| Latest Planning Comments: |
|
Application: |
December 2011 – 11/03366 |
|
Title: |
19 to 21 Craufurd Rise. Demolition of existing properties and the construction of 9 two-bedroom
apartments with access, parking and associated works. |
|
We commented on the previous proposals for this site (11/01010) in May this year. We are pleased to note that the scheme has been reduced from 12 apartments to 9. However, our concerns remain that the scale, mass and bulk of the proposed block represents overdevelopment of the site. The parking provision, accessed by a drive through archway, is adequate. However, the provision of parking has resulted in the loss of all amenity space. The provision of a bike and waste bin store to the front of the site is visually intrusive. Following the regretful approval of an apartment block development at 12 to 14 Craufurd Rise, we remain concerned that this road may be developed on a similar basis to Shoppenhangers Road. Unlike Shoppenhangers, this location has smaller plots, with less opportunity for landscaped amenity space to be provided in addition to parking. | |
|
Application: |
December 2011 – 11/03316 |
|
Title: |
Savoia House, Bray Road. Two storey, part single storey side and rear extension. |
|
We believe that the proposed extensions will improve the elevations and enhance the living accommodation. However, the property is in a designated flood risk area, and flood related issues are not addressed in the application. In particular, the net increase in footprint is not demonstrated to be within the 30 sq. metres permitted under Policy F1. In any location liable to flooding the application should have a narrative relating to flood risk assessment. | |
|
Application: |
December 2011 – 11/03282 |
|
Title: |
103 Beverley gardens. (Retrospective) Demolition of existing single garage, followed by erection of
out-building. Construction of brick wall with gate. |
|
This retrospective application relates to building work which was apparently undertaken about two years ago. We are concerned with retrospective proposals as a matter of principle. Whilst this is clearly an attempt to remedy the current situation, certain elements of the application remain undetermined. The proposed use of the outbuilding is not clear. Application for change of use would presumably be required if the intention was residential. | |
