Re: Planning Application Ref: 13/AP/1254/"infill","loft conversion"

[moonlaunch]

For the attention of Councillor James Barber:

Below is a copy:

Dear Gary Rice,

This is in reply to A. Allsop?s letter of 11th July, addressed to yourself among others. My own remarks (below) are prefixed with square bracket and my initials.

Signed, BEBurrow, 14/07/2013.

A. Allsop?s letter reads:

Southwark Council.

Chief Executive?s Department.

Planning Division.

Development Management [5th. Floor ? Hub 2].

PO Box 64529.

London. SE1P 5LX.

11th. July 2013.

For the attention of: Mr. Gary Rice ? Head of Development Management.

Mr. Ciaran Regan ? Contact.

Dear Mr Rice.

Application for Full Planning Permission ? Ref: 13/AP/1254.

93. Barry Road. East Dulwich. London. SE22. 0HR.

Mr Allsop: I, with my wife, are the freeholders, and residents, of 91. Barry Road. East Dulwich, the neighbours of the new owners of 93. Barry Road.

I refer to the emotional letter written by Mr. B. E. Burrow, the free-holder of 95. Barry Road, and leaseholder of 95A. Barry Road, dated 29th. June 2013, and directed to Councillor Mr. Barber, but copied to Southwark Council, amongst others.

Please be informed neither my-self, nor my wife, have objections to the proposed alterations and extensions noted in the subject planning application: indeed we welcome the up-dating of a neglected property.

[bEB: I am a bit stunned by Mr Allsop?s tone. To start with, he himself submitted an Application three years ago for exactly the same kind of work with respect to his house (No 91) as the new owners of No 93 are now requesting for theirs. His chutzpah in ?forgetting? this detail reminds me of an incident in today?s News ? a case of a bride jailed for six months because, when questioned, she said she?d ?forgotten? the name of the groom.

Secondly, it?s untrue to speak of No 93 as ?neglected,? it?s simply been unoccupied for the past 18 months (due to a dispute over the will). The previous owner, Michael Mercer, was a professional builder, almost never without work in the three decades I knew him. He bought No 93 from Southwark Council, and he and his partner, Pauline, put many years of effort and much money into its refurbishment. Today a decent builder could put the exterior in excellent shape in a couple of weeks, and at little expense (since Mr Mercer?s sons, also builders, ensured the place remained shipshape over the years).

Then Mr Allsop speaks of my ?emotional? letter. Emotional! The more I look at the little congregation of late-Victorian houses along this short stretch of Barry Road, the more convinced I am that it would be sacrilege to let them be afflicted by further ?add ons? or so-called ?modernisations?. A builder whom I asked to give me a quote for a small glass conservatory, recently drove me on a long tour of South London to see the works he?d carried out over the years, and to this day the impression I?m left with is of the variety and staggering richness of the architecture on display. Although I?ve been a resident of S. London for more than forty years, not getting about much of late (since I only ever owned cars when I?d lived in America), I can?t say I?ve ever had a sense of the true extent and grandeur of South London. The place is magnificent! That trip left me feeling proud ? once again ? to be English. See ?Heritage: the Battle for Britain?s Past?, last week on BBC4, ?How the heritage movement was floored by the after effects of World War II? ?six days left to watch http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014fxzv/episodes/guide . The blurb for the first episode states: ?Modern Britain loves its heritage. The history, culture, monuments and buildings of our past have become a vital part of how we define ourselves. However, it could have been a different story altogether if not for a revolution, an early movement of pioneers that fought to save Britain?s past...Nowadays we take for granted the fact that old buildings steeped in history should be protected, but people used to want to knock them down and build anew?.... The Battle For Britain?s Past is the compelling tale of how, in an age of industrial progress, urban expansion and modernity, the past came to stand for a sense of national identity, an anchor in an increasingly restless world?.

Yes, the restlessness abroad now is disturbing. Sarah Rainey in the Telegraph raved that the first programme was ?one of the most important BBC offerings of the year. The three-part series, in association with English Heritage, opened last night with a fascinating insight into the pioneers of British conservation ? and their 150-year fight to stop our old buildings and landmarks from being torn down. ?Heritage,? it blared, ?isn?t about the past; it?s about the future.??

Mr Allsop looks older than me (and I?m in my seventies). But he sounds almost desperate to have the living daylights knocked out of these lovely old houses. Why? The only reason can be ?money?. But both he and I will be dead in a few years. Since he owns that rather gorgeous No 91, hasn?t he any desire to bequeath that house in its present fine condition to future residents of East Dulwich? Not money from the sale, just the look of the place. We can?t all be like the Victorian philanthropist John Passmore Edwards (who bequeathed the magnificent Public Library at the top of Barry Road to us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulwich_Library ) -- but surely the noble, upstanding dignity of these houses should be retained.

The young woman ?Michelle? who has just bought No 93 emailed to suggest a meet ? ?we come in a spirit of reconciliation.? So we met at her place (her husband was careful to make sure he was absent), and I thought her the ideal sort of neighbour: charming, quiet, unassuming, self-effacing ? yet still, it must be said, unaltered in her desire to get this ?infill? and mammoth ?loft conversion?. But why? Surely there?s only herself, husband and (forthcoming) baby to occupy that huge, double-fronted detached house with its four bedrooms and three reception rooms? It turns out she wants her parents to move in eventually. They are (sheep) farmers from the Welsh borders, and will eventually retire ? Listen, I would not permit No 93 to be knocked around even if Mother Teresa was going to live there. ? Also, although I didn?t say so, I?ve been a full-time student of psycho-analysis for fifty years, and in my opinion living too close to parents is deadening to the soul (among other things). Fine if they have their own place down the street, or round the corner, but not in the same house ... and anyway, that house is already huge enough. Over the years, I?ve known it occupied by eight people at a time...

The difference between Michelle and I is that I frankly would not have the balls to move in to a splendid old street in South London, the capital city of Gt Britain, and then try to radically alter the look of that house. Nor can I imagine the circumstances I?d remotely want to. The very idea is barbaric.

If you want a bigger house, buy one, young lady.

Yet I have to admit it takes all types ? all I can say in the end is that Mr Allsop, Michelle and I are clearly very different. The arbiters of the matter should be the community, or the Council who act for it ? since it will be the ratepayers of tomorrow who will be left with the legacy, including any potential ?modernisation? eyesores. By the way, I felt that Michelle and I got on well, we parted on amicable terms. I really do think she and her family would make terrific neighbours ? I just *hate* what she wants to do with that house, and the effect on mine next door.

Nowhere in his letter to Gary Rice does Mr Allsop express the tiniest morsel of sympathy for the plight I would be left in for the rest of my life, should this Application be approved ? and neither did Michelle, to be honest, save in a vague, generalised way. You have to be able to truly put yourself into the shoes of others, to experience the effect your actions might have.

But just to show that there are residents in Southwark who really can feel empathy, here are some extracts from a thread currently running on East Dulwich Forum Re: anyone had more than 3m side return extension??

1) ?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?!?

2) ?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.?

3) ?... 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.?

4) ?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 did not have to look at it day in day out.?

5) ?I have seen some horrendous, stalinist loft conversions, less so side extensions.... please do honestly consider the impact on your neighbour.?

6) ?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? [bEB: Why indeed!] 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. 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??

7) ?David S, ....In two of the cases I know of the loss of light was great and the outlook onto a high expanse of brick wall, only 4-5 ft from the kitchen side window, was depressing and oppressive, with the kitchen cast into constant gloom....?

) ?Why do people choose to move into an area and then destroy its architectural heritage? John K? [bEB: More to the point, why do Planners ? who are supposed to be acting on behalf of the community, not greedy, self-involved losers -- permit such destruction of our heritage.]

And after I posted my own complaint, gatt4950 replied:

?how did the hearing go? sounds awful. hope you win and the neighbours are restricted to just the single storey build rather than looming first floor as well : (?

I replied to the effect that I was grateful that, the very next day, a lady called ?Clare? from Choumert Road SE15 had rang my doorbell, to pass on the details of two Rights to Light experts, and also to commiserate ? she herself having currently to undergo the same ordeal/threat as I am faced with. As I told the list, ??Clare?...is a spirited, extremely optimistic, and warm-hearted woman; a huge lump might come off the value of her leasehold due to what?s happening, and it was money she?d planned for a retirement home, should that ever be needed ? and yet the malignant ***** who lives next door is about to impose a phantasmagoric nightmare on her ? and it seems the council?s likely to sanction the evil?.

Then firstmate wrote (12th July) in reply to mine:

?I read your first post and found it most inspiring, in particular your references to the original design of these old terrace houses to ensure that each neighbour has some sense of space and light along the side return.

I agree, if your neighbours need more space/light than they are currently getting from a double-fronted 4 bedroom house, then perhaps they should go and buy another house. I do not believe this is about 'need', it is about 'want' and is arguably a type of greed. As I have said before, in building a larger, airy and light-filled space for themselves, your neighbours are quite happy to block your light and wreck your outlook. I find the selfishness of this sort of mindset hard to fathom.

Please let us know how you fare and more power to your elbow. I truly hope that the various councillors who visit this website also acquaint themselves with your situation. Might I suggest that you cut and paste your first post to James Barber's thread.

Good luck? [end quote]

There speaks someone after my own heart! -- Being ?emotional? about light in relation to architecture, isn?t rare. Among the civilised, it?s normal. Sir John Betjeman, Poet Laureate and founding member of the Victorian Society, was "a passionate defender of Victorian architecture". If he?d heard Mr Allsop?s dismissal of these late-Victorian houses, I suspect he might have adapted his ?Slough? poem to read: ?Come friendly bombs, and fall on Alan Allsop...? [With justice, Betjeman was struck by the "menace of things to come". As a genuine Englishman he will be remembered long after we are gone ? although I hope Mr Allsop?s attractive Victorian house, untrammelled by ?modernistions?, will still be standing for another couple of hundred years at least.]

Mr Allsop: It is to be noted in Mr. Burrow extolling the virtues of the Architect?s Design of the Victorian [16880?s] detached 93 Barry Road one-family home, Mr. Burrow, does not appear to recognise the irony of in himself the retaining the freehold, he, as freeholder, has formed 3-leaseholds, one being himself.

[bEB: Actually, this house No 95 was already divided into three leasehold flats (rented out since the 1960s) when I purchased my lease from a very nice old Scots? estate agent in 1984, who, since he was retiring, offered us the freehold for a pittance. The other two leaseholders did not wish to get involved, though ? so I borrowed from my mother (and paid her back monthly), for one simple reason: owning the property meant we would not have to pay Service & Administration Charges, or any exorbitant building/maintenance in future. So in the 30 years since the freehold has been in my name, although I?m entitled to claim profits, I?ve never once asked the other leaseholders to pay for anything above cost of works, as agreed by all concerned before commencement.]

Mr Allsop: A single family Victorian detached house has been split into 3 residences.

No objection to that being done, it being part and parcel of modern-living.

[bEB: Hitler could make a case that bombing London was ?part and parcel of modern-living.? It takes all types. -- I?m afraid Mr Allsop?s attitude reminds me of Orwell?s remark that, ?If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever.?]

Mr Allsop: It is to be noted that Mr. Burrow has not retained a single chimney in the alterations to his freehold property:

[bEB: There have been no chimney stacks in the 30 years I?ve been here. I imagine they were destroyed in the blitz (in 2008 we had the whole roof re-slated, no chimney works were carried out).]

Mr Allsop: all original guttering, and downpipes, have been replaced by plastic, as have the original wooden sash windows.

[bEB: Come, come, that is clutching at straws. Most listed properties originally had outside lavatories, for heaven?s sake.... but they have long since gone. -- The woman upstairs paid a lot to ensure that her recently-fitted plastic sash windows perfectly matched the originals (except they are now double-glazed). In sum, although my eyesight is better than Mr Allsop?s (he wears glasses, I don?t), I could not tell from twenty paces whether her windows were wood or plastic, and ditto the black plastic downpipes and guttering. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel wasn?t pulled down just because it had deteriorated, was it? It was restored ....]

Mr Allsop: In addition Mr. Burrow has allowed a single concrete bunker [estimate 5metres x 4metres x 3metres high] to be erected as an extension to the rear of the property.

[bEB: In fact, there was already an extension extant at that location (call it an ?infill?, if you like) so that the previous owners of this property, Normans & Co, estate agents, could make a one bedroom flat on that side of the house. The Australian leaseholder of Flat B who moved in circa 2005, pestered me for two years to allow his ?Bauhaus-designed? extension to be built, after leading me to think he intended to marry and settle down in this country. Stupidly (or if you like, ?emotionally?) I believed him. But the moment he knocked down the older extension and built the new edifice, he put the flat on sale. That he could do that simply hadn?t occurred to me! (In retrospect, I realise he was a property-developer. I took him to court, and he had to pay his costs and mine, but that sorry saga isn?t relevant here.) One other thing I?d say, the site of his ?Bauhaus? edifice had always been ?dead space? to some extent, in that immediately next door is the British Legion?s backyard ? where customers congregate in all weathers (especially since the indoor smoking ban). And it does at least nowadays shield my flat from the often raucous noise coming from that direction (a problem that neither the Police nor the Council are willing to tackle); at no time during the day or evening is the noise-level less than that found in a busy pub. And that I am deprived of the use of my garden as an amenity as a result of the Legion?s customers, is certainly an important additional reason why the council should not also deprive me of natural daylight, too!]

Mr Allsop: All the Victorian properties from 87. Barry Road, through to 101 Barry Road, were damaged during WW 2, with 101 Barry Road being destroyed.

[bEB: So why try to finish a job the Nazis began? The Houses of Parliament were seriously damaged in the blitz ? but the place was later renovated, not frankensteinised with ?add ons? and ?modernisations?. -- What concerns me is that nowhere does Mr Allsop offer a word of sympathy, although I reiterated at least three times that the result of the natural daylight to my two side windows being shut out will be permanent depression and a shortened life. The difference between him and I is that I own a one bedroom flat where the only two side windows could end up losing all the natural daylight that enters there, whereas Mr and Mrs Allsop live in a double-fronted detached house ? with more windows than the Palace of Versailles!

Mr Allsop: All the Victorian properties ? 87. Barry Road to 99 Barry Road ? are different, all having different roof pitches and little, if any-thing, in common.

[bEB: These houses have only *slightly* different roof pitches, the variety in their roofs being a feature that adds to their individuality/character, so that they avoid looking as if they were made in a ?factory batch?. Also, to pretend the houses have ?little, if any-thing, in common? is just silly. To show that they are very alike, I enclose two photographs, ?89-95 Barry Road? taken from the street, and ?95a 0026? is a view from the rear of the properties ? Clearly all three houses have identical brick-built extensions at the back, integral to the original Victorian design. (Proving that Frissom, the German architect employed by No 93, is disingenuous when referring (in his ?Design Statement?) to my kitchen as a ?lean to? (since this word implies a tacked-on, shoddy, inconsequential ?shed?).]

Mr Allsop: Mr. Burrow fails to mention that his property is now over-looked by a full-width, full-height, rear roof dormer extension, with ?Romeo & Juliet? Balcony, constructed under permissible development by the Henslowe Road property backing-on to 95. Barry Road.

[bEB: That?s wrong, I?m afraid. I attach photo ?95a 0066?, taken from my kitchen back door, to show that there is no ?rear roof dormer extension, with ?Romeo & Juliet? Balcony...backing-on to 95. Barry Road?. Instead there?s a long expanse of grass (with red and pink roses to the left), then a (see-through trellis) fence, and beyond that (at the very end of the garden) a single storey garage (accessible from Henslowe Road).]

Mr Allsop: Being over-looked comes with living in London.

[bEB: I hope no poor devil coming before the bench ever gets landed with as ropey an advocate as Mr Allsop. Yes, if we were talking about ?the lower depths? of Clerkenwell (where I come from originally), it would be a case of: ?Being over-looked comes with living in London.? But Mr Allsop has made sure that *he personally* has never lived in the concrete jungle, hasn?t he? ? His home is in leafy, balmy, light-enriched East Dulwich.]

Just look at the quality of the early morning light in the photographs taken from my kitchen and bedroom, and alley. It reminds me of Shakespeare?s: ?Full many a glorious morning have I seen/ Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,/ Kissing with golden face the meadows green,/ Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy...? That light is God-given alchemy! I realise that Michelle may want to replace the picket fence with non-see through, and that?s her privilege.

Mr Allsop: Another aspect of Mr. Burrow?s letter is very worrying, namely that part:

QUOTE However, this is to inform you that in light of the present situation,[of impending crisis], we are now in process of submitting an application to obtain listed building status for 91, 93, 95, 97 and 99 Barry Road. UNQUOTE.

There is no ?we? in ?the process of ----------.?. We, the freeholders and residents of 91. Barry Road, have not been approached, nor consulted, nor are party to, such an application being made. If we had been Mr. Burrow, and others?, would have known of our absolute objection to such an initiative. Please be informed Mr. Burrow will be in receipt of a solicitor?s letter requesting him to desist from such application, and, if in the event is unilateral application is successful, Mr. Burrow will be held personally liable for all and any financial costs and expenditures in consequence of 91. Barry Road being given listed status.

[bEB: Just to say, Southwark Council has itself an obligation to inform English Heritage about such matters. Thus Part 6 of the Council?s ?Open Space Strategy 2013? states ?We must contact each of the following bodies [....follows a list, one of the names included being English Heritage] and invite them to submit comments if we think they would have an interest in the Plan...?).

And by the way, the law states that *anyone* can apply to obtain listed status for *any* building in the country. Seeking to prosecute someone for exercising this right would be a non-starter, I would suggest (i.e. given that English Heritage has special statutory rights). But as it happens, I would have communicated with Mr Allsop and other interested parties before applying....]

Mr Allsop: In conclusion I reiterate mine, and my wife?s, support for granting Planning Approval to Application Ref: 13/AP/1254.

Yours Sincerely.

Mr. A. E. Allsop.

91.Barry Road.

East Dulwich.

London. SE22.0HR.

Telephone Number: 02082993521.

Mobile Telephone Number: 07979642183.

E-mail: [email protected]

[bEB: Mr Allsop?s support is noted ? although, as I say, he has carefully omitted to mention his own financial interest in the matter ? and that his Planning Application 10/AP/0321 has already been approved.

Finally, regarding the attached photographs.

Photo ?95a 0008B? was taken looking up through my bedroom window into the alleyway ? and in the middle top pane a small dash of white paint can be seen on the wall. That marks the approximate height that No 93?s ?infill? would reach to! ? and self-evidently it would deprive that room of almost every bit of natural daylight.

?95a 0013? was taken through the same window ? note that the bracket (securing the black drainpipe to the wall) is the same height as the aforementioned white paint mark.

Next ?95a 0016? is taken through the window inside my kitchen. No 93?s architect, Rissom, has the nerve to refer to this (in his ?Design Statement?) as a ?secondary window.? He doesn?t dare mention that all the light into my kitchen will disappear as a result of his ?infill?. Yet if one looks at the delightful, leafy, light-filled neighbourhood where he himself lives (see attached ? 84 Delawyk Crescent.jpg ?), you know without even thinking about it that the Council would no more permit an ?infill? there than allow a fast food outlet to be set up in the Chief Executive?s office.

Photo ?95a 0037? shows the lovely light that enters No 95?s alleyway, through the picket fence (93?s architect Frissom?s dismissive reference merely states that my kitchen window is ?shaded by a fence? ? which is misleading, to say the least, as this photo demonstrates).

?95a 0038? shows my kitchen window (which Herr Frissom refers to with the erroneous term ?secondary?. It also shows my bedroom window, and please note again the bracket securing the drainpipe to the wall ? approximately the height of the ?infill?, which will shut out the natural daylight that has entered that window FOR THE PAST 130 YEARS AND MORE, ever since these houses were built!

?95a 0042? was taken *through* the picket fence, and shows where the ?infill? will ?fill in? all that open space ? and so permanently remove the chance of any natural daylight coming in through my two side windows.

?95a 0046? is a view of the back garden to No 93, through the picket fence ? but I appreciate that Michelle has the right to replace it with a non see-through fence.

The principal thing shown in ?95a 0038? is that it looks towards the roof, proving that the eaves between Nos 93 and 95 ARE ONLY 4 INS. APART (something that would not be permitted today, due to fire hazard). Any ?loft conversion? would of course greatly exacerbate this fire hazard.

?95a 0061? is another view through my bedroom window ? the ?infill? would be higher than the white-painted part of the wall (so the result would be: near-zero natural daylight entering that room between 5 am to 9.30 throughout the Summer!)

All of the sky now visible through the kitchen window in ?95a 0072? would become ?infill?.

Note the sunlight entering my kitchen window in ?95a 0003? ! ? And from another angle, more of it entering through the same window (I only have two windows in my flat, for pity?s sake ? what kind of people would deprive another human being of the basic amenity of natural light?)

Finally, in the photograph ?Cousins1?, I'm in the middle back row in cream jacket, my cousin Pam, two years older in lilac, is standing immediately in front ? while her son, in blue and white striped shirt, is in the back row, far left. His name is David Grover, and he is a Director of Mace, the construction firm, and their Chief Financial Investment Officer. He was in charge of building the London Eye, the Olympic Village -- and the Shard. (You may have to select/paste the link [www.macegroup.com])

The Qatari royal family are the main owners of the Shard, having several floors for their personal use. And where is it? In Southwark. The Qataris gave the Borough ?15 million for the "planning rights" for this project (only a dozen objections received -- John Prescott gave the go-ahead). Well, we know that the Qataris continue to invest a great deal of money in Southwark. I don't think these investors would be happy to be associated with a South London council that trod all over the little man, do you?....Perhaps Councillor Ian Wingfield, , Deputy Leader, Housing Management in Southwark and ex-National Official of the Communication Workers Union, will understand what I am saying (he is clearly a highly-educated man, from his CV). My Dad was long-term Branch Secretary of the Mount Pleasant Union of Post Office Workers in the sixties, as well as a Labour Councillor and then Alderman in Shoreditch and Finsbury. In febrile times such as these, when time is speeding up due to the Internet, there is temporal overload (cf. MacLuhan, ?the CNS is an extension of electronic media?), together with a loss of empathy and impairment of sense of justice. The English historically have been a force for resisting short-termism ? and when it comes to our heritage, I believe it needs to be conserved where possible because the past really does ?stand for a sense of national identity, an anchor in an increasingly restless world?. It is about the future.

I?ve lived in my small flat for the past 30 years come May next year, and it would be in breech of natural justice to permit this business to go ahead, I submit. It shouldn?t happen to anyone, let alone someone of my age. I am currently orchestrating the endings to three books (stemming from research detailed at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/barron.burrow/ ), and this palaver couldn?t have come at a worse time.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Barron Burrow

95a, Barry Road,

East Dulwich,

SE22 0HR.