Forum topic: 4 Bourne Hill
Use this section to discuss planning and development topics that do not have their own section
4 Bourne Hill
Andrew Nix
28 Mar 2015 12:48 #1110
Share
Share by email
planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NEH8ULJN28000
The owner of this property who already sucks thousands from the tax-payer with his eight bedsit flats wants to extend it at the back to add two 1bed apartments.
Please oppose this planning application.
Thanks,
Andrew Nix
The owner of this property who already sucks thousands from the tax-payer with his eight bedsit flats wants to extend it at the back to add two 1bed apartments.
Please oppose this planning application.
Thanks,
Andrew Nix
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 Bourne Hill
Basil Clarke
29 Mar 2015 15:22 #1111
Share
Share by email
This house is already a dreadful eyesore and potentially a health hazard - see
this earlier forum discussion
. The landlord is incapable of managing the property properly as it is and should certainly not be allowed to expand it.
Landlords like this are the reason why a landlord licensing scheme is needed.
Landlords like this are the reason why a landlord licensing scheme is needed.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 Bourne Hill
Adrian Day
30 Mar 2015 23:17 #1113
Share
Share by email
Fully agree
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 Bourne Hill
Andrew Nix
02 Apr 2015 00:53 #1116
Share
Share by email
There seems to be a consensus here. I hope I can rely on people to oppose this application on the council's planning portal.
Link here:
planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NEH8ULJN28000
Thanks,
Andrew
Link here:
planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NEH8ULJN28000
Thanks,
Andrew
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 Bourne Hill
David March
02 Apr 2015 20:19 #1127
Share
Share by email
I have looked at this application and have the following comments which I have sent to LB Enfield.
In my opinion the current proposal is poorly designed and an unacceptable overdevelopment of the late nineteenth century detached villa. and result in an unacceptable loss of amenity space to the rear of the property.
The proposed layout leaves a lot to be desired. Not only does it perpetuate an unacceptably low standard of accommodation for four of the bedsits, there would also be an unacceptably poor standard of daylighting to the living rooms of the flats to the rear of the property.
The proposed three storey rear extension extends to approximately 2.5 metres of the rear boundary of the site and would be unacceptably bulky and unduly prominent in street views from the west, due to the curve in Bourne Hill.
The proposed additional floor in the roof, with its new very steeply pitched 'mansard' overwhelms the modest scale of the existing building, is untypical of the area and would be unduly bulky and prominent in street views.
The floor plans and elevations do not correspond at roof level. The floor plans show the face of the proposed dormers on the face of the building, whereas the elevations show them part way up the slope of the roof.
There are no sections through the roof to show the floor to ceiling heights.
The dormers on the west face of the building are on the boundary of the site and would appropriate light from a site that does not form part of this planning application.
In my opinion the current proposal is poorly designed and an unacceptable overdevelopment of the late nineteenth century detached villa. and result in an unacceptable loss of amenity space to the rear of the property.
The proposed layout leaves a lot to be desired. Not only does it perpetuate an unacceptably low standard of accommodation for four of the bedsits, there would also be an unacceptably poor standard of daylighting to the living rooms of the flats to the rear of the property.
The proposed three storey rear extension extends to approximately 2.5 metres of the rear boundary of the site and would be unacceptably bulky and unduly prominent in street views from the west, due to the curve in Bourne Hill.
The proposed additional floor in the roof, with its new very steeply pitched 'mansard' overwhelms the modest scale of the existing building, is untypical of the area and would be unduly bulky and prominent in street views.
The floor plans and elevations do not correspond at roof level. The floor plans show the face of the proposed dormers on the face of the building, whereas the elevations show them part way up the slope of the roof.
There are no sections through the roof to show the floor to ceiling heights.
The dormers on the west face of the building are on the boundary of the site and would appropriate light from a site that does not form part of this planning application.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 Bourne Hill - another objection to the planning application
PGC Webmaster
23 Apr 2015 00:12 #1170
Share
Share by email
Fox Lane & District Residents' Association have posted the following about this planning application:
The following are copies of letters ourselves and a local resident have sent to Enfield Planning regarding this overlarge application. If others wish to object, please do so as soon as possible. The more individual objections the better.
We have been advised that should the Planning Officer be minded to allow the application, it will go to Planning Committee for decision.
Development Control
Regeneration & Environment
London Borough of Enfield,
Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3XD
10th April 2015
REF: 4 Bourne Hill London N13 4LG – 14/04309/FUL
Conversion of existing 2-storey block of 8 flats to provide 10 flats in total comprising 6 x 1-bed and 4 x studios involving a 2 storey rear extension, extension to roof to form a mansard roof with dormer windows to all sides.
I am writing on behalf of members of this Association to object to the above application.
The Planning website application details for this site still have documents “unavailable for viewing at this time”, why is this, and when will they be available?
From the available documentation it is clear that this is another example of a poor design in an effort to squeeze in as much as possible and maximise profits accordingly. An unacceptable overdevelopment of a site and consequent loss of amenity space.
This is a well proportioned, 19th century villa, admittedly not that delightful to look at at the moment, however, this is due mainly to the approach taken by ‘owners’ in the last few years. To propose an addition to the roof space through a mansard roof will overwhelmingly affect the proportions of the current property and, despite the applicants statements, is not typical of the area.
The proposed three storey extension is bulky, will impinge upon and reduce amenity space, and will be on view when approaching down Bourne Hill.
The statements regarding lack of parking and traffic generation to and from the site need to be carefully considered. This is a very busy part of Bourne Hill, with the car wash next door, a very well used church and church hall opposite and a school just along Hoppers Road. Car parking in the area is already tight.
This is already a poor development. To add to it will not improve it, or the local area, in any way whatsoever.
We therefore urge that you refuse this application
The following are copies of letters ourselves and a local resident have sent to Enfield Planning regarding this overlarge application. If others wish to object, please do so as soon as possible. The more individual objections the better.
We have been advised that should the Planning Officer be minded to allow the application, it will go to Planning Committee for decision.
Development Control
Regeneration & Environment
London Borough of Enfield,
Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3XD
10th April 2015
REF: 4 Bourne Hill London N13 4LG – 14/04309/FUL
Conversion of existing 2-storey block of 8 flats to provide 10 flats in total comprising 6 x 1-bed and 4 x studios involving a 2 storey rear extension, extension to roof to form a mansard roof with dormer windows to all sides.
I am writing on behalf of members of this Association to object to the above application.
The Planning website application details for this site still have documents “unavailable for viewing at this time”, why is this, and when will they be available?
From the available documentation it is clear that this is another example of a poor design in an effort to squeeze in as much as possible and maximise profits accordingly. An unacceptable overdevelopment of a site and consequent loss of amenity space.
This is a well proportioned, 19th century villa, admittedly not that delightful to look at at the moment, however, this is due mainly to the approach taken by ‘owners’ in the last few years. To propose an addition to the roof space through a mansard roof will overwhelmingly affect the proportions of the current property and, despite the applicants statements, is not typical of the area.
The proposed three storey extension is bulky, will impinge upon and reduce amenity space, and will be on view when approaching down Bourne Hill.
The statements regarding lack of parking and traffic generation to and from the site need to be carefully considered. This is a very busy part of Bourne Hill, with the car wash next door, a very well used church and church hall opposite and a school just along Hoppers Road. Car parking in the area is already tight.
This is already a poor development. To add to it will not improve it, or the local area, in any way whatsoever.
We therefore urge that you refuse this application
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 Bourne Hill - why the planning application shouldn't be allowed
Basil Clarke
23 Apr 2015 00:20 #1171
Share
Share by email
If you don't understand why people are upset at the idea of this landlord being allowed to extend his property, just look at this picture from
palmersgreen.tumblr.com
Maybe Enfield Council were on the right track when they tried to make it obligatory for private landlords to take out a licence?
Maybe Enfield Council were on the right track when they tried to make it obligatory for private landlords to take out a licence?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 Bourne Hill - why the planning application shouldn't be allowed
Karl Brown
01 May 2015 15:40 #1183
Share
Share by email
Admittedly the photo may suggest it’s a complete mess to many but bear in mind Tracey Emin’s “My Bed 1998” has recently been put on show at Tate Britain under a ten year deal with the current owners and this local example may be no more than a piece of our growing street-art movement. Note for instance the use of blue throughout and how your eye is cleverly taken into the photograph before moving right to left down a series of falling “steps”, themselves framed by strong vertical and horizontal lines.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: PGC Webmaster, Basil Clarke
Time to create page: 0.798 seconds
