Newbuilds in gardens - Hindmans Road

[intexasatthe moment]

DulwichRob - I don't agree that planning law would allow for a potentially huge building to be put on this plot .

It would allow a structure built within 2m of the boundaries to have a maximum height of 2.5m .http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/outbuildings

So much lower than the proposed building which would be over 4.5 metres and built up to and on 3 boundaries .

The proposals for the development in the garden of 21 Hindmans Rd take up 50% of the existing garden and all of the space that currently provides external access to that garden . It is true that some of that 50% is shown as amenity space for the new build but I think it is disengenous to suggest that something with a " far bigger footprint " could be constructed as an outbuilding . And who would realistically want to put such a large structure in their backgarden ? It wouldn't provide useful storage with such narrow access ,and I doubt many would want the expense and maintenance costs of a swimming pool . Though the latter would have considerably less visual impact .

The construction of outbuildings in Southwark is not quite the "anything goes " picture that you paint . . Their Residential Design Guide SPD has requirements in place for location ,impact and building materials .

"Proposals must consider location of garden buildings such as sheds and greenhouses so that they minimise the impact on neighbouring properties. Garden buildings should be located to the rear of properties.The building materials used must respect the existing buildings and the overall character of the area. Garden buildings should minimise any impact on trees."

Looking at the specific proposals for the 21 Hindmans Rd development I would say that sinking the building into the ground ,using roof lights and an internal courtyard ( which eats into limited living space ) in an effort to get light into the building ,and wrapping the entire top floor in wooden slats ,is less about mitigating the impact on neighbours and more about trying to force a building into a plot which just isn't suitable .

[intexasatthe moment]

Are you connected with the project DulwichRob ? You appear new to the forum and your first 3 posts are all related to this development .

[DulwichRob]

Permitted development which allows development WITHOUT planning permission and therefore the Residential Design Guide SPD has no bearing on this.

This discussion to me has less to do with the application site and more about development in general. (Its only my opinion about the design and I will have to disagree with your opinions on it).

I attach a document which clearly shows what is achievable under permitted development. I'm not making this up and I would like to say that in general I do not agree with the permitted development laws and the possiblities are frankly frightening...

http://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-The-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf

I was merely pointing out that this could be the case in ANY garden being as the topic of this discussion is "Newbuilds in Gardens."

I have nothing to do with the project intexasatthe moment - My girlfriend and I use her login name usually on the forum but I wanted to comment in person to this as its something I believe strongly about. I work in the construction industry and I am interested in new and innovative ways of building new properties. Some clients that I deal with look at the potential of developing sites behind existing buildings. I was interested to read opinions and point out the permitted development law.

[kate h]

Just catching up with latest developments on thread....

Interested in reading your thoughts DulwichRob. Good to get both sides of the argument. But wouldn't it be a little unsual to WANT to put a new outbuilding / swimming pool right in front of a neighbouring property? I would have thought if you ended up owning a property like the one on Hindmans Rd, you'd want to put your swimming pool (! - although not many of those in ED - people seem pretty happy with the public ones locally....) or your office etc at the bottom of the garden. Would you want a garden essentially divided into two by a new building / pool? Would you choose for your new building / pool to be overlooked by neighbours? And mightn't you be sensitive to neighbours' wishes? Maybe I'm being naive!

Am no expert on the ins and outs of planning laws and permitted developments, but I think I do feel quite strongly about one basic point - which is that green spaces are important to people's well-being in lots and lots of ways...

Just a few thoughts.

Thanks. K

[kate h]

ps and thanks to Renata for taking an interest in this and following up with planning.

[Renata Hamvas]

Thanks Kate, I will have an update soon.

Renata

[Renata Hamvas]

Hello all, there were issues with this application. the applicant has now withdrawn it.

Renata

[civilservant]

Just to say that Renata was very helpful to friends of mine about a recent application from a developer that would have caused severe loss of amenity to its neighbours. Her advice and help were crucial to getting it scaled down to be more in keeping with the immediate local area.

[kate h]

Yes, thanks to Renata for all her help. And to everyone else for their advice.

If anyone finds themselves in a similar situation (ie developers 'garden grabbing'), feel free to give me a PM. I now have quite a lot of info that can pass on.

Thanks again.

K

[MarkT]

Yes, Well done Renata, and all who sent in objections.

We do not of course know why the applicant withdrew, but it might have been the realisation that it would have been refused as it was simply contrary to policy, as was mentioned by objectors.

So, well done to all those citizens who contributed in the creation of those policy documents, particularly the Dulwich SPD which provides such a clear veto to new buildings on previously undeveloped gardens.

MarkT

[kate h]

ps have heard from a neighbour that the developers might be resubmitting new drawings so might not be the end of the road on this one - although the main problem the council seem to have is the access issue and not sure how they'll get around that one...hmm.....

[Al-candraw]

I live on Hindmans road and of course object massively to the development of the back garden in to any sort of dwelling but I have to say I also have the feeling that the planning application was with drawn because the developers realised it would be a flat out no, and will re-submit. The fact they began to prep the site by chopping down the trees leads me to believe they will continue to try to develop the site. Also number 36 Hindmans road has been purchased for re-development and when the estate agents were selling it, it was very much touted as a possible 2 dwelling site so we may actually see another submission for something similar. Fingers crossed neither go through as I hadn't intended on living on a building site, given the currently development of the garages opposite no. 21!

[first mate]

And expect resubmission after resubmission. The whole M&S debacle teaches us that developers know that if they can reach a ceratin point where appeals are likely the council buckles for fear it will lose thus setting a precedent- plus costs, that is the curious logic.

I have seen this happen a number of times with residential developments where something totally and utterly illegal and in clear breach of planning regs, is allowed to go ahead ahead and council planning are too frightened to ask for it to be torn down/stopped, in case they lose.

The fact that they even felt they might lose gives one considerbale insight into the powers of developers now or ways that experts can work the planning game to their advantage.

[Alec John Moore]

Sounds like there's no hope. Have you any positive suggestions?

[intexasatthe moment]

I expect there will be a resubmission but I don't feel as negative as the last two posters . Possibly because ,unlike First Mate I've not seen residential developments where something totally and utterly illegal and in clear breach of planning regs being built .

And also because endlessly resubmitted schemes seem to end up with much more palatable developments than originally put forward .

Personally I don't think 21 Hindmans Rd is suitable to build a house in the garden ,I don't know what specific reasons made the developer withdraw or whether the drawbacks of this site could ever be overcome .

[Al-candraw]

I have to say I'm also really hopeful, ED has a close knit community that are committed to keeping our green spaces just that. I really don't think they will get planning permission as long as people stay on top of the proposals. It's a totally inappropriate space for development and I genuinely feel as long as strong objections are communicated and our green spaces are shown to be of community interest we do stand a good chance of stopping garden grabbing!

[first mate]

sorry guys, did not mean to sound all gloom and doom and Perhaps the scenarios are rather different. i wish you well and do stay positive.

[Renata Hamvas]

I think the issues with this site will remain whatever the applicants do.

Renata

[kate h]

Yes, Al-candraw's right - developers started cutting down trees in preparation for build a while ago now which does suggest they're quite confident they'll get permission. They've also created a separate garden for the house on Hindmans.

But also agree that if neighours etc stay on top of this, we've got a good chance of stopping it. There is no precedent for a newbuild in a garden in ED (lots on brownfield sites, but I think if you bought near a brownfield site you'd half expect something to happen to it....). And I'm not sure how developers will get round the access issue - maybe they're going to come up with some innovative concept!

The profit margins on a build like this (high spec 3 bed house in ED - surely will sell for ?1m plus?) must be pretty big....

K

[Al-candraw]

Hi All, whilst it's not the same plot I thought it may be of interest that number 30 hindmans road has submitted planning permission for the existing house to be torn down and 2 flats to replace that building followed by 2 further flats in the back garden. As there is a drive way I don't think access will be an issue this time however it's a major concern as not only does this increase parking issues but also possible precedence for back land development.

[MarkT]

The applicant's Design and Access Statement states:

"The existing building stands out on the street scene as being of a different scale to its neighbours. It appears that this building was built at a different time to much of the other housing stock on the street and as such appears incongruous on the street."

Because it looks different is not a justification for tearing it down. Does anyone know the age of the existing house? The 1914 OS map shows a building of the same footprint, which is probably the same house.

The garden is previously undeveloped so according to the Dulwich SPD this should be an automatic rejection.

[intexasatthe moment]

And ( re 30 Hindmans ) spouts the same old tosh ( some of it seemingly lifted from the application for 21 Hindmans ) about existing examples of houses built on backland . 97 and 99 Crystal Palace Rd for example . Perhaps they're confusing garden centre for garden ,Police Station for garden ?

That degree of spin makes me seriously doubt the accuracy /reliabilty of the rest of the application .

[MarkT]

Thanks Al-candraw for this alert, and good to see you're on the case Tex.

Other considerations: Access - they plan to build on the access route.

Density. I can't find a figure for the density in the proposal. I think the Council should routinely ask applicants to provide a figure because the Residential Design Standards SPD gives a set of "Key Considerations" and the first is ?Does the development - fall within the appropriate density range??.

I count 14 rooms habitable rooms in their drawings and the site area seems to be about 300 square metres, so I estimate about 470 rooms per hectare. That is well outside the policy limits.

Mark

[technotom]

We live next to the proposed site at number 30 and we're currently putting together our objections for submission to the planning department since it raises a lot of concerns.

If anyone has any useful info they're happy to share please get in touch since we've never been through this process before and it's all a bit confusing. We're particularly interested in our party wall rights since it seems that they're able to extend up to and build off our property without our consent.

Thanks for any help in advance.

[redpencil]

Worried to see there is a development on this thread. While the access issues may not be parallel with the issues with number 21, there is a collection of excellent points and legal references in the neighbour consultation responses to number 21 http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9555862

You need to scroll down many of them as the planning department have linked several responses together under one submission link.

Hope they provide a helpful starting point - and will keep an eye on other postings.