Reader views (7)

 Add your view

Julia Bates - Despite the credit crunch houses have to be built - which means we lose gardens or fields - or both. This also means we have to have areas of high density or build over the whole of the South.

- Jeremy E, London

A developer nearby recently tried to justify building on a garden as being 'brownfield'(he didn't succeed). It never occurred in my wildest dreams that gardens actually ARE so classified. So all the figures we've been quoted over the last decade about preserving greenspace by developing on brownfield sites have been one huge lie. I thought I'd got past being surprised by the cynicism of politicians: how naive of me.

- Mdj, Leyton, e10 london

There are better ways of fitting more of us into zones two and three. Building regulations now forbid loft extensions without fire barriers round the stairs, making extensions nastier and harder to do. I think this is unlikely to be based on real risk and more on a kind of bureaucratic creep in the direction of avoiding all risk.

Another problem is what the Planning Act allows councils to rule on. Blanket planning permission or "permitted development" is allowed for porch extensions and garden sheds, but not a lift to a granny flat or a solar panel or raising the roof to make more space, nor are upright windows normally allowed at the front of the attic. This kind of pressy-ness about how to fit more people into London houses makes the housing shortage worse, and this housing shortage adds to the pressure on people to build over gardens or (just as bad) to build over workplaces like workshops and garages.

- John Robertson, London SW14

This site is nothing like the "large house" mentioned in post 1. It is a former 1950s 3-bedroom council house (not a Victorian house) with a garden smaller than most suburban back gardens. The developers are trying to squeeze NINE dwellings onto the site. None will have gardens, either front or rear (the plot is only some 9 metres deep). Allowing this kind of development will set a precedent for bulldozing suburban London in order to replace it with housing more dense than the rookeries of Dickens' inner London.

Of course, the developers are determined to get the plan approved, having paid three times the market value of the site, despite the absence of planning permission, since they are now seeing the value of their foolish investment plummet by the week. But the determination of the residents of Avenue Gardens (and I am one) to stop this kind of blight should not be under-estimated. Remember, if a precedent is set, it could be your street that is bulldozed next.

- Paul, London SW14

My grandfather sold his house c.1960 to form the entrance to what is now Fieldend, Teddington, now a Conservation Area. There are numerous streets of houses round here that were built because one large house was demolished: often the street name being that of the original house. Perhaps someone from Avenue Gardens could tell us what was there before their homes were built?

"it was time councils clamped down on developers offering homeowners cash to sell their gardens." So suppose I want to sell my home to a developer for £600K (if only): they want to force me to sell to someone else for £500K. No thanks. If the other residents in the street want to find £600K, buy the place off me, sell it on with a non-development covenant for £500K and take the loss themselves OK, but they have no right to expect others to pay for their prejudices.

- Tonyb, Twickenham

Boris said that he would re-classify gardens from brown field sites to help protect against this. Instead he seems to bve more interested in pushing through other frankly stupid policies like motorbikes in bus lanes and getting rid of bendy buses to be replaced by single deckers on busy routes.

- Mcw, London

Unfortunately current government policy seems to be that more homes should be built regardless of the consequences so these homes will undoubtedly be given the go ahead.

- Bob, Cheam

Add your comment