29 SEYMOUR ROAD 14/05230/F
This application is an improvement over the earlier applications for 5 no. and 4 no. houses respectively. However, we are still concerned about certain aspects of the application;
The disruption to neighbours of car movements serving 4 no. houses with their headlights down the driveway and past the front door of No 29 to the rear of the site is still a concern.
Local residents in Dongola Road to the rear are concerned about the new houses blocking out sunlight from their rear gardens. We would ask that shadow studies are prepared to establish that this is not the case. We would suggest that the brick wall separating the front gardens from the parking area is unnecessarily high and will both make the houses feel enclosed and detract from the sense of natural surveillance and communality which one would normally expect in a small development like this grouped around a shared courtyard.
We would question the use of artificial slates in the context of a historic asset like no. 29. The drawings clearly show the attractive variety and character of natural slates. As the slate finish is carried down the vertical faces of the building and will become a significant element within the finished work, we would strongly recommend the use of natural slate.
The single storey rear extensions are all significantly higher than the existing boundary walls onto neighbours’ gardens. This will have the effect of blocking out sun and daylight from adjacent gardens but also making them feel unreasonably enclosed. We are not overly concerned about the rear of houses 1 and 2, as the width of the rear extension is limited. But in the case of House 3 we would recommend that the floor level of the kitchen and bedroom 3 is dropped by 400 mm or 2 steps so as to reduce the impact on adjacent gardens and neighbours. Where the new buildings are shown directly alongside the existing stone boundary walls to neighbouring properties, we would remind the applicant that there is a statutory duty to carry out the work with care such that there is no damage, instability or adverse effect to the existing walls. The chimneys are shown as being tight to the roof and low in relation to adjoining properties. We would ask for technical confirmation that the fumes from the chimneys will be safely discharged so as not to cause pollution and nuisance to neighbouring properties.
There are many discrepancies within the drawings and the Design and Access Statement which need to be clarified before a decision can be made;
- The chimney to House 1 is shown variously as both within the gable wall and projecting from it.
- The elevations show 3 chimneys for 3 houses. Is this a mistake or is one chimney false?
- The roof connection between Houses 2 and 3 is shown differently on different drawings.
- The side boundary enclosure between House 1 and the rear garden of No. 29 is not shown.
- Within the SCALE section of the DAS the text still refers to 2 storey development from the earlier applications.
- None of the drawings have a scale bar, which is a stipulated requirement of the planning process.
We recommend that the design is revised as above before a decision is made.