Residents rejoice as "garden grabbing" plan rejected (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Residents rejoice as "garden grabbing" plan rejected
1:00pm Wednesday 19th September 2012 in News
RESIDENTS are celebrating after council chiefs refused a “garden grabbing” plan to build new houses behind people’s homes.
Householders in Christchurch were outraged by proposals to build five new homes in three gardens in Flambard Avenue in Christchurch, but the development has been rejected.
Planning officers decided the plan would “give rise to an unsatisfactory form of backland development”.
Planners listed their reasons for refusal and stated that the design “would constitute a cramped and contrived form of development, out of keeping with the established character of the area and injurious to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties”.
Officers also voiced fears that the proposal is within 5km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
And they also stated that the applicant, a Mr Willis, failed to demonstrate how the proposals will cause no harm to nearby heathland.
The planning application for the gardens of numbers 24 to 28 had raised fears about the council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
The planning application was made after the SHLAA identified land which could potentially become available for housing in Christchurch in order to meet a target of providing 3,300 homes over the 15 years.
The assessment listed hundreds of homes and gardens without the owners’ knowledge to meet the target.
When the Daily Echo spoke to other councils Poole council said they had also listed people’s homes but insisted landowners would have to give consent before anything went ahead.
Residents in Flambard Avenue vowed to fight the plan for their road and Nicky Prior, who lives close to the proposed gardens, said they are “very happy” with the decision.
She said: “We hope it sets a precedent and that it has stopped any back garden development.
“We would fight on whatever the result and have been really determined.”
Nicky said they are still hoping to see the SHLAA changed as her neighbours are still being sent letters from developers trying to buy their gardens.
Councillor Fred Neale, whose ward covers Flambard Avenue, said he was “very pleased that common sense had prevailed” regarding the planning application.
Comments(14)
s-pb2
says...
2:53pm Wed 19 Sep 12
andydixon
says...
3:08pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Let's try and remember we are an island and leave something to dig if we ever need to do it again.
Also good for oxygen/co2 quality.
Arjay
says...
3:28pm Wed 19 Sep 12
If they don't want anything built in their gardens, then...err.. don't sell them to a developer in the first place?...
That would seem to be the most obvious solution......
s-pb2
says...
3:48pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Arjay wrote:I truly hope you arent being serious here
Not quite sure how this was supposed to work - Why do the householders need to object to plans to build in their back gardens?...
If they don't want anything built in their gardens, then...err.. don't sell them to a developer in the first place?...
That would seem to be the most obvious solution......
Arjay
says...
4:33pm Wed 19 Sep 12
s-pb2 wrote:Well, the article doesn't explain very well.... It describes an evaluation by the SHLAA made, 'without the householders' knowledge'...
Arjay wrote:I truly hope you arent being serious here
Not quite sure how this was supposed to work - Why do the householders need to object to plans to build in their back gardens?...
If they don't want anything built in their gardens, then...err.. don't sell them to a developer in the first place?...
That would seem to be the most obvious solution......
We are presumably intended to work out for ourselves then, that the owners of nos. 24,26 and 28 Flambard Ave have sold (or intended to sell) their gardens to the developer, and it is other local residents who object?...
As I say, not very clear from this piece......
Loyal2AFCB
says...
4:35pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Jak Branksome
says...
6:05pm Wed 19 Sep 12
pete woodley
says...
6:31pm Wed 19 Sep 12
lionheart wrote:A perfect example of crowding in,no room to "swing a cat".Has to be seen to be believed.
One only has to take a trip down Columbia Road Ensbury Park to see the result of 'garden grabbing.'
Shame Bournemouth Council planning officers never had the same attitude to this sort of development.
pete woodley
says...
6:33pm Wed 19 Sep 12
lionheart wrote:A perfect example of crowding in,no room to "swing a cat".Has to be seen to be believed.
One only has to take a trip down Columbia Road Ensbury Park to see the result of 'garden grabbing.'
Shame Bournemouth Council planning officers never had the same attitude to this sort of development.
penhale
says...
6:46pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Arjay wrote:What part of garden grabbing do you not understand, it doesn't have to be pointed out on here, there's enough of it going on lately.
s-pb2 wrote:Well, the article doesn't explain very well.... It describes an evaluation by the SHLAA made, 'without the householders' knowledge'...
Arjay wrote:I truly hope you arent being serious here
Not quite sure how this was supposed to work - Why do the householders need to object to plans to build in their back gardens?...
If they don't want anything built in their gardens, then...err.. don't sell them to a developer in the first place?...
That would seem to be the most obvious solution......
We are presumably intended to work out for ourselves then, that the owners of nos. 24,26 and 28 Flambard Ave have sold (or intended to sell) their gardens to the developer, and it is other local residents who object?...
As I say, not very clear from this piece......
Arjay
says...
7:31pm Wed 19 Sep 12
penhale wrote:Thanks for that, I'm glad you've been able to explain that to me....it's all much clearer now...
Arjay wrote:What part of garden grabbing do you not understand, it doesn't have to be pointed out on here, there's enough of it going on lately.
s-pb2 wrote:Well, the article doesn't explain very well.... It describes an evaluation by the SHLAA made, 'without the householders' knowledge'...
Arjay wrote:I truly hope you arent being serious here
Not quite sure how this was supposed to work - Why do the householders need to object to plans to build in their back gardens?...
If they don't want anything built in their gardens, then...err.. don't sell them to a developer in the first place?...
That would seem to be the most obvious solution......
We are presumably intended to work out for ourselves then, that the owners of nos. 24,26 and 28 Flambard Ave have sold (or intended to sell) their gardens to the developer, and it is other local residents who object?...
As I say, not very clear from this piece......
penhale
says...
8:26pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Arjay wrote:In your case, as clear as mud no doubt.
penhale wrote:Thanks for that, I'm glad you've been able to explain that to me....it's all much clearer now...
Arjay wrote:What part of garden grabbing do you not understand, it doesn't have to be pointed out on here, there's enough of it going on lately.
s-pb2 wrote:Well, the article doesn't explain very well.... It describes an evaluation by the SHLAA made, 'without the householders' knowledge'...
Arjay wrote:I truly hope you arent being serious here
Not quite sure how this was supposed to work - Why do the householders need to object to plans to build in their back gardens?...
If they don't want anything built in their gardens, then...err.. don't sell them to a developer in the first place?...
That would seem to be the most obvious solution......
We are presumably intended to work out for ourselves then, that the owners of nos. 24,26 and 28 Flambard Ave have sold (or intended to sell) their gardens to the developer, and it is other local residents who object?...
As I say, not very clear from this piece......
Arjay
says...
9:14pm Wed 19 Sep 12
penhale wrote:Absolutely! - once again, I can't thank you enough for your constructive help, in clarifying the details in this article...
Arjay wrote:In your case, as clear as mud no doubt.
penhale wrote:Thanks for that, I'm glad you've been able to explain that to me....it's all much clearer now...
Arjay wrote:What part of garden grabbing do you not understand, it doesn't have to be pointed out on here, there's enough of it going on lately.
s-pb2 wrote:Well, the article doesn't explain very well.... It describes an evaluation by the SHLAA made, 'without the householders' knowledge'...
Arjay wrote:I truly hope you arent being serious here
Not quite sure how this was supposed to work - Why do the householders need to object to plans to build in their back gardens?...
If they don't want anything built in their gardens, then...err.. don't sell them to a developer in the first place?...
That would seem to be the most obvious solution......
We are presumably intended to work out for ourselves then, that the owners of nos. 24,26 and 28 Flambard Ave have sold (or intended to sell) their gardens to the developer, and it is other local residents who object?...
As I say, not very clear from this piece......
lionheart says...
1:43pm Wed 19 Sep 12
Shame Bournemouth Council planning officers never had the same attitude to this sort of development.