| Topic: | Inappropriate - greed. | |
| Posted by: | Victor Mishiku | |
| Date/Time: | 24/03/13 11:18:00 |
| I recall a case in Weybridge. There were 3 elegant detached houses on the "Oakfield Estate" built in the 1930s fronting the main road with a very nice Cedars of Lebanon tree in the front garden of the middle house. The owners of the two outer houses acquired the middle house when that elderly owner passed away and promptly applied to the local Council to demolish all three houses (which were in excellent condition) in order to replace them with no less than 10 new houses squeezed in on the land with a mixture of semis and terraced houses (which did not feature elsewhere on the estate). The Planning Department indicated their satisfaction with the proposed development to the developers without even having carried out a site visit to the area in question and, needless to say, without making the effort of viewing the land from neighbouring vantage points. When I went over to help the neighbouring residents in several roads on the estate, the Planning Department were gearing up to deal with the application internally (under delegated powers) and therefore it could have been passed without any Committee scrutiny. At my suggestion, the residents requested their Ward Councillor to require that the case be submitted to the Planning Committee no matter what recommendation the planners were making. The Head of Planning duly confirmed that any decision would have to be at Committee. Whilst the planning matters were going on, residents sent two letters to the developer parties re. certain restrictive covenants burdening the land. Our covenant solicitors followed this up, when the residents' letters were ignored, giving notice of intended proceedings should undertakings not be forthcoming. Thereupon, shortly after, the developer parties "withdrew" their application and abandoned the whole project. Just before this, there was an article in the local Surrey Herald newspaper. Please see the 9th September 2009 article by Rupert Basham at this reference: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14377445/10.9.09%20Surrey%20Herald.1000.bmp The word "greed" sticks in my mind. The instant case in Castlebar Road would seem to be a candidate for a similar description. Not content with a full-width rear extension (specifically prohibited in Conservation Area policy referred to in the Ealing UDP), and other out-of-keeping additions to both the main roof and the mezzanine roof, this developer also wishes to build over the side passage that is a part of the style and established layout of these James Wills' houses built in the 1880s. I know how useful these side passages are for repairing the valley areas and flashing (following water leaks to the two ceilings below), replacing missing slates, access for chimneys including fixing or repairing TV aerials on the chimneys without having to put up scaffolding, etc. There is usually about a 3½ or 4 foot space in between the houses either side where a long ladder can be placed on the ground and the roofer can go up and often carry out the necessary repairs in a matter of an hour or so. I believe that the developer in this Ealing case is doing himself a disservice in trying to build over the side passage in effect using his neighbour's wall for protection but selfishly and unwisely denying that neighbour and himself future easy and immediate access to the flank walls and side roofs of their two respective (now detached) houses without the expense and delay of putting scaffolding up round the house. Despite this highly objectionable feature of the proposed development, the Planning Department dismisses this objection (even though planning guidance refers to the benefit of preserving gaps between houses for maintenance and separation) claiming that a gate exists at the entrance to the side passage leading to the rear of the property and therefore, the proposed 9½ metres extension right up against next door No.41's two living-rooms would make little difference - but as our solicitor Gerald Moran immmediately quipped "who lives in the gate?" |