The Community Voice for London SE26
you are unwilling to tolerate my viewpoint.
TredownMan wrote:*A few examples. All simple backyard extensions, taken from the council website. They're all online but I won't link or cite as that's unfair to individuals:
"An inappropriate design for construction in a Conservation Area which is covered by an Article 4 Direction. We are firm in holding this opinion despite the inclusion of four double hung sliding sash windows surmounted by what purport to be gauged brickwork arches but which, in reality, are likely to be crudely executed ‘rough-ring’ brick arches jointed in mismatching cementitious mortar. The openings are set with monotonous regularity in the wall, like windows in a railway carriage."
And another: "Will greatly reduce the cohesive nature and strong group identity of this part of Bishopsthorpe Road... There is an over-abundance of rooflights on the rear extension – the doors to the garden are full height and width so there should be enough illumination. Light will shine up in an unneighbourly fashion.... "
And another: "massive over-development. The roof has already been converted in an unneighbourly and invasive fashion, completely out of keeping with the existing modestly sized 1950s dwelling house. The Society considers that the omission of these changes from the deposited drawings indicates a measure of dishonesty on the part of the applicant... The Society considers that a basement level extension almost without any access to natural daylighting is wrong in principle, because its occupancy will depend on the consumption of electrical power to provide artificial lighting. The Climate Change Act of 2008 imposes on UK governance the requirement for a reduction in UK carbon emissions by 90% by the year 2050. This intention would be thwarted by the creation of energy dependent living space, such as the basement as proposed."
And: "The full width extension would obliterate the external ‘jigsaw’ outline at the rear.. Some extremely unfortunate and ugly extensions exist at the rear of the terrace, but this should not set a precedent.. Extension harms individual house, terrace and wider conservation area."
And: "An un-neighbourly form of development.. out of character and of inappropriate design."[/size]
Larky wrote:I think the lack of any reply from Sydenham Society, really says it all.
Robin Orton wrote:
I am a long-standing member of SydSoc, although a largely non-active one. One of the reasons I joined was because I liked the idea of an amenity society - a group that worked for the common good rather than for individual interests, by making representations about things like planning applications, transport proposals etc, with view to stopping ugly and inappropriate developments, and preserving or enhancing those features of Sydenham that made it a good and physically attractive place to live for everyone. .
I still think there is a role for this sort of body. Anyone can join (£5 a year) and make their voice heard, ask questions about policy etc, I don't see why SydSoc should feel itself in any way accountable to members of this forum, which I guess is a lot less representative of the people of Sydenham than SydSoc itself.
JGD wrote: - how can one elect to join a society that as yet seems not to have published its constitution - how can you possibly know what you are signing up for ?.
sparticus wrote:- our friends in Longton Avenue (Upper Sydenham) look down on us in the Thorpes(er....Middle Sydenham) and we look down on the benighted denizens scurrying around in the festering wen that is Lower Sydenham. .
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests