Planning Permission Palaver

Corruption? Hypocrisy? Incompetence? Stupidity? Lacking Common Sense?

Are people being unduly had over? Are councils living in the real world? Do they even know what they are talking about?

Councils do not seem to be using common sense and do not seem to want anyone else to use it either. They want to tie everything up with an inflexible black or white set of rules that do not apply or equate to the real world we live in. At times, impractical, unviable and unreasonable!

Treated Fairly? It is true that we need some sort of planning control, to stop inconsiderate people building skyscrapers in their back gardens and negatively impacting neighbours, however, considering what we are charged, are the public being treated fairly and even sensibly? Or are councils just taking our money and making life more difficult for the ordinary people, as they so often do?

Setback! There are many instances we have heard about of ordinary people having planning permission denied, on what most people would consider to be unreasonable and unfair, even ridiculous grounds. At such times, this means that applicants have all the hassle of appealing. This often involves considerable extra expense and also means their plans and timetables are considerably setback. In such cases, you would like to think there are just and valid reasons, however, all too often, this is not seen to be the case. We decided to put Bexley Council to the test, to see what happens! Before we do, the paragraph below, is a short diversion to Dartford, and just one such example!

The Real World! A friend of mine applied for planning permission to park his car on his front garden. Dartford Council told him he couldn't have it because there wasn't enough room to turn round on his front garden, therefore, he couldn't drive both in and out in a forward direction. Well, who can? Those who live in mansions perhaps, but for the rest of us, living in the real world, we have to reverse in and drive out, or vice versa. That's what ordinary people do, everywhere.

Common Sense! When he told them he felt it would be much safer when getting his young children in and out of the car and that he really wanted to get his vehicle off the busy main road, they told him they like vehicles parked on the road, because it acts as traffic calming. Never mind all the broken wing mirrors! And what about the broken kids? After a lengthy and considerable ordeal, involving three different appeals, significant cost, wasted time, grief and anguish, my friend eventually got his planning permission, when an adjudicator had to drive all the way down from Bristol, a distance of 150 miles plus, to ask why nobody at Dartford Council appeared to be applying any common sense!

Which Is It? When I was trying to sort out our pavement-parking problems in Plantation Road, I was told by Bexley Council that, despite paying road tax, motorists actually have no right to park on the road and that council's prefer people to park off road. Well, it would be nice, wouldn't it! If only it were that easy! Mind you, when talking about cars being in the way of a fire engine, because we were also being told we were 'not allowed' to park on our exceptionally wide pavements, the same lady also said the firemen would just tow them all out of the way!" Yes, of course they would, while the house is burning down! Why didn't I think of that?

Back To Bexley Council: Another friend of mine wanted to make an alteration to a roof window setup, which was starting to leak, and which some other properties had already done. He was incensed when Bexley Council told him it would cost him £260, for a pre-application assessment, and he would have to provide the architect's drawings, for which he was quoted £1600, just to find out if he even needed planning permission. We could go on, as the number of unsatisfactory instances, wherever we may be, seem to be endless.

Lacked Common Sense! This lady featured in a Newsshopper article was told she couldn't have a drop kerb and park her car off road on her front garden, because her house was 30cm to narrow! "She claimed that Bexley Council’s position lacked “commonsense” as other terraced houses in her street that have identical dimensions already have a dropped kerb." As most would agree, it seems wholly unfair to deny people, when other instances exist as precedents everywhere and work perfectly well! But it seems Bexley Council like to move the goal posts!

Back To Our Plot: Due to a shortage of funds, and other priorities, the rear garden of our end-of-terrace property has been unfenced and overgrown for many years; in fact, since around the early nineties, when the wall fell down (no, not the one in Berlin). We managed clear the garden and put some hard core down around 15 years ago, with a view to perhaps laying some type 1, and providing a bit more parking (as we were having significant trouble with Bexley Council, trying to park sensibly in our own road). However, even this was thwarted due to a shortage of funds. There has been an ongoing battle to keep nature at bay ever since, with the garden at one point being wildly overgrown.

Issues: As well as being a bit of an eyesore for neighbours, it has also meant we have had no external storage and the garden has been unusable for anyone wishing to sit in it. It has also meant we have had some security issues and occasional fly-tipping on the garden. The lack of secure garage storage has meant having a motorbike by the back door, cycles in the lounge, an electronics' workshop in the back half of the lounge, kayak in the studio and a constant ongoing game of Chinese puzzle over many years, to say nothing of storage boxes, fishing gear and other stuff, that it would be nice just be able to put in a garage, if we could. Being a musician, there is also some equipment that it would be good to securely store, if such an appropriate facility were available. With a view to trying to correct all of this, when eventually able, we applied to Bexley Council for planning permission to build a reasonable sized storage facility on our derelict garden and erect a perimeter wall with a sliding gate. Not unreasonable, you would think. In fact, the guy who did the drawings, said it shouldn't be a problem at all! However, given our past experiences with Bexley Council, we should have known better!

Quite Enough! On the 15th May, a nice young lady came down to investigate our planning application. She was a trainee planner and said she hadn't been in the job that long. She was here for about 20 minutes to take some photos and said she wasn't quite sure of the situation so she would have to go back and report to her boss, who despite me paying a considerable amount of money for the service, didn't bother to accompany her, or come down himself. The application fee for the Council was £613. Perhaps it wasn't quite enough! There was, therefore, no chance to discuss options, or come up with agreeable solutions to guarantee a safe passage for planning permission.

A Lot Of Money! There is expert personal help available, in the form of pre-application service, meaning someone will actually come along, have a look and give you some advice, but it costs an extra £260. That would mean an outgoing to the Council of £873. The drawing of the plans and the submission on my behalf, has cost £680, so, at the moment, we have had to pay £1293! If we had to add another £260, it would mean an outlay of £1553.00. All in all, it's a lot of money before you've even laid a brick!

Road To Nowhere! As the architect told us, "It shouldn't be a problem", we hoped that the process would fairly straightforward. However, on 03/06/25, we had notification from the Council that our planning permission had been refused, so despite paying out £1293, all we have found is a road to nowhere. Talking of which, at the bottom of our garden, where we wanted to build the garage, there is a back alley which the Council say is classed as a 'private road'. It's overgrown and nobody drives down it, although my neighbour was using it to park his car(s). The property is also located in low-lying land adjacent to the tidal stretches of the river Thames, which is consequently considered as a 'flood zone'. These two factors are the reasons for the refusal of our planning permission.

---

Bexley Council's Reasoning

Bexley Council's Reasons: Relevant text from Bexley Council's planning permission refusal letter...

1 The wall/fence and gate, by reason of their location and height, along with the proposed structure at the rear of the garden would obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Plantation Road from the private road. As such they are contrary to Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SP10, DP23 and DP24 of the Local Plan (2023), all of which seek to ensure highway safety

2 In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding. As such, the application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 181) and Policy DP32 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023)

---

Point 1: The Back Alley: Yes, we do have a back alley at the bottom of the garden, and it is wide enough for a car. Nobody actually drives down it, as it is overgrown. It has, in recent times, been used at the Plantation Road end for parking by my nextdoor neighbour who, at the time of the Council's visit, had two cars parked on it, one of which was SORN. The Council say that our construction would "obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Plantation Road from the private road." They mean my neighbour's parked car. In fact, he has now just moved. Bexley Council make it sound like our back alley is busy highway, with a continuous string of traffic driving into Plantation Road. However, we are just talking about the one car that was parking there.

It's Everywhere! Plantation Road is a very quiet no-through road. Living in the real world, it's a fact of life that there are many examples of this 'obstructed visibility" everywhere. Places that are in far busier with both traffic and pedestrians, such as Crayford High Street. People are expected to cope, use their common sense and drive sensibly. Yes, we can actually do that, when we're 'allowed' to! Unfortunately Bexley Council's control-freak mentality, which defies common sense (and democracy), rears its ugly head everywhere, to the obvious inconvenience and detriment of society and the ordinary people that have to pay for it!

Point 2: Flood Risk: Slade Green is in a flood zone and parts of did flood in 1953 due to North Sea flood that apparently over 300 people in eastern England and around 2,500 people overall, including the Netherlands and Belgium. The flood occurred due to a combination a rapid moving low-pressure weather system, resultant high winds and a high spring tide, which breached sea defences and embankments. It was also at a time previous to the reinforcing of the Thames embankment and the building of the Thames and Dartford Creek Barriers. According to a resident living here at the time, the water came up as far as the Corner Pin pub. But still 250 metres short of this property.

Too Much To Ask? As a 'mere' member of the public, it should not be not my responsibility to manage water supply, drainage, flood prevention and infrastructure. We pay very significant amounts of to water companies and the council, supposedly to manage and deal with exactly these things. Is it too much to ask that they do what we actually pay them to do? Of course it is!

All Gone! I personally also pay the Environment Agency and Paddle UK annually, for my fishing and kayaking (which granted, may come in handy to get to the shops in the event of an unlikely flood). I expect drains and flood defences to be properly managed and sufficient and I expect councils not to keep building all over flood plain and valuable playing fields, such as the Howbury fields (pictured right), over 70,000 square metres of prime playing field, all gone!

Natural Drainage: The Howbury playing fields were a much-loved facility, used and cherished by the community; a massive area of natural drainage that Bexley Council decided to build all over AGAINST the majority wishes of the people that live here. They built more houses, caused more congestion, and gave us more problems. They took away facilities, amenities and depleted natural drainage. No wonder they're so worried about my back garden.

Hypocrisy! You can't help feeling that our social-management system is riddled with hypocrisy. Hypocrisy from those in charge, who do just what they like when it suits them, and don't listen to, or consider the public (that is the people paying their wages). And they still think they're entitled to give the little people an unnecessarily hard time, taking our money and making life difficult when we just want to get on with our lives.

---

Positive And Proactive Manner?

Really? Page two of Bexley Council’s refusal letter states…

In dealing with this planning application, Bexley Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 186 & 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, to seek solutions to problems where practicable.

Blatant Lie! This stock response from Bexley Council is just another blatant lie. Bexley Council actually charge an extra £260 to 'work with the applicant' and expect you to pay for a preplanning assessment. We didn't do that in this case and consequently they have not been very helpful. They have certainly not worked with me in a positive and proactive manner to seek solutions. They have taken my money, denied my permission, and said I can appeal if I want to. It looks like it's all down to me to waste time and money to pander to, what many see as, ridiculous and unhelpful hypocritical nonsense!

No Comment! I did subsequently phone our trainee planner, on the 02/07/25 to clarify a few things, and point out the existing precedents and some of the blatant hypocrisy. She simply said she could not comment on anything that was already there. She then suggested I email Development Control. Following her guidance, this I did on Wed 02/07/2025 12:00. So far, apart from an automated response, as of lunchtime 04/07/25, I have had no reply from my email to Development Control and no reply from the email I sent on Tue 01/07/25 14:31, to the Environment Agency, regarding the flood risk assessment.

Help At Last? As of mid afternoon, 04/07/25 I have now had an email back from our trainee planner, who herself responded to the email she suggested I send to Development Control. She thanked me for my patience and said she would forward it to the relevant department. Are they actually all the same department, one wonders?

Any Help For Noah? Our Trainee Planner also said she would let me know when she heard back regarding the situation with the flood report. The Enviroment Agency emailed to say someone would be in touch. So, we shall await contact.

---

Bexley Council's Response from Highways

07/07/9:29am - email from our trainee planner to say the Highways Team have come back with the following

I would suggest the applicant move the building and wall into the garden from plantation road, allowing a buffer within their land, or alternatively lessen the width of the building so that it doesn’t go for the full width so that the 2.4x2.4m pedestrian splays can be achieved.

The sliding gate would also have the same issue with lack of visibility – although this was not included in the report. This can be overcome by extending the length of the gate, or providing a suitable fence on either side of the opening portion in lieu of brick pillars and wall

---

Not Great Ideas!

Negative Impact! The above suggestions from Bexley Council's Highways' department, significantly negatively impact what we would actually like to do. It means we're expected to do some significant compromising, wasting garden space (which will become dead space), sacrificing on storage space, sacrificing on security and sacrificing on privacy. Plus, the overall finish won't be as neat and tidy and it looks looks like they don't want us to have privacy from the road, due to wall height restrictions. It also means building two lots of wall or fence, as with our idea, the garage was the boundary wall, meaning we only needed to build it once! A much better idea for us!

That Is The Question! Our garden isn't massive, and if the neighbours are happy with our plans, it would nice to be able to make the best of it. The question is, should we have to give up our garden space and compromise on storage space, security and privacy, to pander to Bexley Council's hypocrisy and nonsense, for a blocked back alley that nobody actually drives down, in a quiet dead-end street with just 22 houses and my back garden. Especially when, in the real world this kind of problem exists everywhere, in much busier places. Also, can we find alternative solutions?

Out Of Alignment! As for moving the location of our proposed sliding gate, which would (as proposed) line up with the existing parking pad, it's a rather ridiculous and completely nonsensical idea, as it would then be out of alignment with the parking pad and no longer line up with the vehicle!

LEZ Then ULEZ! Yes, that's my new Renault Trafic van (at the time) which cost over £7,000, after I had to scrap my perfectly good previous Peugeot Expert van (for just £200), for round one - LEZ (The Low Emission Zone) which no one had a vote on. I then had to scrap the one in the picture (for just £292), which was also still a perfectly good van, for round two - ULEZ (The Ultra Low Emission Zone) which, yes, you guessed it, no one had a vote on! No wonder people get so fed up with our local authorities behaving like tyrants! Because that's exactly what they do. They're supposed to serving, not bossing. And no wonder it's taken so long to get the house and the garden done, when I have to keep finding so much money to buy another van! It's not like a do a lot of mileage.

Better Ideas For Us! Anyway, enough moaning! We have some suggestions of our own. As Bexley Council are complaining about trafic from the back alley, we thought we could simply block vehicle-wide access to the alley with a bollard, as has been done where the alley continues on the opposite side of the road. My neighbour, who has the house at the bottom of garden, says she would prefer vehicles not to be parking in the alley and not to be driving in the alley either, so this could be a good solution.

30mph Wheelspin! As for the sliding gate and exit from my drive, we can site a mirror (or two), install a flashing warning light (or two) and a nice loud audible warning to warn pedestrians and vehicles alike when I open the gate and exit my garden. Something that keeps repeating, "Caution! Vehicle exiting!", or similar! Just in case I happen wheelspin off my drive at 30mph. It will probably pee the neighbours off though! But, let's see what Bexley Council say!

One Set Of Rules?

The Old Community Centre: At the other end of our back alley, or private road, is the site of the old community centre. This site is on the corner of Bridge Road and Slade Green Road, the busy central main arterial road that runs right through the heart of Slade Green.

B.C.'s Own Words! Before we go on, let's remind ourselves of Bexley Council's own words in their planning permission refusal letter...

The wall/fence and gate, by reason of their location and height, along with the proposed structure at the rear of the garden would obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Plantation Road from the private road

Bexley Council's Fence: Note the height of the fence that Bexley Council have erected around the site of the old community centre, and the fact that the gates exit onto the busy main road. Note also the fact that the fence obstructs visibility for pedestrians approaching the carpark exit and obstructs visibility for vehicles entering Bridge Road from the car park.

What Can We Say?

We Could Say: To quote Bexley Council's own words...

The wall/fence and gate, by reason of their location and height, obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Bridge Road from the private carpark

When It Suits! Perhaps Bexley Council didn't notice! Or perhaps they don't know what they're doing! Or perhaps they just don't care! Hypocrisy? Of course! It's Bexley Council! They just do what THEY like when it suits them! Never mind the people paying their wages!

Mum's Concern! The same fence, which extends for some distance, also obstructs vision for pedestrians trying to cross the busy road. While I was taking the photos, one young mum told me that because of the fence and the obstructed visibility, she'd told her young daughter she must cross the road much further down, where she could clearly be seen, and clearly see any oncoming traffic. It's a busy road!

Common Sense! Unlike Plantation Road, a quiet little dead-end backstreet, places like Bridge Road and Crayford High Street are very busy locations with high traffic density and high pedestrian footfall. People accept this, because it's the real world we live in and it's practical. We make the best of it. This world is not perfect, and it never will be. However, it can still work with a bit of care and common sense and in millions of places like these, all over the country, it does and it has to! We have to start encouraging people to be self-controlled, that is suitably control themselves and use their common sense. You cannot control everything with a red or green light, and you cannot put everything in a black or white box. Life is not quite that simplistic. The trouble is, those who work for our local authorities, seem to think it is!

More Photos of Bexley Council's Fence - Breaking Their Own Rules?

EA Response (23/07/25): We've now had an email back from the Environment Agency, regarding the flood risk assessment business. I call it a business because and it looks like there could be significant additional outlay, by the time this is all sorted. For further advice the EA say they charge £115 per hour/per person plus VAT. The email came with a 21 page attachment, entitled Pre Application Guidance Note. It's hard to credit that we can be tied up in so much red tape. Remember, we only want to build a garage and a garden wall!

Environment Agency Email >>

Thank you for your enquiry in regard to your proposed development. As part of our free service, we undertake a basic environmental constraint check of your site and provide the attached guidance note which outlines our expectations as a statutory consultee in the planning process. This should support you in planning and designing your development proposal.

Our preliminary opinion

Based on a high-level mapping exercise undertaken of your development site (as per the geographic information you have provided to us), along with any information you have provided with us on the nature of the development, we have been able to provide the below preliminary advice. We have not undertaken a detailed review of any technical documents as part of this preliminary opinion. If you would like any further advice concerning technical issues for this proposal it will need to be as part of our charged service. Further information on this service is set out below, and within the attached guidance note.

Our basic constraint check has identified the following environmental issues on your site:

•  The site is within Flood Zone 3 and falls within our breach modelling.

Based on this, the proposed development would be covered by our national Flood Risk Standing advice. This means that at a planning application stage we would not comment on the application directly. The development would, however, require a flood risk assessment. Our guidance on how to prepare a flood risk assessment can be viewed in the link below. Preparing a flood risk assessment: standing advice - GOV.UK

If you would like for us to do a more in depth review of any prepared documents we are able to do so under out charged advice service.

Our charged service

As stated above, we have not undertaken a detailed review of your pre-application enquiry. We therefore cannot confirm at this stage whether the proposed development is acceptable to us. We do have a voluntary charged-for service where we can provide more detailed pre-application advice to the applicant. As part of this service, we can provide a dedicated project manager to act as a single point of contact to coordinate any problems, data requests or review technical documents. Should you wish us to undertake a detailed review of the proposal (or any subsequent documentation) or want further advice, we can do this as part of our charged service.

Further engagement at the pre-application stage will speed up our formal response to your planning application and provide you with certainty as to what our response to your planning application will be. It should also result in a better quality and more environmentally sensitive development. As part of our charged advice service we will provide a dedicated project manager to act as a single point of contact to help resolve any problems.

We currently charge £115 per hour/per person plus VAT. We will provide you with an estimated cost for any further discussions or review of documents. The terms of our charged for service can be found on GOV.UK.

Final comments

Please note this response is based on the information you have made available at this time. It is based on current national planning policy, associated legislation and environmental data / information. If any of these elements change in the future then we may need to reconsider our position.

We also recommend that you consult with the relevant Local Planning Authority (LPA) to ensure that your planning application meets their requirements.

We trust that the above information is of assistance. If you would like further detailed advice, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Planning Advisor –Kent and South London Sustainable Places
Environment Agency | 2 Marsham Street, Seacole Building, London, SW1P 4DF

---

Time To Appeal!

The Appeal (23/07/25): Our trainee planner advised that we could appeal. We've also had numerous letters from companies that offer such services on one's behalf. However, rather than paying out further substantial amounts, that we would rather spend on the house, we thought we would try the appeal process ourselves. Remember, we only want to build a garage and put up a garden wall in a quiet back street. Being as we were being refused on grounds that most considered quite unreasonable and hypocritical, ignoring precedents in much busier places, we thought we would submit this as grounds for our appeal, along with some photographic evidence, and see what happens.

Grounds For Appeal >>

Dear Sir Madam,

Re: Proposed Garden & External Works to 148 Slade Green Rd, corner with Plantation Rd.

Key Objectives: The key objectives we were hoping to achieve with our proposed external works are safe and secure garage storage; garden and property security; privacy from the road, for anyone wishing to use the garden; achieving a neat and tidy finish for the property.

Security Issues: We have had a few security issues over the years, from items being taken from the garden and side of the house, to people investigating the possibility of ‘removing’ my motorbike, currently kept by my backdoor. We have also had rubbish dumped in the garden on a number of occasions. We were, therefore, looking to improve security to try and prevent any such problems occurring in the future and provide some safe and secure external storage here. Something we have not previously had, or been in a position to do.

Personal Overview: I currently live at this address with my son and my son’s girlfriend. The lack of secure external storage has meant some limitations on living arrangements over the years, as we have had to try and store things in the house that would normally be in a garage. As part of my hobby and work has been electronic / instrument repairs, it has also meant that, the back half of my lounge has doubled as a small electronic workshop. My son and I are both involved in occasional live music work. I am also personally involved in outdoor and sporting activities. This means trying to securely store a motorbike, kayaks, mountain bikes and a table tennis table, as well as some music equipment. Without any secure external facility, this has previously been a challenge, hence our application.

Initial Idea: The plans we submitted to the Council, involved constructing a secure garage storage facility at the bottom of the garden. Access to the garage (as it not for cars) would be from our garden, and not from the alley or Plantation Road. The walls of the garage would actually then constitute the boundary walls of the property. A roadside perimeter wall would attach to the garage, with a sliding gate across where I park my van. The eventual aim being to render the outbuilding, the wall (depending on type), the existing studio and the house, and paint it all the same colour, thereby making the property look neat and tidy. This idea would yield the maximum benefit as to usable storage space, storage security, garden security, security for the property and privacy from the road (for anyone wishing to use the garden). It would also yield a tidy overall finish, eventually matching in with the house. It would also stop inconsiderate people dumping their rubbish in the garden from the back alley.

Private Road: The Council have objected to this initial proposal, partly on the grounds that the scheme would impair visibility for cars entering Plantation Road from the ‘private road’ (that is the back alley). It was explained to the Council that nobody drives up and down the back alley, however, because my neighbour has had two cars parked this end (one of which was SORN), they say they consider this to be a private road. From what the Council have said, one could get the impression that the back alley is a busy through road with a continuous string of vehicles driving into Plantation Road, however, this is not the case. It is overgrown and fly-tipped and no one actually could drive down it, even if they wanted to (please see photos).

Alley Parking: As the Council have brought it up as an issue, my neighbour has said he can relocate the SORN vehicle that is there, and has just got it MOT’d with a view to doing so. The few adjacent residents I have spoken to so far, have all said they would prefer vehicles not to be parked there, or to drive down it, even if were clear. As we have said to the Council, the alley is currently overgrown, and apart from vehicles parked there, it is not used by vehicles to access Plantation Road at any time. We are quite happy to install a bollard here, if necessary, thereby ruling out vehicles entering Plantation Road altogether.

Many Instances! There are already endless instances of what Bexley Council are talking about, in significantly busier places than Plantation Road. Such as Crayford High Street (please see photos), where multi-vehicle carparks serving businesses, flats and takeaway delivery services, are continuously exiting onto a busy high street, across busy pavements with high footfall, in exactly the same ‘restricted vision’ circumstances. In fact, Slade Green community centre, on Bridge Road, at the other end of our back alley, now has a very high fence around it, which Bexley Council themselves have erected, which does exactly what they are complaining about, restricting vision for cars exiting the medical centre’s carpark onto Bridge Road. Bridge Road is THE major arterial access route running right through the heart of Slade Green. A busy road and bus route, with high pedestrian footfall, serving the schools and the railway station from other parts of Slade Green. In contrast, Plantation Road is a very quiet no through road with just 22 houses, no real traffic and hardly any pedestrian footfall. It doesn’t seem very fair to be denying permission in such a quiet location on the grounds of a hardly used overgrown back-alley, which no one drives down, when such instances exist in much busier places all over, and when Bexley Council are actually doing it themselves. In such instances, people are expected to use their common sense, and gently edge out. We don’t do it at 30mph. But, as said, we are prepared to install a bollard, if required.

Flood Zone: Even though we have made provision for drainage and a soakaway, plus a permeable surface, we have also been denied the application, citing that we are in a ‘flood zone’, so therefore actually need a ‘flood risk assessment’. Yes, Slade Green is low-lying land, adjacent to the River Thames and Dartford Creek. It did flood over 70 years ago, in the Great North Sea Flood of 1953. The flood killed over 300 people in eastern England, and over 2,500 people and 100,000 livestock, when including the Netherlands and Belgium. The flood was caused by an unusual set of circumstances, including very stormy weather, with high northerly winds and an unusually high spring tide. At that time the water came up as far as the Corner Pin pub, still 250m short of this property. To try and prevent a reoccurrence, the flood defences have since been improved, with the building up of river embankments and the construction of the Thames and Dartford Creek barriers. Bexley Council themselves have just built all over the Howbury Centre playing fields, (contrary to residents’ wishes) around 74,000 sqm of valuable prime playing field and natural drainage / potential flood plain. The unfairness and hypocrisy, is stark and somewhat disappointing.

Happy! Our property has been unfinished for a long time. I have spoken to my neighbours, who are happy for me proceed with this plan, and certainly everyone in this location will be pleased to see this house and grounds tidied up after so long. Now that we are in a position to be able to do it, it would nice for us and for the other residents, if we could just get on with it, and improve its usability and appearance, and get the best result.

Thank you for your consideration.

---