Newbuilds in gardens - Hindmans Road

[kate h]

It's down the Tyrrell Rd end, on the left hand side of the road (if you're facing towards Upland, away from the rye.)

[Jeremy]

I don't really have a problem with it. As long as there's enough land left for a reasonable garden for each house.

At a time when new flats are being built on open green space (e.g. proposals for DKH estate), this seems like a lot of fuss about nothing.

Emergency vehicle access doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, there are plenty of properties in London where vehicles can't drive right up to the doorstep. If that's a problem for you, don't buy the house.

[EPB]

The only eyesore in our little back garden is the ugly breezeblock shed at the end of next door's garden.

The council have rejected our neighbour's proposal to build a simple two-storey house on the same footprint, in spite of the fact that we had said (in writing and over the phone) that the proposed building would be a great improvement on our current outlook.

The grounds for the rejection? The adverse effect on our outlook!

[Willard]

Looking at that map, it says that Hindmans Rd is low risk:

What does 'very low' mean?

Very low means that each year, this area has a chance of flooding of less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%).

Or did I read that wrong?

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Hindmans Road is a flood risk street.

>

> http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/w

> iyby.aspx?topic=ufmfsw#x=533853&y=175031&scale=11

>

> Does the developer know?

>

> John K

[LondonMix]

We looked at a house in that part of ED. That end of Hindman?s has gardens almost 100ft long?we saw a place where the owners were raising chickens etc out back.

Emergency vehicle access is a planning requirement so totally non-negotiable. For instance, you might not care that there isn?t access for a fire engine but your neighbours whose homes are at risk certainly will. I think the access requirement is jut of 1 meter.

[intexasatthe moment]

Emergency access is thought ,by Southwark planners ,to be less of an issue if only one or two properties are involved .

Providing new fire hydrants is one of the ways in which the need for fire engine access has been overcome in some planning applications which have access less than the 3.1m requirement .

[Al-candraw]

Hi! I actually live in Hindmans road near the development and whilst I was super concerned that this may set a precidence for some of the semi - detached housed selling off the land as the gardens are long what has not been pointed out is that the house that is being turned in to 2 flats has lost some but not much of its garden and the space in the back was in fact privatly owned garages and a yard which was not a green space but a concreet area. If you go to southwark council you can view the houses being buit (well a 3d representation of them), they are eco friendly (or thats the angle being pushed) they are not ugly and whilst I understand the concern I have followed this closley from the beginning and I was quite worried... Im now fairly confident it it utalising a dead space.

[LondonMix]

Interesting. Thanks

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Emergency access is thought ,by Southwark planners

> ,to be less of an issue if only one or two

> properties are involved .

> Providing new fire hydrants is one of the ways in

> which the need for fire engine access has been

> overcome in some planning applications which have

> access less than the 3.1m requirement .

[Johnjohn]

Please don't get confused with the (now granted) application for the land behind 16-20 Hindmans.

This is about 14/AP/2629 - behind 21 Hindmans. This is not a concreted area, they have cut their garden in half and cleared the trees and shrubs away.

The application refers to the 'White' House, accessed by pedestrian passageway from Tyrrell (I am sure the same house to which EDmummy refers)

It says it should be respected - the plans hardly do that

Incredibly it also says that 'this house acts as further precedent of how houses built beyond the first line of road facing properties can work successfully'... The 'white' house is older than all houses on Tyrrell Road!!

This space cannot be compared to the Grand Designs houses built in Landells, or the other on Hindmans referred to earlier, which are in a backspace previously used but no longer. Look at the plans, this is being built right to the boundary of 3 sides of the garden

The plans also show it is 'low profile', what are the chances that if it is approved it will end being higher than proposed??

[kate h]

Yes, to re-iterate what Johnjohn said: there are two developments on Hindmans at the mo, and this thread is about 21 Hindmans (Johnjohn quotes the Southwark Council planning ref. above). It's very easy to have a look at the proposed plans. Go to the Southwark website and then go to 'planning' and you can get there quickly via the ref (14 / AP / 2629).

The developers are also arguing that the garden at 21 is very unkempt and therefore ripe for building on (according to the developers' 'design and access' statement a lot of the gardens on Hindmans are..."as is characteristic of these long gardens, the very end of the garden had become overgrown and unused. As such it was felt that an alternative use could be proposed in the area"...)

The garden at 21 Hindmans is unkempt because it was previously owned by an elderly lady who had to move into a care home and is now owned by the developers who aren't there very much.........

The 'design and access statement' is full of similar slightly disingenuous arguments.

Thanks again to everyone who's PMd me and for all your comments. The deadline for the consultation is 25th September.

[Willard]

Agree totally with Kate H. I've lived on Hindmans Rd for 4 years and in that entire time number 21 has been unoccupied. Hardly any surprise that the garden became overgrown in that time. Shit excuse for plonking a house on it...

[richfish]

So are these the people renovating no.10 by re-pointing one wall per month? Imagine how long a new build would take them to complete, it will be a building site for decades.

[kate h]

Does anyone happen to know the history of the Acre Mews houses on Crystal Palace Rd? Developers saying they're an example of building on garden land in ED. Are they right? Many thanks!

[intexasatthe moment]

Southwarks lovely "old maps " suggests that there were buildings where Acre Mews were built .

http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Historical_Selection&tooltip=Hist_tips

http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Planning&banner=planning&tooltip=Plan_tips

The links won't endure and take you to the relevant road but you'll get the idea . If you compare the locations you'll see that the plot that Acre Mews now occupies was once a large L shaped building with another large building behind it and was never a pair of semi detached like its neighbours .

Although it does seem that 2 or 3 of the Mews properties ( nos 6 etc ) are on ground that was once a garden ,so perhaps not much help .

[kate h]

Thank you in texas....just writing to Southwark now - really helfpul...

[MarkT]

Kate H,

Examples of past developments cited by a planning applicant may not be relevant, as the policies might have been different when those were approved. Each application is supposed to be judged against current policy, not on ?precedent?.

See the ?Dulwich SPD? ? you?ll need to download it from the Council website:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2252/draft_dulwich_spd

See the sections: ?Our Vision for East Dulwich? and ?Back-land Development?.

Mark

[Tarot]

A garden is a tradional british feature.

Greedy developers are ruining the character and identity of our streets and towns.they are even pushing for building on green belt land;what council is giving the ok for this.

The old diatribe of we need more homes isold hat we need less migrants moving into our country.

In Hindmans road a lot of the original tenants have gone now lots of liberty takers have moved there,there is a tenant who has put there dustbins and their car in the drive of the olf folks house next door.audacity.

Others in the road have cut down specimen trees without permission from the council and now there gardens look like an estate.

No bodys thought of the infrastructure or the enviorment,the council are dosspots.

[steveo]

It's been a while Tarot

[Renata Hamvas]

I have been discussing this one with Planning, I'm not happy about it. I will update once I have more firm information. Renata

[Jeremy]

Tarot Wrote:

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

> A garden is a tradional british feature.

Can you name some other developed countries in which it is not traditional for a house to have a garden?

[Penguin68]

Very many European countries offer city dwellers mainly apartment living - meaning that private gardens are unusual - the garden suburb is a very British institution - even where there are private houses in cities they very often are built around courtyards - so gardens again are unusual (in our sense).

British style gardens associated with domestic houses tend to be a countryside phenomenon, where they exist at all.

Very often, where there are gardens with city housing, these are very small and mainly paved and ornamental - and would not be suitable for further building

[DulwichRob]

Just had a quick scan of the design and access statement and it does seem that the building designers have tried several things to mitigate the impact of the building on its neighbours.

Without discussing the pros and cons of developments like this in general, it is worth bearing in mind that under permitted development (the process whereby development can occur without planning permission), an out-building of less than 50% of the total area of land around the original house can be built upon, as long as is required for a purpose incidental of the dwellinghouse as such.

If on the boundary this building can be 2.5m high and can be positioned anywhere within the property curtilage as long as it is not cnnected to the existing building. There are examples where outbuildings have been built only 2.5cm from the existing.

In this case therefore a future owner could possibly put in a very large enclosed swimming pool (or similar outbuilding) with a far bigger footprint than the proposal building in this application. It can also be constructed in any material.

[Jeremy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Very many European countries offer city dwellers

> mainly apartment living - meaning that private

> gardens are unusual

In city centres, yes. Not suburbs so much (and Dulwich is pretty suburban IMO). In somewhere like Paris, while the sprawl of large apartment buildings reaches a few miles out of the centre, you still reach a point where there are mainly houses with gardens.

[intexasatthe moment]

DulwichRob - the impact of a residential building in a back garden is very different ( for the occupiers of the new build and those of the exisiting property )than that of outbuildings and swimming pools .

[DulwichRob]

The impact would be different that is true, intexasatthemoment. I was merely pointing out that permtted development allows for a potentially huge building, with no design merit or site specific consideration, in this or any other rear garden. This thread looks to discuss our thoughts on Newbuilds in Gardens and I am pointing out that newbuilds can be constructed without consultaion and there is little that any of us can do about it.

What I suppose Im trying to say is that given planning law allows you to build a potentially huge building on this site that could be positioned anywhere within the site boundary (including directly opposite the white house i might add), maybe we should look at the merits of this type of design, which i think in this case, looks to reduce its impact on its neighbours, rather than looking at these types of developement with one broad brush that rejetcs all.