large footprint and would inevitably impact negatively on this and would, in particular, include destruction of some beautiful trees. Also, the back gardens on that stretch of road are all of similar size/length and presumably if permission is given for this house then this could mean that other similar developments could go ahead too which would potentially have a huge impact and completely change the character of this area. I'm aware there was a similar proposal to build a house in the back garden on Hindmans Road last year, although the actual detail may have differed, but as I understand it it was withdrawn so never got to go through to a planning decision so I'm unsure of what the chances of this being granted are but would be interested to hear any thoughts on this.