SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »
Planning Application: 27 Shipman Road
Author Message
theirpuppet


Posts: 25
Joined: Aug 2009
Post: #1
09-08-2010 02:08 PM

Last year my wife and I bought an end-of-terrace victorian house. Originally, there was a house next to ours, but that got torn down after WWII due to bomb damage. The neighbors on the corner bought that land, but don't seem to have ever made good use of it in the 50+ years. Anyway...

We just received a letter from the planning office to comment on the proposal to build 4 flats on the site. 2 two-beds, 2 one-beds. 4 flats! Of course they will join the walls as there isn't enough space to leave an alleyway between the buildings. So we would then have 3 neighbors, two of which could be rented tenants. The whole road is single family dwellings, so a new flat development would be completely out of character. Almost all properties on our road are victorian, with the exception of a terrace of 3 that look to be at least 20/30 years old.

The main points I have to argue against planning permission are: devaluation due to no longer being end of terrace and the potential for noise disturbance from two flats. What else can I do? We would be less opposed to this if it were just another single-family dwelling that would mix well with the surrounding period properties.

All constructive advice welcome.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,198
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #2
09-08-2010 02:57 PM

I don't believe that devaluation is a valid grounds for objection but I'm happy to provide some advice (as a regular planning objector) if you let me know the location and/or the planning application number.

Please send me a PM or email me - michael (at) foresthillsociety.com

Find all posts by this user Reply
Satchers


Posts: 262
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #3
09-08-2010 03:02 PM

Devaluation is unlikely to have any influence on the planning department as it is not something that I think they have to consider. The applicant will argue that noise will be dealt with though building regulations and nowadays the standards are pretty stringent and they will have to deal with this properly.

The issues you raise in the rest of your email are surely much more pertinent:
- Negative impact on the character of a Victorian Street
- density of development in appropriate to the surrounding street(s)
- Design issues related to the detailed proposals (are you in a Conservation Area?)

Rights to light or overlooking may also be important if the site has been empty for 50 years?

Also, I am not sure they are allowed to join onto your dwelling without a party wall agreement, even if there was one there before, but you will need to get some proper advice on this - possibly from a party wall surveyor?

Good luck!

Find all posts by this user Reply
grahamw


Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #4
09-08-2010 04:38 PM

Hi,

Both Michael and Satchers are right re planning matters.

Do you have a window in your side wall? If so has it been there for twenty years? if answer is yes, then you will have "rights of light" which isn't a planning matter, but it means you'll have a legal right for that window to receive light! If you haven't put a window in your side wall, you probably wish you had! (sorry..)

If they build next to your house, or indeed within 6m of your legal boundary, they will need a party wall or party structure award. You should look up your rights here; http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio.../partywall

Find all posts by this user Reply
theirpuppet


Posts: 25
Joined: Aug 2009
Post: #5
10-08-2010 07:20 AM

Thanks for the replies!

We would have no 'right to light' or concerns for being overlooked. We just bought the house last year and there are no windows on the exterior wall. The new development would be set back and I don't think they intend to put a window directly above our garden (but I will look more carefully at the plans for issues like this).

I will look into the party wall issues. It'd be nice if we have to agree to something, which we certainly won't without due compensation! As I said, we'd now have two flats touching this wall.

It is not a conservation area, but all structures are Victorian of the same era apart from a church and the small terraced row of 4 homes (I thought it was three, but checked google maps streetview; there are 4 homes in that small terrace).

Find all posts by this user Reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 347
Joined: May 2005
Post: #6
10-08-2010 04:44 PM

Not knowing the exact location makes it difficult to comment, but I'll throw this into the mix.

Following the Victorian architectural theme is not necessarily going to be an issue provided the applicants can demonstrate good design - as with the proposed new pools.

If the property isn't particularly well served by public transport then there will have to be adequate capacity for on or off street parking - otherwise the development will have to provide secure cycle parking.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Satchers


Posts: 262
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #7
10-08-2010 09:53 PM

Anotherjohn

Agree it looking Victorian is not necessarily the issue. Good design is.

Its just that in 'most' cases infil sites are not examples of good design and that planners generally seem to find it easier to say no to something for not being 'in keeping' than not being 'good design'.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Southlonder


Posts: 119
Joined: Aug 2009
Post: #8
11-08-2010 04:58 PM

id rather have a well designed small modern block next door to me that those hidious post war houses that exist where bomb damage was

I tihnk you are over reacting personally.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Southlonder


Posts: 119
Joined: Aug 2009
Post: #9
11-08-2010 05:03 PM

also I think I know where you mean, is the land in question on the corner of one of the side streets from garthorne road?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Walder


Posts: 67
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #10
12-08-2010 08:33 PM

We live near this proposed development and it is quite outrageous. The land in question has been a corner garden since the end of World War II. If the proposal was to build a three bedroom single house to replace the one which was lost it might be OK. It is not. It involves two new houses (of three storeys including the loft bedrooms); each house will contain two flats. The gardens in this area are very short (ours is about ten foot long). To accomodate the ground floor flats, the development will have a single storey flat roofed "extension" to each house which will come really close to our house. At the moment we enjoy a pleasant view from our rear windows across the garden and down the hill. This will be blocked by two tall new houses. They will also have to cut down a rather lovely Scot's fir tree which is one of the beauties of the street.

It is all very well for other people to be smug, but it is not happening in their back yard!

Find all posts by this user Reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 347
Joined: May 2005
Post: #11
12-08-2010 09:19 PM

Tim.

I still don't know the location, but if the tree is particularly attractive there may be a chance that it's protected? If not, perhaps it should be. Have a look at - http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Environment/P...ign/Trees/
Also, it's worth noting that a new planning policy/guideline has recently come into force against so-called 'garden grabbing' where the minister, Mr Clark said:
"For years the wishes of local people have been ignored as the character of neighbourhoods and gardens have been destroyed, robbing communities of vital green space".
(see more on http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england...2/100610_1 )

Find all posts by this user Reply
Satchers


Posts: 262
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #12
13-08-2010 10:04 AM

The new policy on garden grabbing is in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) and re-classifies back gardens as greenfield land, rathern than brownfield, previously developed land.

The reason this is important is that greenfield land should only be developed AFTER brownfield land is developed. So IF you can demonstrate it has been a back garden for a number of years, and Lewisham's planning policy says there is enough brownfield land to meet their housing numbers (which I would imagine it does) then the conclusion is that site should not be developed on.

Definitely worth a try
Good luck

Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Walder


Posts: 67
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #13
13-08-2010 10:17 AM

Since this has become a public discussion, it is probably worth saying that the land in question is in Shipman Road SE23 and is the corner garden between 29 Shipman Road and the start of Siddons Road (the South West corner of the junction between Siddons Road and Shipman Road).

The planning application is:

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=60648

Find all posts by this user Reply
Muss


Posts: 50
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #14
13-08-2010 03:42 PM

I live close to this proposed development.

My concerns are identical to Tim Walder's. I would have no issue with the original plot for 27 Shipman Road used for a 3 bedroom house (in keeping with the style of the adjacent houses) with a side garden. But to build four flats that look like two houses from the front is overdoing it. Talk about trying to sweat your assets. One house will be 20% smaller than the other so that it can be accommodated within the plot and it will have a non-existent garden. I would object on the basis that it will unfair on the occupants, to live in such box like conditions.

It seems to me that the new owner not only saw the potential of rebuilding 27 Shipman Road, but using it's original side garden to squeeze in another (compromised) house. Hmmm, I blame all those property shows on tv.

I like the tree as well and wander if the removal would have any impact on the foundations for the three adjacent houses.

The houses west to the junction of Siddons Road and Shipman Road (also including Vestris, Treviso, Trilby) are all single occupancy family homes. Is this why the developer wants each house to look like a single 3 bedroom house with a single entrance from the front of the street, when in fact they are multiple dwellings? This could set a dangerous precedent and give other developers ideas that they can convert the original single occupancy family homes into flats. That I'm against.

Find all posts by this user Reply
admin
Administrator

Posts: 374
Joined: Dec 2002
Post: #15
13-08-2010 04:09 PM

Thread renamed to give address.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Anotherjohn


Posts: 347
Joined: May 2005
Post: #16
13-08-2010 04:49 PM

Thanks for posting the site address Tim.

I doubt this is in a sustainable location for public transport - which would mean that car parking would be required - and I think the Highways department would have serious issues due to the lack of off-street parking and the fact that any on-street parking immediately outside the properties on Shipman would be awkward and a potential hazard due to the proximity to the junctions at Siddons, Normanton, Vestris and Farren.

Then there's the impact on the residential amenity of No.57 Siddons Road in that its outlook, from what looks a like a large extension, would severely compromised.

Also, there apprears to be a lack of amenity space provided for the new development.

I'd be shocked if it's approved.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #17
13-08-2010 06:04 PM

I live on Shipman rd as well. It this that house that had the skip in the driveway foor a it, that looks like it's been recently vacated? I always thought that house was technically on Siddons Rd.

Do they propose knocking that house down? The houses down the east end of Shipman rd (past the newsagents) have been broken up into flats.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Muss


Posts: 50
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #18
14-08-2010 01:29 AM

According to the plans submitted, the house on the corner of Siddons Road/Shipman Road will remain as is within it's original plot. That house has a bricked wall in the front yard with a door that leads into another garden, what used to be 27 Shipman Road. It's that plot, with the tree, where the developer wants to build the four flats.

Find all posts by this user Reply
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #19
15-08-2010 08:15 AM

I used to live on Shipman Road and love that gorgeous tree and the ivied wall. Am happy to write a letter of objection if someone can please PM me advising correct procedure - Michael?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #20
15-08-2010 09:55 AM

Yes, how to you object? I saw the planning application, but it is not clear how to register an objection.

One house (that may be flats) would be fine, but SIX flats. That plot doesn't look that big.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Planning application to convert Home Accessories Extra to a coffee shop hillview 8 3,220 22-04-2018 12:35 PM
Last Post: hillview
  Planning application to convert Forest Hill Co-op to a hotel hillview 12 3,519 10-03-2018 01:34 PM
Last Post: Uhuru
  Planning application to change Honor Oak Supermarket to a bar nitoda 10 9,335 03-07-2016 07:42 PM
Last Post: HannahD
  Planning Application: 1 Manor Mount Mrjamon 50 27,316 14-12-2015 10:46 AM
Last Post: Londondrz
  The 4 Redberry Grove Planning Application robertlondon 21 15,674 15-09-2015 06:16 AM
Last Post: JRW
  Planning Application: M&Co to become a Morrisons Local? edpaff 141 77,265 09-09-2015 03:42 PM
Last Post: michael
  Planning Application: 51-53 Canonbie Road penfold 88 65,954 02-05-2014 01:04 PM
Last Post: Hunter
  Planning Application - Hindsley Place and Westbourne Drive michael 124 68,352 09-01-2014 12:46 PM
Last Post: Perryman
  Planning Application: 120 Stanstead Road michael 67 41,583 11-12-2013 02:50 PM
Last Post: Mr_Numbers
  Planning Application: 6 Church Rise ForestGump 58 37,660 02-04-2013 04:53 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: 6 Church Rise NewForester 30 23,449 02-08-2012 04:00 PM
Last Post: Snazy
  Planning Application: Land to the rear of 107 Honor Oak Park alethius 5 4,970 25-06-2012 11:02 AM
Last Post: alethius
  Codrington Hill - planning application? blushingsnail 1 3,097 24-05-2012 10:02 PM
Last Post: megan
  Planning Application - 113 Bovill Road davidl 7 6,344 21-04-2012 11:06 AM
Last Post: HOPcat
  Planning application: 33 Dartmouth Road Baboonery 16 8,345 29-11-2011 09:41 AM
Last Post: IWereAbsolutelyFuming
  Planning Application: 15 Davids Road NewForester 4 3,887 18-08-2011 07:34 AM
Last Post: notstoppin
  building works on the corner of Shipman Road and Siddons Road Prampusher 3 2,875 04-08-2011 09:25 AM
Last Post: Sherwood
  Planning Application: 139 Sunderland Road RobF 48 26,050 04-06-2011 09:00 PM
Last Post: michael
  Planning Application - Next to Baxter's Field michael 8 5,618 22-03-2011 09:44 AM
Last Post: IWereAbsolutelyFuming
  Planning Application: 35 Sunderland Road celticexplorer 31 18,542 17-12-2010 12:00 PM
Last Post: NewForester