Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

I just received a letter (see attachment) from the Haringey Planning Service. It's about a planning application for a 2-bedroom house, to be built in a garden nearby.

Now I don't want to interfere with anybody's plans, but I can't help feeling that gardens are not houses for a reason, and exist for people to have a bit of outside space, for wildlife, providing drainage for rainwater (esp. in conditions where climate change is likely to cause more frequent flooding) etc. Looking up the application online, I also noticed that the people applying for it are not the ones living at the address. So it does look a bit like it might be an attempt by a landlord to cram in as many people as possible into a space that hasn't been constructed for it. It just generally doesn't strike me as a brilliant idea.

Anyway. Does anybody else have views on this, and what is the best thing to do? I do feel like I probably want to object, but would also like some opinions first, as well as what would be the best grounds on which to do so.

Thank you!

Tags for Forum Posts: environment, garden, hmo, planning permission

Views: 3186


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Agreed, not the same type of planning request, but objections raised by neighbours regarding loss of mature plants and trees, and more hard landscaping.  Ideas for objections, although in this case it didn't stop the permission.  However building a house in a back garden is a step too far .  The owner of the HMO  next door to us actually told me he planned to build a 2 bedroom flat at the end of the back garden, but must have been put off by planning or his architect.  This was back in 2007 and nothing has happened since , so was surprised to see the OP's post about this planing app.  Hopefully they are just chancing their arm and it will be summarily dismissed by Haringay Planning.  

Dear All

Just to let you all know I will be objecting to this application. As many of you have pointed out, building a two storey house in a garden is a step too far.


Zena Brabazon

Cllr, Harringay ward

Thank you for highlighting this, Maren. Looks like there's a long list of objections now. 

In fact I'm surprised they even took the time to submit this.

18 objections so far! The more the better :)

I am sorry to say that LBH may be inclined to grant permission for this as other, similar projects, have been allowed.

See image below, and follow the sad tale at HGY/2015/3394 and HGY/2018/0624

Again we have a non-resident owner behind the project and - laughably - commenting in support of the application!

For balance, a very close-by development was refused (& upheld by Planning Inspectorate). See HGY/2020/1287

I disagree with your logic. 

3a Rusper Road is quite a different case. It was essentially a side extension, as your screenshot shows. Because it was built as an extension of the exisiting terrace,  t is no precedent for the current application.

The second case you cite in Boundary Road, was very similar It was an application for a separate house in a 'non-landlocked' rear garden. It is a good precedent for the current case and, as you correctly state, it was refused.

(I've added links in your comment to the cases so that people can easily refer to them).

Who knows what LBH planning will do. But we can take reassurance from the cases you cite rather than be worried by them. 

The Rusper Road scenario saw LBH grant permission for a 2-storey house to be built in the garden of a terrace, over neighbours' objections.

That is why there are similarities.

I stumbled on this late but have just objected too. There are now 28 objections.

Agree with many of the other comments here, and see granting permission as setting as an alarming precedent for any house adjacent to the ladder. 

We walked past a house at the eastern end of Raleigh today and that looks a little similar to the Cavendish application. It was approved in 2017. It's a nice looking modern house.

It is similar to that proposed in the current application in that it's a detached house built at the bottom of and occupying most of a rear garden of a house (on Willoughby Road). But the critical difference, in Haringey DMD terms, is that this house, like the Rusper Road one, ends up slotting alongside and in effect continuing the existing terrace. This would not be the case with the Cavendish development. It would just sit amongst a garden landscape, unrelated to what is alongside it. If my interpretation is correct, this is why it the Raleigh development was approved and I hope why the Cavendish one will be rejected.

I would have thought that once permission is granted for this (a test case?) then it would blight the whole of the borough giving others carte blanche to do the same. Resist!

Absolutely agree with you on this. We had this happen round the corner from us. But in Tottenham anything seems to go. This guy converted a house into three flats then built another in the garden and built a house including basement at the end of the property. We have been rather amazed that Haringey allowed all this to go ahead. Imagine the overcrowding and lack of greenery in London if this were allowed to happen frequently?

Maddy has provided an update here. Good news for us all on the Ladder and throughout the borough.



© 2023   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service