Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Hackney woman told to knock down bike shed - because it's too tall

Jemima Sharpa had shed built after council declined to put Cyclehoops on street - but only applied for planning permission afterwards

A woman in Hackney who had a bike shed built in her front garden for her family and her neighbours to use has been told to knock it down – because it was too tall.

According to the Hackney Gazette, Jemima Sharpe commissioned the shed, which can accommodate five bicycles, from a specialist company, and applied for retrospective planning permission.

But Hackney Council has told her that the shed, which is in a conservation area close to London Fields, is too tall at 1.9 metres and “did not make a positive contribution to the area.”

Ms Sharpe appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, which upheld the council’s decision, and has unsuccessfully offered to reduce its height.

She told the newspaper: "I'm pretty mortified at the thought that anyone would be offended by it.

"When they built it I wasn't imagining it to be as tall as it is. I'd be really happy to lower it but not to destroy it.

"I hate having this hanging over my head, it's really stressful. If they come to take it down, I'm just not going to."

She and her neighbours decided to have the shed built after they asked the council to install Cyclehoops in the street but were told it was not a high priority area.

"It was at this point that both myself and my neighbour installed bike storage,” she added.

"I have offered on several occasions to lower the height, which seems the only sensible solution. But Hackney Council don't seem to care about my son and neighbours keeping their bikes on the road, and yet they claim to be interested in environmental targets. It's totally senseless."

The council said: "The bike shed's height, bulk and position did not make a positive contribution to the street and the retrospective application was rejected.

"The Planning Inspectorate has since dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Council's decision.

"The C=council supports sustainable transport, and offers a range of cycle storage, including lockers on estates, on-street bike parking and bike hangars,” it added.

“The council has just taken over running the borough's bike hangars, with plans to build hundreds of extra spaces in the next few years."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
robike | 5 years ago
0 likes

I bet the hangars mentioned won't be allowed in the conservation area so she'll have to walk half a mile to park her bike.

Hear hear to the vehicle conservation rule - nothing invented after 1885 should be allowed in the street, except by act of parliament.

Extracts from wikipedia:

"In 1885, Starley made history when he produced the Rover Safety Bicycle."

"The year 1886 is regarded as the birth year of the modern car when German inventor Karl Benz patented his Benz Patent-Motorwagen."

Avatar
ROOTminus1 | 5 years ago
2 likes

To me the solution is simple:

  • Find out the maximum allowable height to avoid planning permission
  • Remove shed iaw/ council's request
  • Dig hole ~2ft deep
  • re-assemble shed at height compliant with conservation rules**

 **Additional drainage measures may be required

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 5 years ago
2 likes

Women is annoyed by the rules she didn't botther following.  Gotcha.

Avatar
Xena | 5 years ago
1 like

Complete garbage. I bet you if that was in front of a councilman/ woman’s house there would be no issue or even better if that was a  so called celebrity they would be praising them for the environmental thoughtfulness.  The council don’t want install their bike sheds in the street , so a person used  their initiative  and common sense ( can’t do that anymore ,use your common sense) and solves a problem that is causing no issues other than to upset some pedantic law maker who is on a power trip. She’d looks fine . But it’s ok for the council to build there ugly bike sheds anywhere they like ? You see maybe that what it’s about  is the fact the council make money from cycle hoops they don’t want no one who is a potential customer starting a trend where they the council will lose revenue ,income .  That would be a disaster.  You see you people who believe in climate change and sustainability etc are just doing the work of the oilygarcs who now make trillions from all this  nonsense. Watch this before you decide I’m wrong  

https://youtu.be/LOyBfihjQvI

 

 

Avatar
peted76 | 5 years ago
0 likes

I get it, but it just seems like a waste of everyone's time, it's a shed for gods sake.. (in actual fact it's possibly one of the nicest I've ever seen, click the newspaper link). ...and she offered to lower the height, could have been resolved long before it ever came into the public eye.

 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to peted76 | 5 years ago
1 like

peted76 wrote:

I get it, but it just seems like a waste of everyone's time, it's a shed for gods sake.. (in actual fact it's possibly one of the nicest I've ever seen, click the newspaper link). ...and she offered to lower the height, could have been resolved long before it ever came into the public eye.

It may well have been if she had bothered to do things properly.

You can't really say 'its just a <insert object of your choosing>'  as that becomes a subjective, free for all.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to peted76 | 5 years ago
4 likes

peted76 wrote:

I get it, but it just seems like a waste of everyone's time, it's a shed for gods sake.. (in actual fact it's possibly one of the nicest I've ever seen, click the newspaper link). ...and she offered to lower the height, could have been resolved long before it ever came into the public eye.

Alternatively, she could simply have applied for permission prior to having it built and then no-one's time would have been wasted. Seems like the council is doing its job here.

(Just seen the picture - nice shed).

Avatar
Pushing50 replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

Alternatively, she could simply have applied for permission prior to having it built and then no-one's time would have been wasted. Seems like the council is doing its job here.

(Just seen the picture - nice shed).

 

Very nice shed indeed, however it doesn't look that secure to me. If I was of criminal mind (which I am not of course), and knowing what is stored in said shed, and knowing where said shed is..... well you know what I mean don't you?

Therefore, as this is now common knowledge, if it was my shed, I would be tearing it down as soon as possible and keeping my bikes indoors!

Avatar
Jetmans Dad | 5 years ago
1 like

From my limited knowledge of the local authority planning system (my Dad lives in a conservation area and it took quite a while for him to get permission to knock down his old garage and replace it with a practically identical, but slightly longer, one as a result) I would imagine the council are keen to try and make sure that people ask for permission first rather than building something and getting permission afterwards. 

They may well have found that by asking first they were given permission. 

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
2 likes

Conservation area; couldn't be bothered to get planning permission.

No wonder the Council is being hardline

It's really irrelevant that the word bike is present, plenty of previous people have got into hot water with painting doors the wrong colour

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2019-01-30/grade-ii-listed-pub-painted-...

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/developer-brushes-planners-up-wron...

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 5 years ago
6 likes

Yeah here's the road:

https://goo.gl/maps/amzkMMYcXXUZCpST8

I wonder what that huge van conserves?  Does it make "a positive contribution to the area" then?

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Accessibility for all | 5 years ago
2 likes

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Yeah here's the road:

https://goo.gl/maps/amzkMMYcXXUZCpST8

I wonder what that huge van conserves?  Does it make "a positive contribution to the area" then?

And just to the left of the van appear to be four bin stores.  If she made the thing lower and called it a bin store........  Perhaps the word bicycle has now become so toxic, that some councils go into a frenzy when they hear it.

I have been told by an acquaintance that if you want any facilities for cyclists, don't mention the word bicycles, call them green transport facilities, or emphasise the walking aspect, just don't mention bicycles, because our msm has basically made the word poison.

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 5 years ago
9 likes

I bet a million pounds that the "conservation area" is full of parked vehicles, and I bet another million pounds that those vehicles can be any colour, any size, in any condition and nobody will bat an eyelid.

But build something to store bicycles and everyone loses their mind.

Maybe she should buy a 2 metre high van and put the bikes in there.

Avatar
lesterama | 5 years ago
5 likes

I don't have a great deal of sympathy for her. You have to understand what kind of development is likely to be acceptable and work from there. Nothing to do with nimbyism - the officers are enforcing planning policy.

Avatar
thehill | 5 years ago
4 likes

dont claim to be any expert on planning, but this might be something to investigate.

put it on wheels, so it isnt a permanent structure, i think that then avoids virtually all of the planning issues. then in terms of security, could you set an eye into concrete and lock/bolt it down to that.
and then afterwards, paint in 400pt font, some suitably damming comment about the wombles that work at the council

Avatar
jh27 replied to thehill | 5 years ago
7 likes

thehill wrote:

dont claim to be any expert on planning, but this might be something to investigate.

put it on wheels, so it isnt a permanent structure, i think that then avoids virtually all of the planning issues. then in terms of security, could you set an eye into concrete and lock/bolt it down to that.
and then afterwards, paint in 400pt font, some suitably damming comment about the wombles that work at the council

 

2m high, on wheels and stored in her front garden?  It's Hackney, not Chelsea! (that said Hackney Carriages are nearly 2m high).

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 5 years ago
5 likes

Not that I care about this particular case very much, but planning laws do seem to be arbitrarily-enforced.  In my experience it all depends on the social-status of those doing the objecting plus the political-clout of those who want to build something.

Avatar
fluffy_mike | 5 years ago
11 likes

1. She lives in a conservation area

2. She applied for retrospective planning permission for a construction that's nearly 2 metres high in her front garden

3. She says: "When they built it I wasn't imagining it to be as tall as it is"

While I support bike storage, she must be a complete idiot not to have seen this outcome coming a mile off

Come to an agreement with the council before you build, otherwise be prepared to handle the "stress" and to take down your shed when you don't get your own way

Avatar
Rik Mayals unde... replied to fluffy_mike | 5 years ago
3 likes

fluffy_mike wrote:

1. She lives in a conservation area

2. She applied for retrospective planning permission for a construction that's nearly 2 metres high in her front garden

3. She says: "When they built it I wasn't imagining it to be as tall as it is"

While I support bike storage, she must be a complete idiot not to have seen this outcome coming a mile off

Come to an agreement with the council before you build, otherwise be prepared to handle the "stress" and to take down your shed when you don't get your own way

I agree, if she lives in a conservation area she should be aware of planning restraints. The council are not being 'jobsworths', they are enforcing the Law. If they let this go, others will follow suit and it will become a free for all. It would be interesting to see what her views would be if a neighbour had a similar sized shed built, and her windows looked out onto it?

Avatar
brooksby replied to fluffy_mike | 5 years ago
1 like

fluffy_mike wrote:

1. She lives in a conservation area

2. She applied for retrospective planning permission for a construction that's nearly 2 metres high in her front garden

3. She says: "When they built it I wasn't imagining it to be as tall as it is"

While I support bike storage, she must be a complete idiot not to have seen this outcome coming a mile off

Come to an agreement with the council before you build, otherwise be prepared to handle the "stress" and to take down your shed when you don't get your own way

But it sounds like the council isn't willing to negotiate on it either: couldn't the council suggest she reduce the height so the store isn't so tall?  Seems more like they just *really* don't want That Particular Structure there.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

fluffy_mike wrote:

1. She lives in a conservation area

2. She applied for retrospective planning permission for a construction that's nearly 2 metres high in her front garden

3. She says: "When they built it I wasn't imagining it to be as tall as it is"

While I support bike storage, she must be a complete idiot not to have seen this outcome coming a mile off

Come to an agreement with the council before you build, otherwise be prepared to handle the "stress" and to take down your shed when you don't get your own way

But it sounds like the council isn't willing to negotiate on it either: couldn't the council suggest she reduce the height so the store isn't so tall?  Seems more like they just *really* don't want That Particular Structure there.

I think it's more about not bothering to get planning permissions - councils hate that. The council have absolutely no reason to negotiate as they have the law on their side and can just have it pulled down.

Avatar
jh27 replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

fluffy_mike wrote:

1. She lives in a conservation area

2. She applied for retrospective planning permission for a construction that's nearly 2 metres high in her front garden

3. She says: "When they built it I wasn't imagining it to be as tall as it is"

While I support bike storage, she must be a complete idiot not to have seen this outcome coming a mile off

Come to an agreement with the council before you build, otherwise be prepared to handle the "stress" and to take down your shed when you don't get your own way

But it sounds like the council isn't willing to negotiate on it either: couldn't the council suggest she reduce the height so the store isn't so tall?  Seems more like they just *really* don't want That Particular Structure there.

I think it's more about not bothering to get planning permissions - councils hate that. The council have absolutely no reason to negotiate as they have the law on their side and can just have it pulled down.

 

I think it is more to do with it being a conservation area. Councils often approve retrospective planning applications -  I don't think they are any less likely to approve a retrospective application (however the consequences if they don't approve a retrospective application is more costly).

Avatar
peted76 | 5 years ago
3 likes

Stupid jobworths. Seems councilors in all of the London boroughs are a law unto them NIMBY selves. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to peted76 | 5 years ago
4 likes
peted76 wrote:

Stupid jobworths. Seems councilors in all of the London boroughs are a law unto them NIMBY selves. 

Why bother at all with planning laws - just a free for all.

Latest Comments