Jump to content


Photo

Save London's Gardens


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Zirconium

Zirconium

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 15 December 2007 - 04:07 PM

Some of older houses in Crystal Palace have substantial rear gardens. These are under threat from developers to the detriment of our wild life - a vast area equivalent to 22 Hyde Parks has already disappeared in London - see
http://www.wildlondo...?ChangeID=10054

A recent application for such a development (6 apartments and garages) has been made for the rear garden of 201 Church Rd which lies within the Church Road Conservation area. The planning application is 07/04485/P. If you are concerned about retaining our conservation areas, our greenery and the wildlife that goes with it, I would urge you to object to it and other proposals of a similar nature. This particular planning application can be objected to online by completing the form at:
http://planning.croy.../acolnetcgi.gov and entering bthe planning application reference.

#2 Ziwa

Ziwa

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 15 December 2007 - 04:23 PM

Do you have to live in the borough to object, or does your objection count for more if you do?

#3 Sylvester

Sylvester

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 15 December 2007 - 05:09 PM

I'm sure anyone can object but it helps if you live nearby, even if not in the same borough. Zirconium, where exactly is no. 201?
aka Pie

#4 Zirconium

Zirconium

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 15 December 2007 - 05:58 PM

201 and 203 are opposite the Queens Hotel. The main concern is that if this goes ahead it will open the floodgates for other houses in the conservation area.
You don't have to live in the borough. Clearly you can hardly object on the grounds that it will interfere with your living space. However if you have concerns about wildlife, conservation areas in general and especially if you are a member of an ecologically related organisation your objection should be perfectly valid.

#5 Axean

Axean

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 895 posts

Posted 16 December 2007 - 12:51 PM

There are good reason to object if your concerned about wildlife. The gardens form part of a large open area with a woodland habitat. It is a significant part of the habitat surrounding the Stambourne Woodland Walk.
Link to the location of the development.
If this site is developed it sets a very worrying precedent for all of the remaining small sections of woodland habitat dotted along the Norwood Ridge.
Its a shame the Government wont force a situation where existing built up sites are redeveloped. The planned development in West Norwood (B&Q area) is how we should be creating new homes.

Edited by Axean, 16 December 2007 - 12:53 PM.


#6 Retired Member 1

Retired Member 1

    Member

  • Retired Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,716 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 10:38 AM

I agree.

Looked into that and opposed it.

I am sick of this indiscriminate developments that are being submitted.

If the property market slows down as forecast we'll end up with a massive number of empty flats.

I agree we should propect our area and I link to the other post to have Upper Norwood under one authority!
Gipsy Hill Rocks!!!

#7 Spoon

Spoon

    Paolo Di Catio's mum

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 11:39 AM

I objected too. There are other sites that could be redeveloped before having to lose more green space/wildlife habitat to housing.

#8 lucysmith

lucysmith

    Sponsor

  • Sponsors
  • 810 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 01:40 PM

Have objected. Would be good if more people could post links of planning apps on here so we can get collective objections/ support on applications from people across Norwood who don't necessarily live near the development.

#9 Agent Orange

Agent Orange

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 18 December 2007 - 10:28 AM

I shall be objecting too, under the 'NIYBY' banner.

#10 Zirconium

Zirconium

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 18 December 2007 - 05:02 PM

Valerie Shawcross, London assembly member for Lambeth and Southwark, is lobbying Ken Livingston for greater protection of back gardens against building of flats, demolition of old houses etc. She has an online questionnaire which might help the cause. Anyway I'm sure it would do no harm to complete it if you feel strongly about these issues!

#11 JMS

JMS

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 11:25 AM

I will be staggered if that proposal gets permission.

That is the weakest, most poorly constructed application I have seen in a long while.

#12 Retired Member 1

Retired Member 1

    Member

  • Retired Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,716 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 12:43 PM

That's great!

I have submitted my reply to the survey too - it would be worth to mention in that Survey other developments like the Canwpore Street one

LSPE
Gipsy Hill Rocks!!!

#13 Andy

Andy

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 11:03 AM

Im going to object too. I cannot stand these amatuer short term developers who are all about putting up a quick buck "development" to the detriment of the local charcter and make up of the area. Whats the betting should they ever get built (and I seriously hope not) that some local clever estate agent will then proceed to sell them on as "luxury apartments", and from looking at the very basic plan of the bulding and the design statement they look very far from it.!

Maybe the woman who is applying for this awful proposal without any care for the design or character in the surrouding area would care to have this imposed in her back yard in Streatham.!!!!

#14 Ziwa

Ziwa

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 05:11 PM

I submitted an objection a while ago that was a piece of text along the lines of ‘signed, Outraged from Osterly’, or ‘Peeved in Peckham’. It was a paragraph of generalities about how it’s a shame we are losing our green space to greedy developers who don’t even live around here. However, I regretted not working a bit harder on it, as later I got a PM from Zirconium with details of the objection s/he had filed which read as serious and informed. It was specific on its criticisms. If I were working for the council I’d weight Zirc’s objection much more highly than mine.

#15 Axean

Axean

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 895 posts

Posted 26 December 2007 - 01:44 PM

I was wondering how many trees there were in this area, since the site plan shows very few trees and we all know the area is full of trees. So I took a walk up Stambourne Woodland Walk and looked into the back garden. There are far more trees than are shown in the area, and it wasn't much of a surprise to see two trees have been cut down in the location where the flats are planned. From looking at the remains of the trees they look healthy, so I'll be surprised if they had permission to for this work to be carried out.

I'll also be putting in an objection within the week, and at the same time asking if permission had been granted to cut down these trees.