Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Two-bedroom house to be built in a garden on the Ladder
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
- Attachments:
-
-
IMG_8869.jpg, 651 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
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
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, Harringay ward
-
Permalink Reply by Shar on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Celia Roberts on
-
18 objections so far! The more the better :)
-
Permalink Reply by Mr M on
-
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
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
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!
-
Permalink Reply by Pat Devereaux on
-
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.
-
-
I liked this summary of the rationale for the decision:
“The proposal, by reason of its design, form, scale, massing, layout, location, means of access and lack of street frontage, would be an inappropriate form of backland development, that would not relate to the pattern of development in the area, and would appear a cramped, obtrusive, and incongruous form of development when viewed from surrounding properties and their gardens, to the detriment of local visual amenities and harmful to the character of the area.”
Wordy, but true!
Hugh, your link on the other post redirects to the same post rather than this one.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
