The current volume of planning applications and decisions in the PWRA area can make it challenging to keep up with what is being proposed for our area. Consequently the PWRA Planning Officer now prepares a summary of planning activity in our area so we can more easily track this, and determine the action we will take for new planning applications.
We believe that this will also be useful for members and publish it here so YOU can quickly see what we believe to be the most significant planning matters in the PWRA area, the actions we will be taking / have taken, and enable members to take their own actions (eg objecting or supporting new planning applications).
Please do read through this Planning Summary, and we strongly urge you to also take the actions that we at the PWRA will be taking (see Objection reasons in RED INK) in response to the new applications listed.
Running Total of Additional Housing Units in the PWRA Area (from 2018):
Total: 3399 housing units
of which:
Approved: 1849 housing units
Pending: 547 housing units
Refused: 860 housing units
Withdrawn: 143 housing units
Applications Granted
40a Foxley Lane (Ref: 22/02223/FUL) 7 flats (4 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed). Comment: The officer report recommending approval reads like one seeking to justify approval in the face of evidence to the contrary (in my personal opinion).
121 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/05946/FUL) 9 flats (5 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed). Comment: An earlier proposal for this property was refused. The officer report recommending approval leans very heavily on SPD2 to justify the recommendation.
6 Oscar Close (Ref: 21/06018/FUL) 4 X 3 bed semi-detached houses with 4 car parking spaces.
1 Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 20/06319/FUL) 16 flats. Comment: We are aware that this overdevelopment was granted permission some months ago. That it is officially appearing now usually means that the developer has only recently agreed the s.106 and / or similar documentation with the council.
Applications Refused
87-89 Foxley Lane (Ref: 21/03333/FUL) 22 flats with 22 car parking spaces. Comment: Over development is the reason for refusal:
21A Godstone Road (Ref: 22/01525/FUL) 5 flats with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Out of Character, ii) Poor quality of accommodation, iii) No disabled access, iv) car parking and highway concerns, v) No cycle provision, vi) Inadequate refuse storage, vii) Inadequate information on landscaping and flood prevention.
1 Meadow Close – Land adjacent (Ref: 22/02540/FUL) 2 bed house with 2 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Over development and Out of character, ii) Highway and pedestrian safety concerns (although the 2 car parking spaces proposed is regarded as an over-provision!)
38 Selcroft Road (Ref: 21/05681/FUL) Conversion of out-building into a self-contained ‘house’. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Inadequate accommodation (including lack of privacy and amenity space), ii) Inappropriate impact on #38 (eg in terms of privacy, amenity, and light), iii) Failure to provide details of car parking and access arrangements.
61 Selcroft Road (Ref: 21/05491/FUL) 6 flats with 6 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Out of Character, ii) Poor standard of accommodation, iii) Unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties, iv) Highway and traffic concerns (incl: lack of car parking provision; poor parking layout; unacceptable widening of existing crossover; lack of pedestrian access path; insufficient vehicle and pedestrian sight lines).
19 Upper Woodcote Village – Land adjacent (Ref: 21/03522/FUL) 4 bed house with 4 car [arking spaces. Comment: Appeal dismissed as proposal would have unacceptable impact on the Webb Estate Conservation Area.
Significant New Applications
91-93 Brighton Road (Ref: 22/03066/FUL) Conversion of existing 2 semi-detached houses to form 9 flats ( 5 x 3 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 1 x 1 bed) with 7 car parking spaces. Comment: The existing houses are adjacent to the Reedham car park. The proposal envisages some flats below the current ground level with light wells. It largely keeps the current frontage and extends into the current rear garden. Propose objection based on: Loss of two family homes, Overdevelopment, Inadequate car parking.
122 Pampisford Road (Valentine Court) (Ref: 22/00014/FUL) Retrospective application to add an additional flat to this development (there is consent for 8 flats, and this application adds a ninth). Comment: The new configuration is for 2 x 3 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 5 x 1 bed, and a studio flat with 4 car parking spaces. Presumably this application is retrospective as the developer has already proceeded with the new configuration. Propose objection based on: Overdevelopment, Inadequate car parking / Highways.