The house was taxed as Council Band F - which is exactly the same as the house next door. The Council says that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't flats, as sometimes it takes years for people to inform them.
Only one street door and number and, as far as I know, no internal door locks.
No planning permissions on record & no building control notices apart from one in 1990 to install a loo.
I have written to the Planning Dept asking for the evidence the developer has supplied.
I am writing with all my objections (some of which they won't consider) and I'm also copying the letter to building control re. those aspects not considered by the planning dept becasue they come under building control. I've got till 30th July, so I'm holding off sending it for a few days more.
If we can get 10 objectors it has to go to planning committee. We got 18 last time (though it didn't go to committee as planning threw it out as it's below the internal floor size to allow conversion to flats) and I know of 4 definites so far + me.
Planning Permission - Advice Needed
Bensonby, that would be fab!
Anyone who's concerned is entitled to object, whether they're a close neighbour or not.
When the Developer applied the first time round, the Council only sent letters to the neighbours either side of the house, plus two or three houses in Mount Ash Road. Sadly, they didn't understand that the houses in Mount Ash Road are numbered 1 to 20 something on the south side and 20 something to 49 on the north side. Hence they missed out some of the nearest neighbours.
I put notes through the door of everyone in Mount Ash Road and in Mount Gardens, also the houses that overlooked the Development on the other side of the road in Kirkdale and Hassocks Close.
Several people fronting the development from Hassocks & Kirkdale objected then + lots of people in Mount Ash Road and one gentleman from Mount Gardens. Also, last time round, the Sydenham Society objected.
The Development is at 36 Kirkdale, SE26 4NQ - Planning Application No. DC/08/69205. The plans can be viewed at http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk
Sadly, the plans are deceiving. The elevations & sections are distorted because they misrepresent the slope of the ground. They also describe the gardens as "large", when in fact there's a pretty front garden (with decades of planting and - possibly - stag beetles). The back garden is just a small concrete yard, but again the paperwork is misleading.
It's a very small site - one of a terrace of four tall but narrow houses. It was on the original planning application for Mount Ash Road, along with a terrace of four houses on the other side of Mount Ash Road.
These two terraces basically form a sort of punctuation mark either side of the Mount Ash roadway where it joins Kirkdale.
The terrace is part of the Kirkdale/Sydenham Hill Conservation Area and dates to between 1871 and 1874.
Anyone who's concerned is entitled to object, whether they're a close neighbour or not.
When the Developer applied the first time round, the Council only sent letters to the neighbours either side of the house, plus two or three houses in Mount Ash Road. Sadly, they didn't understand that the houses in Mount Ash Road are numbered 1 to 20 something on the south side and 20 something to 49 on the north side. Hence they missed out some of the nearest neighbours.
I put notes through the door of everyone in Mount Ash Road and in Mount Gardens, also the houses that overlooked the Development on the other side of the road in Kirkdale and Hassocks Close.
Several people fronting the development from Hassocks & Kirkdale objected then + lots of people in Mount Ash Road and one gentleman from Mount Gardens. Also, last time round, the Sydenham Society objected.
The Development is at 36 Kirkdale, SE26 4NQ - Planning Application No. DC/08/69205. The plans can be viewed at http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk
Sadly, the plans are deceiving. The elevations & sections are distorted because they misrepresent the slope of the ground. They also describe the gardens as "large", when in fact there's a pretty front garden (with decades of planting and - possibly - stag beetles). The back garden is just a small concrete yard, but again the paperwork is misleading.
It's a very small site - one of a terrace of four tall but narrow houses. It was on the original planning application for Mount Ash Road, along with a terrace of four houses on the other side of Mount Ash Road.
These two terraces basically form a sort of punctuation mark either side of the Mount Ash roadway where it joins Kirkdale.
The terrace is part of the Kirkdale/Sydenham Hill Conservation Area and dates to between 1871 and 1874.
Sorry it looks like you can't search by application number.
This seems to work:
1. Click on the link http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk
2. Click on "Development Control Search"
3. Click on "Applications Register"
4. The Application was submitted on 25 June 08 - so click on "19/06/2008-26/06/2008".
5. If you then do a "find on this page" for "Kirkdale" it's the first that it finds. You can then click on the application number for more details.
Thanks for your patience & help.
This seems to work:
1. Click on the link http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk
2. Click on "Development Control Search"
3. Click on "Applications Register"
4. The Application was submitted on 25 June 08 - so click on "19/06/2008-26/06/2008".
5. If you then do a "find on this page" for "Kirkdale" it's the first that it finds. You can then click on the application number for more details.
Thanks for your patience & help.
I find this quite entertaining. I can't see how the electoral register helps their case unless there are separate addresses registered somewhere. The fact that they may have arranged a separate gas supply and meter does in no way constitute a change of use.
the main thing is that their own plans of the existing layout in no way backs up their assertion. In no way is the circulation to the upper rooms including the kitchenette separate in any way from the main house i.e. they cannot function as separate private entities which would be the definition of flats. It is only possible to read this as a separate kitchen facility within a house. Anyone saying otherwise is either stupid or lying.
Surley Lewisham should have more pride than to fall for this blatant con-trick?
However unless the outside of the building is particularly distinctive I don't think that you will get much out of objecting to their rear extension unless there is a serious privacy issue with houses opposite - maybe there is another source of objectors because people don't like extensions overlooking their garden.
the main thing is that their own plans of the existing layout in no way backs up their assertion. In no way is the circulation to the upper rooms including the kitchenette separate in any way from the main house i.e. they cannot function as separate private entities which would be the definition of flats. It is only possible to read this as a separate kitchen facility within a house. Anyone saying otherwise is either stupid or lying.
Surley Lewisham should have more pride than to fall for this blatant con-trick?
However unless the outside of the building is particularly distinctive I don't think that you will get much out of objecting to their rear extension unless there is a serious privacy issue with houses opposite - maybe there is another source of objectors because people don't like extensions overlooking their garden.
What makes a flat a flat?
The Town & Country Planning Act 1995 says:
""flat" means a separate and self-contained set of premises constructed or adapted for use for the purpose of a dwelling and forming part of a building from some other part of which it is divided horizontally;"
That certainly doesn't apply to 36 Kirkdale, but then it wouldn't apply to split level flats either.
The Council tax office confirmed the house is taxed as one dwelling (band F - the same as the identical house next door).
The Electoral Roll office said that as far back as their records go they've had two returns for that house (I know that in the 1940s or 50s the owner did rent out rooms) but the last people have been living there as a family since the 1960s. Anyway the Electoral Roll people said their records shouldn't be used as evidence, as often people don't bother to merge info onto one form.
I shall take myself off to the local studies centre on that one!
The next is the sticking point. I believe the house was last rewired in the 1940s or 50s, when the owner was renting out some bedsitting rooms (I think this may have been to returning ex servicemen & their families as I know lots of households did this to avoid having people billeted forcibly on them). At that point, I believe two sets of utility meters were installed.
That's our problem: the evidence that the developer is relying on is that there are still two sets of meters in the house! This probably suited the sisters, as one paid one bill and one the other in order to share out household expenses.
So what is the trump card? Council Tax or Utility meters?
The Town & Country Planning Act 1995 says:
""flat" means a separate and self-contained set of premises constructed or adapted for use for the purpose of a dwelling and forming part of a building from some other part of which it is divided horizontally;"
That certainly doesn't apply to 36 Kirkdale, but then it wouldn't apply to split level flats either.
The Council tax office confirmed the house is taxed as one dwelling (band F - the same as the identical house next door).
The Electoral Roll office said that as far back as their records go they've had two returns for that house (I know that in the 1940s or 50s the owner did rent out rooms) but the last people have been living there as a family since the 1960s. Anyway the Electoral Roll people said their records shouldn't be used as evidence, as often people don't bother to merge info onto one form.
I shall take myself off to the local studies centre on that one!
The next is the sticking point. I believe the house was last rewired in the 1940s or 50s, when the owner was renting out some bedsitting rooms (I think this may have been to returning ex servicemen & their families as I know lots of households did this to avoid having people billeted forcibly on them). At that point, I believe two sets of utility meters were installed.
That's our problem: the evidence that the developer is relying on is that there are still two sets of meters in the house! This probably suited the sisters, as one paid one bill and one the other in order to share out household expenses.
So what is the trump card? Council Tax or Utility meters?
Hi all (& hi Bensonby, hope you're reading this - I've PM'd you)
I'm afraid I've been away from the site for the past few months due to time pressures & other commitments.
The planning process for 36 Kirkdale has taken an ugly turn. I've pasting below a flyer that I'm rushing to put into local letterboxes.
36 Kirkdale
Appeal Deadline Looming … 23rd January
& Lewisham Council has lost our letters!
You may be aware that a Property Developer is proposing to turn 36 Kirkdale into a five-storey, three-apartment block of flats.
The scheme is now going through the Appeal process.
However, Lewisham Council has “mislaid” the letters of objection to the scheme. Our objections therefore will not be seen and considered by the Planning Inspectorate unless we take action now.
Lewisham Council should have written to all those who objected to the scheme & told them of the Appeal. We should have been given six weeks in which to make further comments, direct to the Planning Inspectorate. However, some letters have not arrived.
The Council are under an obligation to send all previously received letters concerning the scheme to the Planning Inspectorate. From the following it appears they have “mislaid” our letters.
"Dear Ms McKernan,
"I attach a copy of the Appeal Form and the Grounds of Appeal, for the above referenced case.
As discussed over the telephone, since you have not received your copy of the appeal notification letter, I can extend the deadline for the submission of your comments until 30 January 2009.
"I'm afraid I must insist that, if any other consultee has not received their copy of the notification letter, they must contact me directly if they wish to request an extended deadline.
I should also advise you of the following, I quote the Council's notification letter:
"The views which you have sent already at the application stage, have regrettably been mislaid and therefore it has not been possible for me to forward them to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant. If you have kept a copy would you please forward them directly to the Planning Inspectorate."
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely, Rachel Owen (Case Officer)"
I have now spoken to Rachel Owen and it appears Lewisham Council have “lost” the entire case file, which included photographs of the interior of the house before the Developer started work.
The story so far …
The Property Developer purchased 36 Kirkdale in December 2007, from the family who had lived in the house since the 1960s.
He then applied for permission to convert the “single family dwelling house” into 3 flats: 1 x one bedroom,
1 x two bedroom & 1 x three bedroom; to install a basement and light wells; to create a two-storey extension to the rear; to create a dormer extension to the roof.
Following a successful local campaign we managed to achieve 18 objections – incl. The Sydenham Society.
The Council refused the application; the Developer appealed but, at the 11th hour, withdrew his appeal.
In the meantime, the Developer submitted another scheme – very slightly amended but essentially the same – but with one crucial difference. This time he claimed the house had been used as separate flats for at least four years. Under planning law, if a house has been used as separate flats for four years the Council cannot refuse permission to convert.
This scheme attracted 23 objections.
Following the passing of the deadline for public consultation, the Developer – aided by the local Conservation Officer, Ken Davies - made some alterations to his scheme. Now – in addition to the proposed alterations - openings are to be cut into the Mount Ash Road garden wall elevations to let light into the newly created basement wells, the dormer extension will be clad in zinc and a roof light installed in the front elevation.
Despite 23 wide ranging objections, the Council refused this scheme solely on the fact that they had not been completely convinced that the house has been used as flats for at least four years. No. 36’s Council Tax Band is that of a single dwelling and there were no locks on internal doors, nor any form of separation.
Recently, the Developer has been engaged in feverish building activity inside 36 Kirkdale … quite probably altering the internal appearance to suit his arguments.
This latest scheme – including the undemocratic changes instigated by the Conservation Department – is now the subject of a Planning Appeal.
Time is running out, as the deadline for comments to reach the Planning Inspectorate is 23rd January.
I urge anyone who wishes to make a comment and who has not received a letter from the Council to please contact Rachel Owen if they wish to extend the deadline granted to them and – if you do have a copy of your original letter – to enclose that also. If you wish the Inspector to inform you of their decision, please request that in your letter. Should you wish to do so, you can also request the Inspector to visit the property before making a decision and can ask to attend any site visit that the Inspector may make.
You don't already have to have objected to have the right to comment to the Planning Inspectorate on any aspects of the scheme.
Objections can be sent by post or e-mail – but if by post, please note that the Inspectorate requires three copies.
Contact Details for the Planning Inspectorate are:
Rachel Owen – 0117 372 8990
e-mail teamp12@pins.gsi.gov.uk
All communications should be marked FAO Rachel Owen and carry the Appeal Application No. A/08/209135
The Planning Inspectorate
3/13a Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
I have copies of the plans & if anyone wishes me to bring them a set please contact me.
Otherwise, they can be viewed online at http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk
Any enquires to Lewisham Council should be directed to:
Joost Vanwell – 0208 314 9284
Thank you for your time and patience
If anyone wants to PM me, please do so.
I'm afraid I've been away from the site for the past few months due to time pressures & other commitments.
The planning process for 36 Kirkdale has taken an ugly turn. I've pasting below a flyer that I'm rushing to put into local letterboxes.
36 Kirkdale
Appeal Deadline Looming … 23rd January
& Lewisham Council has lost our letters!
You may be aware that a Property Developer is proposing to turn 36 Kirkdale into a five-storey, three-apartment block of flats.
The scheme is now going through the Appeal process.
However, Lewisham Council has “mislaid” the letters of objection to the scheme. Our objections therefore will not be seen and considered by the Planning Inspectorate unless we take action now.
Lewisham Council should have written to all those who objected to the scheme & told them of the Appeal. We should have been given six weeks in which to make further comments, direct to the Planning Inspectorate. However, some letters have not arrived.
The Council are under an obligation to send all previously received letters concerning the scheme to the Planning Inspectorate. From the following it appears they have “mislaid” our letters.
"Dear Ms McKernan,
"I attach a copy of the Appeal Form and the Grounds of Appeal, for the above referenced case.
As discussed over the telephone, since you have not received your copy of the appeal notification letter, I can extend the deadline for the submission of your comments until 30 January 2009.
"I'm afraid I must insist that, if any other consultee has not received their copy of the notification letter, they must contact me directly if they wish to request an extended deadline.
I should also advise you of the following, I quote the Council's notification letter:
"The views which you have sent already at the application stage, have regrettably been mislaid and therefore it has not been possible for me to forward them to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant. If you have kept a copy would you please forward them directly to the Planning Inspectorate."
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely, Rachel Owen (Case Officer)"
I have now spoken to Rachel Owen and it appears Lewisham Council have “lost” the entire case file, which included photographs of the interior of the house before the Developer started work.
The story so far …
The Property Developer purchased 36 Kirkdale in December 2007, from the family who had lived in the house since the 1960s.
He then applied for permission to convert the “single family dwelling house” into 3 flats: 1 x one bedroom,
1 x two bedroom & 1 x three bedroom; to install a basement and light wells; to create a two-storey extension to the rear; to create a dormer extension to the roof.
Following a successful local campaign we managed to achieve 18 objections – incl. The Sydenham Society.
The Council refused the application; the Developer appealed but, at the 11th hour, withdrew his appeal.
In the meantime, the Developer submitted another scheme – very slightly amended but essentially the same – but with one crucial difference. This time he claimed the house had been used as separate flats for at least four years. Under planning law, if a house has been used as separate flats for four years the Council cannot refuse permission to convert.
This scheme attracted 23 objections.
Following the passing of the deadline for public consultation, the Developer – aided by the local Conservation Officer, Ken Davies - made some alterations to his scheme. Now – in addition to the proposed alterations - openings are to be cut into the Mount Ash Road garden wall elevations to let light into the newly created basement wells, the dormer extension will be clad in zinc and a roof light installed in the front elevation.
Despite 23 wide ranging objections, the Council refused this scheme solely on the fact that they had not been completely convinced that the house has been used as flats for at least four years. No. 36’s Council Tax Band is that of a single dwelling and there were no locks on internal doors, nor any form of separation.
Recently, the Developer has been engaged in feverish building activity inside 36 Kirkdale … quite probably altering the internal appearance to suit his arguments.
This latest scheme – including the undemocratic changes instigated by the Conservation Department – is now the subject of a Planning Appeal.
Time is running out, as the deadline for comments to reach the Planning Inspectorate is 23rd January.
I urge anyone who wishes to make a comment and who has not received a letter from the Council to please contact Rachel Owen if they wish to extend the deadline granted to them and – if you do have a copy of your original letter – to enclose that also. If you wish the Inspector to inform you of their decision, please request that in your letter. Should you wish to do so, you can also request the Inspector to visit the property before making a decision and can ask to attend any site visit that the Inspector may make.
You don't already have to have objected to have the right to comment to the Planning Inspectorate on any aspects of the scheme.
Objections can be sent by post or e-mail – but if by post, please note that the Inspectorate requires three copies.
Contact Details for the Planning Inspectorate are:
Rachel Owen – 0117 372 8990
e-mail teamp12@pins.gsi.gov.uk
All communications should be marked FAO Rachel Owen and carry the Appeal Application No. A/08/209135
The Planning Inspectorate
3/13a Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
I have copies of the plans & if anyone wishes me to bring them a set please contact me.
Otherwise, they can be viewed online at http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk
Any enquires to Lewisham Council should be directed to:
Joost Vanwell – 0208 314 9284
Thank you for your time and patience
If anyone wants to PM me, please do so.