Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Stamford Hill, London - Orthodox Family Told to Remove Their Loft

Published on: May 1, 2009 05:48 PM
By: The Jewish Chronicle
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share
Isaac Liebowitz (far right) and his 10 nephews and nieces in front of the disputed loft extensionIsaac Liebowitz (far right) and his 10 nephews and nieces in front of the disputed loft extension

Stamford Hill, London - A strictly Orthodox family may be forced to tear down an extension to their Hackney home after a High Court judge rejected their bid to save it.

Matilda Schlesinger argues that the large loft extension at Lynmouth Road, Stamford Hill, is essential to provide enough room for her family, which includes 10 children, ranging in age from two to 18.

But Hackney Council and a planning inspector both rejected the application for the extension — which is already built — on the grounds that it is out of character with the area and the house itself.

Mrs Schlesinger took her appeal against the inspector’s decision to the High Court, but her case was rejected by the judge, Sir Thayne Forbes.

Advertisement:

The inspector, upholding a decision by the London Borough of Hackney, had found that the extension was detrimental to the character of the street.

The extension to the house, in a distinctive terraced area, forms an addition to the home which is “unsympathetic” to the character of the Victorian house, the inspector said in her decision.

Mrs Schlesinger’s brother, Isaac Liebowitz, argued on her behalf in court that the inspector’s decision was wrong and that permission for the development should be granted retrospectively.

He said that in coming to her decision, the inspector had not had the benefit of a report relating to planning for the Jewish community which would have helped her.

The family had been disadvantaged by a lack of resources to put forward the case fully, and the inspector had not taken account of relevant factors, particularly the family’s need for extra space, he said. But, rejecting all of Mr Liebowitz’s arguments, Sir Thayne said he had come to the “firm conclusion” that the case should be dismissed.

“The inspector concluded that there was no evidence that the matter could not be addressed by suitable extensions to the basement or ground floor,” he told the court.
“That was a conclusion she was entitled to draw. The inspector then went on to hold, as she was entitled to, that she did not consider that the personal circumstances of the family outweighed the harm to the character and appearance of the area.”

An enforcement notice, ordering that the extension should be dismantled, has already been issued, but is to be appealed by Mrs Schlesinger in separate proceedings.

Mrs Schlesinger’s brother Isaac said that the judge had allowed the family further time to lodge an appeal.
“We are taking legal advice,” he said. “We are looking at this as a setback but we are determined to fight on.”

The family maintain that there are other loft extensions in the area and that the addition to the building is the only way to solve a shortage of space for large, strictly Orthodox families.

Ita Symons, of the Agudas Israel Housing Association, said: “Unfortunately when people have large families and find themselves in housing need, they often overlook the rules that they should stick to.

“But we are very much dependent on whether a judge views family life as less important than the skyline in some grotty road in Hackney.”


More of today's headlines

Brooklyn, NY - A New York man who told investors he was president of a hedge fund called ARC was really a hired driver, according to court documents on Friday in which... Monticello, NY - Gov. David Paterson is urging the interior secretary to approve two Indian casino projects in Sullivan County. In a letter, Paterson urged Secretary...

 

Total44

Read Comments (44)  —  Post Yours »

1

 May 01, 2009 at 05:38 PM Shmilfke Says:

It's definitely too bad and I feel bad for their mistake of not getting the appropriate permits.

But there is no question, the loft has to be dismantled and they should not be using anti-semitism as an argument

2

 May 01, 2009 at 05:34 PM Babishka Says:

If they were Muslims, they would not only get their loft but the government would pay for it.

3

 May 01, 2009 at 06:00 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #2  
Babishka Says:

If they were Muslims, they would not only get their loft but the government would pay for it.

and therefore we should not keep to the rules?

4

 May 01, 2009 at 05:57 PM englishbornbread Says:

How interesting to read this article. i'm a good friend of this fam and can attest to the fact that she has 10 kids and a tiny house. as a former londoner i'm well aware that the issue with building extension lofts is a NEW problem. many families including my own built lofts without any problem as the houses there are fairly small and one is not allowed to build like here in usa.

5

 May 01, 2009 at 05:49 PM above the law? Says:

lets be realistic.. where in the world can you go and build extensions without getting the correct planning permission? why on earth did they believe because she popped out 10 children she is above the law? there are larger houses in the borough, when you grow out of a home if you dont have the correct permit you can look elsewhere which most of us do. can u imagine if it would be a free for all?

the beauty of london is that the government works diligently to preserve the look and their boroughs, uniform terraced houses are definitely an easier site for the eyes then the monstrous buildings going up daily in borough park, some home look like a manor in the hamptons squashed into a dense block, makes me laugh.... Just dont go thinking I am jealous or bitter, I am neither, I have my own home (and moved twice due to shortage of space) and I am just embarassed by this whole spectacle taking place... they should consider themselves lucky that they got away without a fine. If you are gonna have 10 kids, that is fine by me and everyone else, just dont expect the red carpet for it.... take the consequence for your own actions - and take it LEGALLY!

6

 May 01, 2009 at 06:17 PM AuthenticSatmar Says:

They aren't claiming anti-semitism contrary to what the commentors say. They are claiming that they should get a reprieve because of their large family size, and that their home is within character of the neighborhood. There is in the law the ability for the inspector to take the discomfort of the family into consideration, and they are arguing that she didn't do so.

7

 May 01, 2009 at 06:12 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

and therefore we should not keep to the rules?

Why should we? What makes the rules holy?

No, this decision isn't antisemitic as such, but to jump from there to proclaiming that this family did something wrong? Where do you get that? They did with THEIR property what they needed to do. There was no reason they shouldn't. There was a risk that they might get caught and that they might not succeed in persuading the authorities to overlook it and they might eventually have to tear it down, but life is full of risks. It beat trying to fit a large family into a small house, and there was always the chance that they could get away with it. There still is that chance; it hasn't been torn down yet, and who can say what will happen next week or next month or next year? If they get another year or two's use out of it, or they eventually get away with it altogether, will you admit that they were right to take the chance, or do you have some strange fascination with "rules", as if there is some metaphysical reason to inconvenience oneself by keeping them?

8

 May 02, 2009 at 05:19 PM a yid Says:

this is not the 1st in stamfordhill and probably not the last who had to pull down the loft there are load's out there fighting for it

9

 May 02, 2009 at 09:34 PM Been There Says:

They are concerned it doesn't look like the rest of the area???? If so, I have a good idea!! They should make it old, dark, dreary, dank & disgusting just like the rest of that multi thousand year old city.

10

 May 02, 2009 at 09:23 PM cool masmid Says:

As someone who grew up in Stamford Hill (with family that still lives there) I am curious why theirs was such an issue when a great percentage of houses in Stamford Hill have lofts - in my parents block alone out of 35 or so houses almost half have lofts - it really concerns me as to why theirs became such an issue.

11

 May 02, 2009 at 09:59 PM bigwheeel Says:

Reply to #7  
Milhouse Says:

Why should we? What makes the rules holy?

No, this decision isn't antisemitic as such, but to jump from there to proclaiming that this family did something wrong? Where do you get that? They did with THEIR property what they needed to do. There was no reason they shouldn't. There was a risk that they might get caught and that they might not succeed in persuading the authorities to overlook it and they might eventually have to tear it down, but life is full of risks. It beat trying to fit a large family into a small house, and there was always the chance that they could get away with it. There still is that chance; it hasn't been torn down yet, and who can say what will happen next week or next month or next year? If they get another year or two's use out of it, or they eventually get away with it altogether, will you admit that they were right to take the chance, or do you have some strange fascination with "rules", as if there is some metaphysical reason to inconvenience oneself by keeping them?

...But this creates precedent. I don't know what the specific rules are in London. Certainly, there's a buildings dep't. and people should make an effort to get all permits before they start to build!

12

 May 02, 2009 at 10:09 PM ober chochom Says:

dina d'malchusa dina, while we're in golus we have to still remember there are laws we have to go by, the orld doesnt belong to us, and i agree with a local government wanting its town or city look normal the way it was for 100's of years, nyc and especially in willi and boro park should make similair rules, every 1 is building the weirdest extentions, not caring how the outside looks,

13

 May 02, 2009 at 10:13 PM Anonymous Says:

Is there no husband here?

14

 May 02, 2009 at 10:04 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #1  
Shmilfke Says:

It's definitely too bad and I feel bad for their mistake of not getting the appropriate permits.

But there is no question, the loft has to be dismantled and they should not be using anti-semitism as an argument

You are so anti-semi heaven help you-no reason to be so be-grudging of other is this loft in your way? NO - What goes around comes around! feel bad for you!Stamford Hill is so ugly any way!

15

 May 02, 2009 at 09:05 PM Moshe Says:

Reply to #7  
Milhouse Says:

Why should we? What makes the rules holy?

No, this decision isn't antisemitic as such, but to jump from there to proclaiming that this family did something wrong? Where do you get that? They did with THEIR property what they needed to do. There was no reason they shouldn't. There was a risk that they might get caught and that they might not succeed in persuading the authorities to overlook it and they might eventually have to tear it down, but life is full of risks. It beat trying to fit a large family into a small house, and there was always the chance that they could get away with it. There still is that chance; it hasn't been torn down yet, and who can say what will happen next week or next month or next year? If they get another year or two's use out of it, or they eventually get away with it altogether, will you admit that they were right to take the chance, or do you have some strange fascination with "rules", as if there is some metaphysical reason to inconvenience oneself by keeping them?

Next year I will bake matza for 20 minutes again. Who knows, maybe I won't get caught - and even if I do, at least i did not get caught this year. Flexible morality really works

16

 May 02, 2009 at 09:04 PM Anonymous Says:

Many in london especially stamford hill area have built loft extensions as a result of minimal living space. Up until about 4 yrs ago the government gave a grant for it and helped pay alot towards it. unfortunately this has changed and all legalised lofts are becoming illegal due to change of mayor etc.

17

 May 02, 2009 at 08:40 PM merkin Says:

They should move to Monsey. The town gov't lets the frum build whatever they want, no matter how much it ruins the area.

18

 May 02, 2009 at 08:34 PM PMO Says:

Reply to #7  
Milhouse Says:

Why should we? What makes the rules holy?

No, this decision isn't antisemitic as such, but to jump from there to proclaiming that this family did something wrong? Where do you get that? They did with THEIR property what they needed to do. There was no reason they shouldn't. There was a risk that they might get caught and that they might not succeed in persuading the authorities to overlook it and they might eventually have to tear it down, but life is full of risks. It beat trying to fit a large family into a small house, and there was always the chance that they could get away with it. There still is that chance; it hasn't been torn down yet, and who can say what will happen next week or next month or next year? If they get another year or two's use out of it, or they eventually get away with it altogether, will you admit that they were right to take the chance, or do you have some strange fascination with "rules", as if there is some metaphysical reason to inconvenience oneself by keeping them?

Milhouse, you make a couple of great points. However, in this case, I believe the headline of this story should be:

"Family Of Imbiciles Violates Building Codes & Now Fights To Reap The Benefits Of Their Violation"

That would be a more accurate headline. These idiots built a loft illegally. They took the risk, got caught, and will turn the whole thing into yet another chillul H". It is their right to fight city hall...and maybe they will score a very unlikely victory.... but ultimately it is their own stupidity that did them in.

As for following the "rules", I am a law and order kind of guy. I believe that if you want to live in a particular place, you follow the laws. If you don't like it, leave. I felt NY was becoming more and more Communist by the day, I didn't complain, I didn't stop paying my taxes because I didn't like where the money was going.... I just left.

If you don't like the laws, do something to change them. If you can't or won't do anything to change them... leave... you are living in the wrong place for you.

19

 May 02, 2009 at 08:17 PM Anonymous Says:

They should move to Brooklyn. You can build whatever you want there.

20

 May 02, 2009 at 10:44 PM Anonymous Says:

Can they retroactively get permission, maybe pay a fine? It should be a lesson to everyone...you need permits to build!

BTW, unless I misunderstood, the first article on VIN said that a whole family was living up there. How???

21

 May 03, 2009 at 06:26 AM Me Says:

Has anybody noticed their sign (at the back)

"Hackneys Final Solution"

How DARE they use references to the holocaust in their public campaign for a supid loft????

What UTTER disrespect to the millions of Kedoshim who were murdered al Kiddush Hashem.

What a Chilul Hashem!

Can these Stamford Hillies sink no lower????

22

 May 03, 2009 at 02:23 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #19  
Anonymous Says:

They should move to Brooklyn. You can build whatever you want there.

Although I feel badly for the family, city governments have a point in enforcing rules that keep areas looking decent. Look at how ugly Boro Park has become because of the lack of planning and rules. Flatbush, on the other hand, is stricter with their zoning rules (which frum people complain about), and Flatbush has remained mostly a nice area.
I'm nervous about what's happening here in Lakewood, where I live now, where frum people also try to get around zoning laws by building monstrosities and putting new houses in spaces between houses (that are really illegal). The people like to live here because of the quality of life, but then they do their best to ruin the quality of life!
Why do so many frum people think they are above laws and rules?

23

 May 03, 2009 at 01:08 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #13  
Anonymous Says:

Is there no husband here?

Yes, sure there's a husband/father. He's a maggid shiur a big talmid chochom.

24

 May 03, 2009 at 08:58 AM Stamford Hilly Says:

Reply to #21  
Me Says:

Has anybody noticed their sign (at the back)

"Hackneys Final Solution"

How DARE they use references to the holocaust in their public campaign for a supid loft????

What UTTER disrespect to the millions of Kedoshim who were murdered al Kiddush Hashem.

What a Chilul Hashem!

Can these Stamford Hillies sink no lower????

Do you live in Hackney? Do you know what's going on here? Yes! Its absolutely their thoughts of final solution! We as Jews have NOTHING from them but pain! This is not a private case, the whole Heimishe community is suffering from this crazy thing! I
This has nothing to do with zoning laws, you ignorant! The loft was built according to all "British Standards" its the issue that even its within the zoning laws the council can still reject your planing application, and there's were the courts come in, if this loft would violate any "BS Codes" it wouldn't even reach court.

25

 May 03, 2009 at 09:06 AM brenda Says:

I am upset to hear about this . I know the family very well. Genuine special people. Yes the husband sits and learns and she is a true eyshas chayil. i think the judge was too harsh. because the London government are so 'straight' they cant seem to accept that a loft extension may make the road look 'messy' and 'uneven'. I think a penalty at most should have sufficed.

good luck and i hope it all works out for them.

26

 May 03, 2009 at 01:03 AM Anonymous Says:

Btw they had approved building plans but unfortunately the local government has changed it's claws and is slowly but surely picking bak on the jewish neighborhood. that block alone has bout 10 lofts.

27

 May 03, 2009 at 09:57 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #24  
Stamford Hilly Says:

Do you live in Hackney? Do you know what's going on here? Yes! Its absolutely their thoughts of final solution! We as Jews have NOTHING from them but pain! This is not a private case, the whole Heimishe community is suffering from this crazy thing! I
This has nothing to do with zoning laws, you ignorant! The loft was built according to all "British Standards" its the issue that even its within the zoning laws the council can still reject your planing application, and there's were the courts come in, if this loft would violate any "BS Codes" it wouldn't even reach court.

Yes, I do. Sorry to dissappoint you.

The council are totally wrong, we all know that, but that doesn't give anybody the right to compare this with the holocaust!

Whats wrong with these people?

Also, I would have hoped that such a major Talmid Chochom would know better than to allow holocaust references to be used to support him in the goyeshe velt.

28

 May 03, 2009 at 12:10 PM Anonymous Says:

i live in Brooklyn near a big collage and they keep expending on taxpayers expanse, a few years ago they build on part of a public children play park, now they are building nearby and taking away public parking, all in the name of Higher education and the politicians are falling for them, no one - even mayor bloomerg - to stand out against them taking advantage of public property.
at least the same understanding should go for a big family, with 10 children bli"h, and the city of London should be proud to help them!

29

 May 03, 2009 at 12:12 PM FrumJew Says:

It does seem that this whole thing is a tremendous chilul Hashem. If you live in a town or city you must follow its zoning laws. If this family has a case they should present it in court or to the council -- by their protesting in the streets it certainly seems that they don't have a case so they are making a spectacle instead. One cannot just ignore zoning laws and then cry when one has to tear down the illegally built structure.

30

 May 03, 2009 at 02:20 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #15  
Moshe Says:

Next year I will bake matza for 20 minutes again. Who knows, maybe I won't get caught - and even if I do, at least i did not get caught this year. Flexible morality really works

There is nothing moral about building codes. 18-minute matzah is a halacha, or at least a hiddur in a halacha, which is itself halacha. It's not a matter of getting caught, it's a matter of doing the right thing. Building codes are not the "right thing" they're just an imposition made up by people, and the only reason to keep them is the risk of punishment if you get caught.

31

 May 03, 2009 at 02:24 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #12  
ober chochom Says:

dina d'malchusa dina, while we're in golus we have to still remember there are laws we have to go by, the orld doesnt belong to us, and i agree with a local government wanting its town or city look normal the way it was for 100's of years, nyc and especially in willi and boro park should make similair rules, every 1 is building the weirdest extentions, not caring how the outside looks,

Idiot. Stamford Hill didn't exist 100 years ago, and in any case what makes the look of 100 years ago better than today's? Neighbourhoods exist for people, not the other way around, and if it's not fulfilling people's needs then what's the point? The beauty of a neighbourhood is yiddishe kinder learning Torah and doing mitzvos, and anything that makes that easier is good.

As for dina demalchusa dina, I suggest you try translating it. Then show how it's relevant here. For a clue, look up every instance in which it's used in the gemara. Try finding a single source that says there is an obligation to obey the law. Especially a law that does nothing but interfere in how a property owner uses his own property.

32

 May 03, 2009 at 02:29 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #22  
Anonymous Says:

Although I feel badly for the family, city governments have a point in enforcing rules that keep areas looking decent. Look at how ugly Boro Park has become because of the lack of planning and rules. Flatbush, on the other hand, is stricter with their zoning rules (which frum people complain about), and Flatbush has remained mostly a nice area.
I'm nervous about what's happening here in Lakewood, where I live now, where frum people also try to get around zoning laws by building monstrosities and putting new houses in spaces between houses (that are really illegal). The people like to live here because of the quality of life, but then they do their best to ruin the quality of life!
Why do so many frum people think they are above laws and rules?

What gives you the right to impose your private aesthetic tastes on everyone? I think Borough Park looks beautiful. More to the point, so do its inhabitants. And that's all that matters.

We are above laws and rules because everyone is above them. Since when has there ever been some sort of moral obligation to obey the law just because some city councillors made it? Who made them the right to dictate to people what they do with their own property?

33

 May 03, 2009 at 02:35 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #29  
FrumJew Says:

It does seem that this whole thing is a tremendous chilul Hashem. If you live in a town or city you must follow its zoning laws. If this family has a case they should present it in court or to the council -- by their protesting in the streets it certainly seems that they don't have a case so they are making a spectacle instead. One cannot just ignore zoning laws and then cry when one has to tear down the illegally built structure.

What chilul hashem? Who thinks less of them for this? Only you.

34

 May 03, 2009 at 02:42 PM PMO Says:

Reply to #31  
Milhouse Says:

Idiot. Stamford Hill didn't exist 100 years ago, and in any case what makes the look of 100 years ago better than today's? Neighbourhoods exist for people, not the other way around, and if it's not fulfilling people's needs then what's the point? The beauty of a neighbourhood is yiddishe kinder learning Torah and doing mitzvos, and anything that makes that easier is good.

As for dina demalchusa dina, I suggest you try translating it. Then show how it's relevant here. For a clue, look up every instance in which it's used in the gemara. Try finding a single source that says there is an obligation to obey the law. Especially a law that does nothing but interfere in how a property owner uses his own property.

Milhouse:
When you buy a property in a particular town, you agree, through your purchase, to abide by laws of that town. It is that simple. Here in FL, many communities are controlled by a homeowners association as well. Some people see it as a good thing and some as a bad thing. I happened to like it, and would only buy in a neighborhood that maintained the standards I was looking for. I know other people who specifically bought on the other side of town where the homes and properties are far less restricted in terms of their use (ugly, more run-down neighborhoods).

This man bought a property in a (perhaps overly) regulated town. That is not the town's fault. He should have investigated his options before buying there. This is not an issue of halacha, as he agreed to abide by the town's rules when he chose to move into that town. This is an issue of whether a man who was too stupid, ignorant, or lazy (maybe a combination of them all) to go and find out the regulations in his town, should be allowed to just make up his own rules however he sees fit.

In Brooklyn, notbody cares what anything looks like. Nobody cares about "integrity" of neighborhoods. Everything could be covered in filth and nobody would care so long as all the men wore the right kinds of hats.

Sorry, but most of the rest of the world is not interested in that mentality. Most people are proud of their community standards and work hard to keep them up.

It this guy wants a bigger house, let him go out and buy one in an appropriate area.

Once again... another Yid making another chillul H" because he feels that the rules that apply to everyone else should not apply to him.

35

 May 03, 2009 at 07:45 PM Anonymous Says:

If you think zoning laws are unimportant, just go to Monsey and see how it's been turned into the ugliest place you ever saw, because there are no zoning rules, anything goes. It looks just disgusting, and I'm ashamed to think what the non-Jews think when they see it. I don't blame them when they tried to stop us from moving across route 59 to the Airmont area.

36

 May 03, 2009 at 09:33 PM arik Says:

Reply to #14  
Anonymous Says:

You are so anti-semi heaven help you-no reason to be so be-grudging of other is this loft in your way? NO - What goes around comes around! feel bad for you!Stamford Hill is so ugly any way!

and so are you no doubt but a house can be rebuilt.

37

 May 03, 2009 at 09:56 PM bigwheeel Says:

Reply to #22  
Anonymous Says:

Although I feel badly for the family, city governments have a point in enforcing rules that keep areas looking decent. Look at how ugly Boro Park has become because of the lack of planning and rules. Flatbush, on the other hand, is stricter with their zoning rules (which frum people complain about), and Flatbush has remained mostly a nice area.
I'm nervous about what's happening here in Lakewood, where I live now, where frum people also try to get around zoning laws by building monstrosities and putting new houses in spaces between houses (that are really illegal). The people like to live here because of the quality of life, but then they do their best to ruin the quality of life!
Why do so many frum people think they are above laws and rules?

...I happen to lived in Borough Park (my spell-check insists that I write "borough") for the past 35 years and I haven't noticed that it's ugly!! Maybe some people see a reflection of themselves wherever they go. So moving didn't help much in your case!!!

38

 May 03, 2009 at 11:03 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #34  
PMO Says:

Milhouse:
When you buy a property in a particular town, you agree, through your purchase, to abide by laws of that town. It is that simple. Here in FL, many communities are controlled by a homeowners association as well. Some people see it as a good thing and some as a bad thing. I happened to like it, and would only buy in a neighborhood that maintained the standards I was looking for. I know other people who specifically bought on the other side of town where the homes and properties are far less restricted in terms of their use (ugly, more run-down neighborhoods).

This man bought a property in a (perhaps overly) regulated town. That is not the town's fault. He should have investigated his options before buying there. This is not an issue of halacha, as he agreed to abide by the town's rules when he chose to move into that town. This is an issue of whether a man who was too stupid, ignorant, or lazy (maybe a combination of them all) to go and find out the regulations in his town, should be allowed to just make up his own rules however he sees fit.

In Brooklyn, notbody cares what anything looks like. Nobody cares about "integrity" of neighborhoods. Everything could be covered in filth and nobody would care so long as all the men wore the right kinds of hats.

Sorry, but most of the rest of the world is not interested in that mentality. Most people are proud of their community standards and work hard to keep them up.

It this guy wants a bigger house, let him go out and buy one in an appropriate area.

Once again... another Yid making another chillul H" because he feels that the rules that apply to everyone else should not apply to him.

This is not some hick town in Florida, with a "neighborhood association" or whatever. This is Stamford Hill. If you can't tell the difference, don't comment.

39

 May 03, 2009 at 11:40 PM PMO Says:

Reply to #38  
Milhouse Says:

This is not some hick town in Florida, with a "neighborhood association" or whatever. This is Stamford Hill. If you can't tell the difference, don't comment.

63% of the residential communities in Palm Beach County are under the rules of an HOA.... You must be one of those people who looks at gray concrete all day and thinks it is beautiful.

Stamford Hill is a beautiful place where the people actually respect the integrity of their neighborhood. Clearly community integrity is just not important to you. Thats your right.... that is why you like living in Brooklyn, and I don't.

This is just a stupid family that should be run out of town on a rail.

40

 May 04, 2009 at 03:34 PM Rose Says:

Everyone is missing the point. Why did they build without permission in the first place? They probably anticipated a refusal because that is the latest policy being persued by the planning department. By refusing planning applications like this, which a few years ago would have gone straight through, this is a cynical attempt by Hackney council to force Jews (who they know have large families and need more living space) not to be able to accommodate their families, thereby forcing them either to find larger homes in the area, which they know don't exist or force them to move out of the area, which would suit them. Also, if we're talking about retaining character, why are they allowing all the ugly, boxy new build blocks of flats, made of cheap materials which deteriorate quickly and which are modern eyesores but seem to be going up like dandelions in the summer! As for the planning officer's suggestion of digging out the basement, that is one costly exercise with pitfalls of its own, and they know it. This is an issue for our heimishe councilors to try and resolve by advocating for the community at local government level.

41

 May 04, 2009 at 05:42 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #39  
PMO Says:

63% of the residential communities in Palm Beach County are under the rules of an HOA.... You must be one of those people who looks at gray concrete all day and thinks it is beautiful.

Stamford Hill is a beautiful place where the people actually respect the integrity of their neighborhood. Clearly community integrity is just not important to you. Thats your right.... that is why you like living in Brooklyn, and I don't.

This is just a stupid family that should be run out of town on a rail.

Again, who cares about your hick towns in Florida? What have they got to do with Stamford Hill?

"Stamford Hill is a beautiful place where the people actually respect the integrity of their neighborhood." Hahahahaha! If I had suspected you of an ounce of honesty before, this would have settled any doubt. By what aesthetic standard in the world is Stamford Hill more beautiful than Brooklyn?!

42

 May 05, 2009 at 03:38 AM Me Says:

Reply to #40  
Rose Says:

Everyone is missing the point. Why did they build without permission in the first place? They probably anticipated a refusal because that is the latest policy being persued by the planning department. By refusing planning applications like this, which a few years ago would have gone straight through, this is a cynical attempt by Hackney council to force Jews (who they know have large families and need more living space) not to be able to accommodate their families, thereby forcing them either to find larger homes in the area, which they know don't exist or force them to move out of the area, which would suit them. Also, if we're talking about retaining character, why are they allowing all the ugly, boxy new build blocks of flats, made of cheap materials which deteriorate quickly and which are modern eyesores but seem to be going up like dandelions in the summer! As for the planning officer's suggestion of digging out the basement, that is one costly exercise with pitfalls of its own, and they know it. This is an issue for our heimishe councilors to try and resolve by advocating for the community at local government level.

"This is an issue for our heimishe councilors to try and resolve by advocating for the community at local government level. ”

Our "Heimishe" councilors have been trying to resolve this for years already and for all their words, they are completly powerless. We would do better joining the ruling party in Hackney rather than trying to fight them as a minority as we have done in Stamford HIll all the years. The way of Lebowitz et al, doesn't work.

43

 May 05, 2009 at 09:44 AM Proud 2 b a 'Stamford Hilly' Says:

Reply to #11  
bigwheeel Says:

...But this creates precedent. I don't know what the specific rules are in London. Certainly, there's a buildings dep't. and people should make an effort to get all permits before they start to build!

All you ppl hu have been commenting obviously don't know abt the housing shortage in Stamford Hill! There is no option of moving to a bigger house. There are no bigger houses to move to!!! There isn't the option of applying for planning permission b4 building. Permission Will NOT be granted!!! It's actually often easier to be granted permission retroactively.
The council have not only not made it easier for the b'H growing kehillah, over the past few years, it has become extremely difficult for Hackney residents to expand @ all, be it loft, front or rear extensions.
The stamford Hill kehillah are on the whole law abiding and an asset to the society.
We are quiet, don't harm anyone and make up a large part of Stamford Hill/Hackney, the council should be doing their best to accomodate us and not the opposite.
It doesn't actually really bother any1 that 1 house has been extended!!!!

44

 Aug 07, 2009 at 10:24 AM I Says:

Stamford hillis so ugly ! it needs to stop the orthodox jewish think thay can do whatever they like just because they have loads of children ! by the way how can they afford it!!?? using benefits i bet !! now they want to ruin the area ! why dont they move back to israel ???? !!!!

45

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!