26 Kimberley Gardens

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dominic on August 3, 2009 at 19:38

After a bit of digging it looks like the original planning permission for the conversion of 26 was sought in 2002. This planning application was declined. And now 7 years later retrospective consent is sought...

I've objected based on the following arguments, and would encourage other Gardens residents to do the same. I think we've got quite enough conversion in the Gardens, particularly on Kimberley. It's strange that we're not explicitly listed as overdeveloped unlike the Ladder... any chance someone from the council could change that?

Cheers,
Dom

>>>>>>>>>>>

I would like to object to the attempt to obtain a certificate of lawfullness for the conversion carried out to 26 Kimberley Gardens. Planning permission for a similar conversion was declined in 2002, and it seems to me that this is an attempt to circumvent the planning office by carrying out a conversion, in the full knowledge that it is not lawful, so that retrospective consent can be sought at a later date.

There are already a very large number of converted properties and HMOs on Kimberley Gardens (easily >20%). The Haringey Unitary Development plan covers Restricted Conversion Areas in section HSG11. Kimberley Gardens clearly satisfies the criteria j) on the list and for the reasons outlined in section HSG11 we believe that this certificate of lawfullness should not be granted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on August 3, 2009 at 21:21

Dom

I am going to PM you - this is very interesting and I have a lot of help I can give you (see our thread on 69 Effingham for more details of what this is about).

Bushy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on August 5, 2009 at 9:13

Dom
I've sent you a PM with my number to call and discuss but not heard back - are you still keen to fight this?
Bushy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on August 7, 2009 at 8:00

The two flats are not owner occupied - just another dodgy landlord. I think they have been flats for two/three years and there has been a succession of couples, students and families moving in and out.

We will be voicing our objection to the council.
Regards
Mags

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on August 7, 2009 at 12:06

Mags,
This may well be a case (like so many now being uncovered) where the application is based on falsified/fraudulent evidence. If you have any reason to believe that the property has been 2 flats for less than 4 years, I would urge you to phone the council and ask what evidence has been supplied. And then to go and look at the evidence (Planning keep the file and it's open to the public for inspection). If you see photocopies of utility bills, photocopies of statutory declarations etc. (and no original documents) then there is a good chance the application is based on false evidence.
PM me if you want more advice/help. A few of us are gathering evidence of fraudulent applications for COLs so if this is another one, it would be good to add it to our pile.
Bushy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dominic on September 15, 2009 at 13:03

Thought people might be interested that the planning permission was rejected. The certificate of lawfulness was withdrawn.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on September 15, 2009 at 13:22

Well done Dom.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on September 15, 2009 at 15:38

Dom - this is great news but I'm confused about the status of this illegal conversion. As the Officer's Report notes, enforcement began back in 2002. I assume it is still 2 separate properties (which the owner has been raking in the rent on since 2002). If that's the case, why, 7 years later, has this property still not been converted back to a single house? Have enforcement really not managed to achieve anything in 7 years? What has happend to their enforcement action? If it really has taken 7 years to achieve nothing, that's beggars belief and I would urge you get Nora and Alan Stanton involved this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dominic on September 16, 2009 at 7:19

Yes, I found that aspect of the report confusing. There is some brief mention of enforcement but I didn't really understand what had happened to that... Could you PM contact details for Nora and Alan Stanton and I'll let them know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart on September 16, 2009 at 9:07

I called enforcement up yesterday and am waiting for the relevant enforcement officer to call me back. The person I spoke to told me that the council were partially successful on appeal. Partially because (according to the person I spoke to) the appeal decision was that (a) the property did not need to be converted back to a single house and the partitions/dividers etc did not need to be taken down but (b) the owner could not use it as 2 flats. I have tried to get a copy of this appeal decision which sounds utterly irrational but the Planning Inspectorate do not keep decisions over 5 years old, so I will need to get a copy from the enforcement officer himself. The person also told me that they had initially decided to prosecute for failure to comply with the enforcement notice but then withdrew, but wouldn't/couldn't give me any further details. However, that would explain the withdrawn COL application - withdrawn because the owner realised it was an admission that the house had been used as 2 flats for over 4 years in breach of the appeal notice. In which case, the application and the evidence filed may well be all we need to finally get enforcement to prosecute.

I will update when I hear the full picture from the planning officer and PM you Nora and Alan's details then.

• ▶ Reply