London SE1 community website

Digging out Basements in Ufford St

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 2 of 8
Saturday 6 June 2015 4.04pm
Just what does 'going down Roupell St twice a day' mean? Are you living there or just briefly 'passing through' It takes two minutes to walk down Roupell Street but what do you really kow about the disruption caused by basement digging. If you read the previous inputs you might just notice that many residences already had underground space (coal cellars) that were converted so much of the work was done. The issue regarding Ufford Street is that NONE of the residences have underground space.
Saturday 6 June 2015 10.49pm
Interesting that the REV David Pape joins the party. I guess you want more in the collection at St Andrews.

It is quite complex. I have lived in Roupell St. As others have commented they all have basements, in fact extending under the pavements. But you cannot stand up in them, so people dig them out to gain another room.

I have to say , given the build quality of the basic buildings I am surprised none have collapsed.

I have difficulty imagining what the problem is with neighbours. Certainly you need tough party wall agreements, including controls on times of digging etc, but as others have commented, the Roupell St experience is that it is not disruptive,
Sunday 7 June 2015 8.01pm
Thank you for your comments. Anyone who knows me knows I'm not in it for the money (which is more than I can say for some of those buying up 'social housing' space). I like to be honest about my identity and not go by a pseudonym. However, I value your comments on the 'build quality'. My point still stands - Ufford St cottages have no underground space.
Monday 8 June 2015 9.08am
Theedy that snide comment about the Rev.David Pape's motives was uncalled for and I believe you realize that and should apologize.
What Roupell Street needs is all of the coal cellars filled in with concrete, because of the poor construction quality, to ensure the safety of the thousands of commuters that tramp through the street and over the cellars every morning and evening.
But Ufford Street should remain as it has for over 100 years just 2up/2down cottages and not extended up and down and outwards to become town houses. To allow that to happen is to open the door to the greedy property developers who will swarm in and destroy this pretty and historic street.
Monday 8 June 2015 8.25pm
Yes, Bunhouse, I got that wrong, I am just suspicious of people who come on first time to make a point.So apologies David.

I still am at a loss to understand what the fuss is about. In Roupell St you can't tell which have had their basements dug out, so long as the view from the road is unchanged, what is the problem?
Monday 8 June 2015 9.56pm
Theedy , the big difference between Ufford Street Cottages and houses in Roupell Street is very clear. The houses in Roupell Street always had a basement of sorts and it was only a matter of extending them, Ufford Street has never had any sort of basements. Ufford Street was the site of the original Botanical Gardens , which due to air polution in Waterloo moved to Chelsea and finally to Kew. The land bordered by Ufford/Mitre and Webber was left for many years , it flooded and returned to Marsh Land.
The point raised by Beetroot is not relevant ,Lambeth gave permission for Dormer Windows in loft to rear of property.The planning permission given by Lambeth Council clearly states that the loft is for "STORAGE ONLY ".Anyone using them for any other reason is clearly in contravention of building and planning controls
Monday 8 June 2015 10.34pm
OHRA are you sure of the conditions laid down by Lambeth as to the use of the lofts for storage only ? It seems odd to me that dormer windows should be allowed for storage only when another couple of 100 watt bulbs would serve the same purpose i.e. providing more light. Allowing dormer windows seems like turning a blind eye to the true future use of the lofts.
Another nod and a wink job ?
Tuesday 9 June 2015 2.04am
OHRA wrote:
The point raised by Beetroot is not relevant ,Lambeth gave permission for Dormer Windows in loft to rear of property.

Oh ok. My point about the skylight in the loft at the rear of the property is not relevant.

Is my point about the skylight on the front of the street relevant?
Tuesday 9 June 2015 10.18am
Beetroot the skylight you are referring to at no 29 does not relate to 1901 period cottages.This particular property was only built in late 80's or early 90's
Tuesday 9 June 2015 11.47am
Did the 1901 houses have double-glazing? Central heating? Running water? Inside toilets? Burglar alarms? Modern standards of insulation? Car parking spaces? Electricity and gas?

Is the objectors' problem with changing the external look of the houses, or with changing the internals? Or is it just a dislike of someone coming along and wanting to dig out a basement room?

Is adding a third story (a visible change) different from adding an invisible basement in the eyes of the people objecting?

...if you press it, they will come.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 2 of 8

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions