Developer, Lee Jose, continues with plan to demolish Victorian home in Bedford Road, South Woodford

A developer has continued with a controversial plan to demolish a Victorian home and replace it with a block of flats by applying for planning permission for a sixth time.


Lee Jose’s previous plans to knock down the building in Bedford Road, South Woodford, were repeatedly rejected by Redbridge Council's planning committee after being recommended for approval by officers.


It has also been rejected twice by the planning inspectorate on appeal.
Now Mr Jose has reduced the number of proposed flats by one to seven in attempt to ease fears over the size and scale of the proposal.


Mr Jose, who bought the property five years ago, said: "I will be here forever and a day.


"If they want to keep the character of the street, they should look to their own neighbours.


"One has a shed on the roof and eight out of ten homes have turned their front gardens into a driveway.


"The house I want to build is more in keeping with the character of the street than any other homes there.
 

"They can keep objecting for the next ten years it will make no difference to us."


Campaigner Sue Brown said: "Fighting against this has just become part of our life." 

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:11pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Mr Lee wants to provide homes for people and the house is not Grade 2 listed.

It astonishes me that Nimbys seem to be envious of the developers who try to provide homes and make some monies in the process and this particular applic
Mr Lee wants to provide homes for people and the house is not Grade 2 listed. It astonishes me that Nimbys seem to be envious of the developers who try to provide homes and make some monies in the process and this particular applic Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Thu 7 Feb 13

SXH says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Mr Lee wants to provide homes for people and the house is not Grade 2 listed. It astonishes me that Nimbys seem to be envious of the developers who try to provide homes and make some monies in the process and this particular applic
Maybe you can offer him your home, as you seem to think his providing homes for others, or maybe he should build next to your home, i am sure you will not object.

The man is a property developer, who is out to make allot of money, and does not care about others, neighbours homes will loose valuation, do some reseach ask what people look for when buying a new home, in surrounding area.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Mr Lee wants to provide homes for people and the house is not Grade 2 listed. It astonishes me that Nimbys seem to be envious of the developers who try to provide homes and make some monies in the process and this particular applic[/p][/quote]Maybe you can offer him your home, as you seem to think his providing homes for others, or maybe he should build next to your home, i am sure you will not object. The man is a property developer, who is out to make allot of money, and does not care about others, neighbours homes will loose valuation, do some reseach ask what people look for when buying a new home, in surrounding area. SXH
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Thu 7 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

It astonishes me that you, Cornbeefur, seem to think that only if something is Grad 2 listed should it be protected from being torn down by greedy developers who don't care anything about the actual community but instead care only about their personal coffers.

And no that's not "envy" that's seeing clearly what these soulless people are really in it for.
It's not "envy" to care that England -- in the hands of some if they were to have their way -- would be simply built over in Little Boxes.

I take it YOU are one of these guys, then? Makes sense how you defend them. And they seem to all have a very bad attitude toward local people.

The nasty-spirited stubborness displayed by this man in the article is the very twin of the guy who wants Evergreen Field to be a bunch of brown brick boxes....
It astonishes me that you, Cornbeefur, seem to think that only if something is Grad 2 listed should it be protected from being torn down by greedy developers who don't care anything about the actual community but instead care only about their personal coffers. And no that's not "envy" that's seeing clearly what these soulless people are really in it for. It's not "envy" to care that England -- in the hands of some if they were to have their way -- would be simply built over in Little Boxes. I take it YOU are one of these guys, then? Makes sense how you defend them. And they seem to all have a very bad attitude toward local people. The nasty-spirited stubborness displayed by this man in the article is the very twin of the guy who wants Evergreen Field to be a bunch of brown brick boxes.... LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

SXH wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
Mr Lee wants to provide homes for people and the house is not Grade 2 listed. It astonishes me that Nimbys seem to be envious of the developers who try to provide homes and make some monies in the process and this particular applic
Maybe you can offer him your home, as you seem to think his providing homes for others, or maybe he should build next to your home, i am sure you will not object.

The man is a property developer, who is out to make allot of money, and does not care about others, neighbours homes will loose valuation, do some reseach ask what people look for when buying a new home, in surrounding area.
Loss of Value is not a Meritable Planning Objection.
[quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Mr Lee wants to provide homes for people and the house is not Grade 2 listed. It astonishes me that Nimbys seem to be envious of the developers who try to provide homes and make some monies in the process and this particular applic[/p][/quote]Maybe you can offer him your home, as you seem to think his providing homes for others, or maybe he should build next to your home, i am sure you will not object. The man is a property developer, who is out to make allot of money, and does not care about others, neighbours homes will loose valuation, do some reseach ask what people look for when buying a new home, in surrounding area.[/p][/quote]Loss of Value is not a Meritable Planning Objection. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

LakeBreeze wrote:
It astonishes me that you, Cornbeefur, seem to think that only if something is Grad 2 listed should it be protected from being torn down by greedy developers who don't care anything about the actual community but instead care only about their personal coffers.

And no that's not "envy" that's seeing clearly what these soulless people are really in it for.
It's not "envy" to care that England -- in the hands of some if they were to have their way -- would be simply built over in Little Boxes.

I take it YOU are one of these guys, then? Makes sense how you defend them. And they seem to all have a very bad attitude toward local people.

The nasty-spirited stubborness displayed by this man in the article is the very twin of the guy who wants Evergreen Field to be a bunch of brown brick boxes....
He is not breaking any Laws by making a planning application is he?

He is using his democratic right to apply.

He bought the property fare and square.

Why didn't any of the objectors buy it if they loved the place so much.

Buy the Book 'Woodford Then and Now or hire it from the Library. Look at all the lovely Buildings that have been torn down over the years, by Redbridge Council and Private Developers. including many that were demolished to make way for the A406 which no doubt you poodle along lovingly enjoying easy access to places you love going to.

Unless a Building is protected there is not a lot one can do except be a Nimby.
[quote][p][bold]LakeBreeze[/bold] wrote: It astonishes me that you, Cornbeefur, seem to think that only if something is Grad 2 listed should it be protected from being torn down by greedy developers who don't care anything about the actual community but instead care only about their personal coffers. And no that's not "envy" that's seeing clearly what these soulless people are really in it for. It's not "envy" to care that England -- in the hands of some if they were to have their way -- would be simply built over in Little Boxes. I take it YOU are one of these guys, then? Makes sense how you defend them. And they seem to all have a very bad attitude toward local people. The nasty-spirited stubborness displayed by this man in the article is the very twin of the guy who wants Evergreen Field to be a bunch of brown brick boxes....[/p][/quote]He is not breaking any Laws by making a planning application is he? He is using his democratic right to apply. He bought the property fare and square. Why didn't any of the objectors buy it if they loved the place so much. Buy the Book 'Woodford Then and Now or hire it from the Library. Look at all the lovely Buildings that have been torn down over the years, by Redbridge Council and Private Developers. including many that were demolished to make way for the A406 which no doubt you poodle along lovingly enjoying easy access to places you love going to. Unless a Building is protected there is not a lot one can do except be a Nimby. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

12:12am Fri 8 Feb 13

SXH says...

Cornbeefur when buyers or property developers buy a property they do not inform residents they will be applying for planning to build flats or to change the character.

"Loss of Value is not a Meritable Planning Objection"
it could effect other residents selling there property, who will cover their loss? maybe you should, don't be heartless think of others.
Cornbeefur when buyers or property developers buy a property they do not inform residents they will be applying for planning to build flats or to change the character. "Loss of Value is not a Meritable Planning Objection" it could effect other residents selling there property, who will cover their loss? maybe you should, don't be heartless think of others. SXH
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

SXH wrote:
Cornbeefur when buyers or property developers buy a property they do not inform residents they will be applying for planning to build flats or to change the character.

"Loss of Value is not a Meritable Planning Objection"
it could effect other residents selling there property, who will cover their loss? maybe you should, don't be heartless think of others.
Why do buyers have to notify their neighbours of anything?

It is none of their business.

If they make Applications they display a notice outside the site and the Planning Officers check if it is displayed.

What has this got to do with me? Why should I compensate people? I am contributing to a thread.

You can only object on planning merit not waffle.
[quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: Cornbeefur when buyers or property developers buy a property they do not inform residents they will be applying for planning to build flats or to change the character. "Loss of Value is not a Meritable Planning Objection" it could effect other residents selling there property, who will cover their loss? maybe you should, don't be heartless think of others.[/p][/quote]Why do buyers have to notify their neighbours of anything? It is none of their business. If they make Applications they display a notice outside the site and the Planning Officers check if it is displayed. What has this got to do with me? Why should I compensate people? I am contributing to a thread. You can only object on planning merit not waffle. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Sun 17 Feb 13

the voice of reson says...

It is good to see people taking a point of view on this site, it is a shame no one did this when they built a block of flats next door but one to this site, or when they changed the garden on the oppisite house in to a carpark and run a business. if the feeling is so strong to keep the street as it was built, then make the rule the same for every one. put all the gardens back and park in the road, and if there is not room sell the cars and use a train. take all the roof and rear extensions down. the road should be consistent on its way it deals with planning. Not all builder are the same as not all people are the same, people do not want building in the green belt and not in town then where, in an age were people say use the train and bus and not the car this site fits all,
It is good to see people taking a point of view on this site, it is a shame no one did this when they built a block of flats next door but one to this site, or when they changed the garden on the oppisite house in to a carpark and run a business. if the feeling is so strong to keep the street as it was built, then make the rule the same for every one. put all the gardens back and park in the road, and if there is not room sell the cars and use a train. take all the roof and rear extensions down. the road should be consistent on its way it deals with planning. Not all builder are the same as not all people are the same, people do not want building in the green belt and not in town then where, in an age were people say use the train and bus and not the car this site fits all, the voice of reson
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Landsdowne says...

LakeBreeze wrote:
It astonishes me that you, Cornbeefur, seem to think that only if something is Grad 2 listed should it be protected from being torn down by greedy developers who don't care anything about the actual community but instead care only about their personal coffers.

And no that's not "envy" that's seeing clearly what these soulless people are really in it for.
It's not "envy" to care that England -- in the hands of some if they were to have their way -- would be simply built over in Little Boxes.

I take it YOU are one of these guys, then? Makes sense how you defend them. And they seem to all have a very bad attitude toward local people.

The nasty-spirited stubborness displayed by this man in the article is the very twin of the guy who wants Evergreen Field to be a bunch of brown brick boxes....
LakeBreeze, do you know this person? Why do you say nasty-spirited and stubborn? The Council have recommended approval on two separate occasions and a Planning Inspector has agreed that it meets the Councils policy, perhaps it is the Planning Committee or residents that are being stubborn? Have you never done anything that will benefit you instead of others? This person is making a legitimate application the same as anyone who applies for Planning Consent on previously developed land, this is a far cry from from building on a green field site and should not be considered in the same light.
[quote][p][bold]LakeBreeze[/bold] wrote: It astonishes me that you, Cornbeefur, seem to think that only if something is Grad 2 listed should it be protected from being torn down by greedy developers who don't care anything about the actual community but instead care only about their personal coffers. And no that's not "envy" that's seeing clearly what these soulless people are really in it for. It's not "envy" to care that England -- in the hands of some if they were to have their way -- would be simply built over in Little Boxes. I take it YOU are one of these guys, then? Makes sense how you defend them. And they seem to all have a very bad attitude toward local people. The nasty-spirited stubborness displayed by this man in the article is the very twin of the guy who wants Evergreen Field to be a bunch of brown brick boxes....[/p][/quote]LakeBreeze, do you know this person? Why do you say nasty-spirited and stubborn? The Council have recommended approval on two separate occasions and a Planning Inspector has agreed that it meets the Councils policy, perhaps it is the Planning Committee or residents that are being stubborn? Have you never done anything that will benefit you instead of others? This person is making a legitimate application the same as anyone who applies for Planning Consent on previously developed land, this is a far cry from from building on a green field site and should not be considered in the same light. Landsdowne
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Wed 20 Feb 13

the voice of reson says...

Lansdawne has a point, but people are allowed to have a view of there own, it dose seem on this site when people can not run big houses and the cost of gas is rising that to have a house that has 5 bed rooms is a waste, when 7 unites would house at least 14 people, the goverment is trying to get cars of the road, i have seen the drawings and the people that may live there would have to use trains and bus, I understand people do not like change but lake breeze have you ever ask mr Lee Jose for a view of why he has persisted in his planning and if he has ever spoken to the objectors. It is fine to have a view if it based on facts, but if this view is based on things that have happend in your life in am sure you would like the truth written about you. In a world where the facts are not taken into acount people would do well to do there home work before making a statement.
Lansdawne has a point, but people are allowed to have a view of there own, it dose seem on this site when people can not run big houses and the cost of gas is rising that to have a house that has 5 bed rooms is a waste, when 7 unites would house at least 14 people, the goverment is trying to get cars of the road, i have seen the drawings and the people that may live there would have to use trains and bus, I understand people do not like change but lake breeze have you ever ask mr Lee Jose for a view of why he has persisted in his planning and if he has ever spoken to the objectors. It is fine to have a view if it based on facts, but if this view is based on things that have happend in your life in am sure you would like the truth written about you. In a world where the facts are not taken into acount people would do well to do there home work before making a statement. the voice of reson
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree