ARUNDEL ROAD GARAGES - The TBS's original objections to this development plan (see below) have now been replied to by the Council.  The TBS has now responded to this letter as follows:

 Further to your letter dated 21 June alerting us to additional Sun Path Diagrams issued within the appellant’s final representation on 8 May 2012. We have considered this additional information and remain to be convinced that the development will not be overbearing to and create overshadowing to the rear gardens of 28 Egerton Road and 26 Berkeley Road directly behind. Our remaining concerns are as follows; (comments below edited)
- We are not convinced that the diagrams take into account that the development site sits approximately 1m above the level of the adjacent gardens.
- Whilst there are more shadow studies than included within the original Design and Access Statement, they still fail to demonstrate the afternoon period at various times of the year.
There is no doubt that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the rear gardens of 28 Egerton Road and 26 Berkeley Road by both enclosing and overshadowing the rear garden areas. Once again we recommend that this appeal is dismissed.

 

TBS original response:

Further to our comments submitted prior to the planning decision (as attached) we would like to take this opportunity to respond to the applicant’s Grounds of Appeal.

1.    PROPOSALS TOO INTENSIVE AND OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE AREA

 Four houses (in the form of almost a continuous terrace) expressed as eight scaled down versions of typical Victorian houses of the area is over intensive development and will not compliment the neighbourhood.

  •  The height of the proposed houses is at once both too low to properly match the typical local Victorian houses but yet too high to avoid overshadowing the rear gardens of 28 Egerton Road and 27 Berkeley Road.
  •  The design of the proposed houses crudely mimics the character of the houses in the locality and does not respect the character of the area.
  •   At 100 dwellings per hectare the proposal certainly represents over development and fails to reflect the mixed and open character of the area.
2.    PROPOSALS OVERBEARING TO REAR GARDENS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES
  •   The two Shadow Studies submitted with the application have been very carefully selected (1400 on 21 Dec and 1700 on 21 July) to try to demonstrate that the development has little or no impact on adjacent gardens. A full analysis of representative dates throughout the year will clearly demonstrate that the development all but blocks out afternoon and evening sun to adjacent gardens, particularly that of 28 Egerton Road which is very badly affected due to being west of the development site.
  •   As the proposed houses are 2 storeys high and set back from the boundary by only 3.0/3.5m deep gardens, they will have considerably more impact on adjacent gardens than the single storey garages which, although sitting on the boundary, by presenting a blank wall have very little impact. We must not forget that the development site sits approx 1m above the level of the adjacent gardens, which means that anything higher than single storey is too high and will have a detrimental and overbearing impact on the adjacent gardens.
We can see that it is not difficult to refute the claims made by the applicant in the Grounds for Appeal. Once again we recommend that this Appeal is dismissed and that this overly intensive development which will not improve the character of the area is not allowed to proceed.
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.