Following on from the humour of 'KarenI'and 'Zoe',I've had many a suggestion that the '1996 Party Wall Act' might be of use in opposing the digging out of basements in Ufford St. Of course, its of no use to long-standing rental tenants because only OWNERS of the properties affected can take issue under the Act (and the owners in this case flogged the property affected to the prospective developer in the first place!)
Also, I hear rumours that I personally shouldn't upset the LANDLORD/OWNERS in the hope that they will side with the 'NO DIG' campaign. Not a chance! If the development goes ahead and subsequently causes nuisance/damage the LANDLORD/OWNERS will have to be adequately compensated by the 'developer'. Also,this might mean that the neighbours of the 'developed' property might have to be 'moved' elsewhere and then, 'Hey presto!', the LANDLORD/OWNERS have even more property to flog to other prospective developer/ buyers.
Furthermore, still no planning permission has been sought to-date on the property in question. I watch with interest Lambeth Council's procedures in dealing with this possible application and might even have to 'read-up' on Judicial Enquiries should the Council prove to be a little lax in the way they handle this one!
Finally, Galatians 6.7 and Matthew 26.52 might prove useful reminders to prospective 'diggers'; for once you have your lovely new peaceful space underground, someone else might just want to start digging next door to you. Wonder if the Council will have enough 'spine' to stand up for the 'locals' then?
How did this end? There is an application in for basements to be dug in Theed Street which I gather is going to the full Planning Committee to consider the policy on basements. Probably a bit late given the number already in existence, although the older houses were built with basements which were less than head height, so they just get deepened and tanked.
Finally after over 3 months of silence a planning application has been put in to Lambeth Council.Do the Council want to consult with residents of Ufford Street, of course they do not.Instead that they notify the Kennington Association and South Bank Employers Group but leave out Waterloo Community Development Group and local residents.Luckily the person who received it in Kennington sent it n to us.This looks like another dodgy deal like the Garden Bridge.We would be grateful for those who oppose this dreadful application could write or email to
Planning, Regeneration and Enterprise
10 Wandsworth Road
London SW8 2LL
Quoting reference 15/05104/ful
The Octavia Hill Residents Association committee are supporting their members and local residents in strongly opposing this application and would welcome your support
This stinks of collusion between the applicant and Lambeth Council trying to gather support for the project from friends and family of the applicant and their associates and associations whilst ignoring those who will be most affected.
I fear that somebody within the council is the guiding light with the title of " Officer to get round Planning Rules"
It appears to be the duplicitous action one would expect from a banana republic or old fashioned communist regime.
Thank you OHRA, TheBunHouse, and Theedy for bring this back into the limelight again. I have much to say and will in due course. But there is an urgency to ensure that the current planning application is opposed and to encourage as many people as possible to write to the 3 Bishop's Ward Councillors, calling on them to 'call-in'this planning application and 'take it to committee'.
The 3 councillors are -
Also go into the Lambeth website and register your objection using the above reference.
Also read the other objections for a bigger picture of what is being proposed at 7 Ufford St. Look at all the documentation.
This basement is NOT for further living space but for a professional artist's studio. Surely that constitutes a 'change of use' for the site, which is currently 'residential'? And what hazardous materials might be stored therein?
Furthermore, studio DOES extend beyond the building's physical 'footprint' (underneath the yard/garden at the back and underneath the small space between the current building and the boundary rails at the front). This would increase the property's 'footprint' by around an enormous 90% - almost doubling the size of the property. Are Lambeth mad at even considering such an application. I suspect there's more to come but, first and foremost, we need to ensure that this application is opposed and defeated!
I don't believe that the owner wants to use the basement as an art studio as it will not have enough natural light, that and the fact that there is to be a bathroom in the basement suggests they want it as a bedroom with en suite bathroom. But why lie?
I suggest that Karen looks at the architect's drawings submitted to Lambeth by the applicant's architect which clear shows the space as 'artist's studio'although their is a bathroom intended. It also depends on what you call a 'bathroom'. The architect also addresses the 'light' issue in his plans. Are these plans incorrect? Perhaps Karen knows more than she's saying?