TBS has considered the revised drawings 7/8 June. 

These revisions refer only to the boundary wall and the omission of the on-site parking and make no attempt to address our previous objections of 26 January as follows-:proposals are too high and overshadow the rear garden of 22 Falmouth Road ¬living room has only restricted natural daylight and almost no outlook and will not provide satisfactory living conditions. We did and still do recommend that the application is withdrawn and re-planned as we suggested. To compound the problems with this application, the off-street parking space has been omitted which will only serve to aggravate paring problems in the area.  Again we recommend refusal.


TBS original response:

The Bishopston Society considers this latest application to be a marked improvement on previous applications for this site, which were contrived and out of scale. Saying that, we do still have concerns about various aspects of the application as set out below:

The application does not include any drawings or photographs of the existing garage, which makes it difficult to assess the proposals which attempt to replicate the original.

Our main concern, expressed in our pre-app comments of 14 December 2011, is that the proposals are significantly higher than the existing boundary wall along the boundary with 22 Falmouth Road and will tend to overshadow and enclose its garden. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the tall monopitch roof has been carried the full length of the gable wall of 2 Monmouth Road, whereas the original stops approximately 2m short of the boundary with 22 Falmouth. We suggest that the monopitch roof in the new proposals is cut back to match the existing. Secondly, the height of the flat roofed element of the new proposal is approximately 1m above the existing boundary wall and a full 3m above the garden of 22 Falmouth. We consider this unacceptable.

We are also concerned about the poor quality of space and outlook from the Living Room. The Living Room is virtually an internal room with only two small velux for daylight. The only outlook is via the sidelight of the front door. As it stands, this would not appear to create a pleasant space for the main living/dining at the heart of the house. It might help to glaze the front door (it is protected by high wall/gates) and to enlarge the velux roof lights. A more radical alternative would be to move the living forward, put the bedroom where the study is and put the study behind the living. The living would be the only part of the house to have a pitched roof. In this way the living would have excellent outlook and daylight ,which would flood back into the kitchen area, and would open out directly onto the terrace in the front garden.

On balance, we would recommend that the application is withdrawn or refused and reworked to produce a more acceptable arrangement.

NOTE: the articles shown above are merely the most recent 10 in our Planning section. There's lots more as you'll see by clicking through to the sub-sections Commentary, Architecture, Licensing and Policies.