- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Hackney Town Hall (licensed CC BY SA 2.5 on Wikimedia Commons by Tarquin Binary)Hackney woman told to knock down bike shed - because it's too tall
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.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 8 min 42 sec ago
Still not quite sure why we haven't done more of the "US cycle path bodge" - using large concrete (removable) blocks (jersey barrier) to form a...
- Chris RideFar 31 min 40 sec ago
The language in the title and the article seems a little odd/presumptuous to me, saying that the cyclist "was killed", which suggests that some...
- Pub bike 54 min 23 sec ago
I can vouch for this. Priory Lane for example runs from the junction with the A205 all the way to Stag Lodge....
- Pub bike 1 hour 3 min ago
"use of illegally modified e-bikes"...
- JLasTSR 1 hour 14 min ago
The cheapest I found with reasonable cover was the Insurance Emporium.
- Gbjbanjs 10 hours 43 min ago
As an Irish person, I am embarrassed for this guy and the judge. He is clearly a thug, so do not get where he takes pride in wearing the country...
- Rendel Harris 12 hours 54 min ago
Far be it from me to tell you your business, but if you want to promote your product sneakily on a website without paying for advertising then...
Add new comment
24 comments
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."
To me the solution is simple:
**Additional drainage measures may be required
Women is annoyed by the rules she didn't botther following. Gotcha.
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
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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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).
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.