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: 3389 housing units
of which:
Approved: 1813 housing units
Pending: 612 housing units
Refused: 821 housing units
Withdrawn: 143 housing units
Applications Granted
N/A
Applications Refused
46 Grasmere Road (Ref: 22/00292/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 5 flats (1 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed). Comment: This is the second application refused on this property. The previous one was for 8 flats. Reasons for refusal: 1. The development would dominate and detract from the appearance of the street scene and character of the area; 2. The proposed rear balconies / terraces would be detrimental to the amenitiesof the occupiers of No.44 Grasmere Road by enabling direct overlooking into private amenity space; 3. The proposed development would result in poor quality and substandard living accommodation for future residents of units 3 and 5 by virtue of poor outlook and insufficient private amenity space; 4. The application has failed to adequately consider the effect of the development upon trees. The impact of the development on the existing trees and the lack of replacement specimens would cause substantial harm to the environment and appearance of the area; 5. The proposed development would fail to sufficiently contribute towards the provision family sized units for which there is an identified need in the Borough; 6. By reason of lack of information the proposed development fails to demonstrate that it will not result in a detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety.
20 Manor Way (Ref: 20/06275/OUT) Demolition of existing family home and the construction of four houses (2 x 4 bed, 2 x 5 bed) with 8 car parking spaces. Comment: Reason for refusal: The proposed development, due to the positioning of the proposed backland houses and associated driveway and parking spaces, would fail to respect the locally distinctive development pattern, layout and siting of buildings. From the proposed site plan I would say that it should also have been refused on the grounds of overdevelopment, and amenity / loss of privacy to neighbours.
31 Pampisford Road (Ref: 22/01805/FUL) Conversion of existing 4 bedroom family home into 2 x 3 bed terraced houses, plus creation of a new access to the rear of the site and the construction of 2 x 3 bed semi-detached houses with a total of 2 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: 1) The proposed development to the rear of the site would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area by reason of its poor out of context alien design, inappropriate materials, mass, height, site coverage and associated relationship to garden and failure to respond to the existing pattern and character of the area; 2) The proposed extensions to the host building, by reason of their siting, design, height, massing and appearance would cause harm to the appearance of the host dwelling which would in turn, negatively impact the visual amenities of the existing streetscene; 3) The application has failed to adequately consider the effect of the development upon trees and biodiversity. The impact of the development on the existing trees and the lack of replacement specimens for the loss of the existing tree, would cause substantial harm to the environment and appearance of the area; 4) The application has failed to adequately consider fire safety which could pose a risk to future occupants.
Significant New Applications
Birch Lane (Ummed Villa) (Ref: 22/02577/FUL) Demolition of existing house, alterations, erection of replacement single/two storey house incorporating dormer extensions with accommodation within the roof space, double garage and swimming pool. Comment: This is the second application for the redevelopment of this property. The previous was refused. We follow the Webb Estate’s guidance on this application.
176 Foxley Lane (Ref: 22/02639/OUT) Demolition of 2 existing semi-detached family homes and the construction of 8 x 4 bed semi-detached houses with a total of 8 car parking spaces. Comment: I believe this is the second application for this development. It is still based on squeezing 8 houses into the space currently occupied by 2. Propose objection based on: Loss of 2 family homes, Over-development, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties, Inadequate car parking.
47 Graham Road (Ref: 22/01792/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 4 x 3 bed houses (3 in a terrace and 1 detached) with a total of 6 car parking spaces. Comment: I believe that this is another re-application for essentially the same development. It is still based on squeezing 4 houses into the space currently occupied by 1. Propose objection based on: Loss of a family home, Over-development, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties, Inadequate car parking.
32 Highfield Road (Ref: 22/02239/FUL) Demolition of outbuildings and the construction of a 5 bed detached house with 1 car parking space. Comment: Propose a neutral stance.
1 Meadow Close (Ref: 22/02540/FUL) Demolition of garage and outbuilding and construction of a 2 bed detached two-storey dwelling fronting Meadow Hill with 2 car parking spaces. Comment: This is an ‘infill’ development proposal seeking to squeeze a small house, with very little amenity space, between existing houses. Propose objection based on: Overdevelopment, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties.
27 Riddlesdown Road (Ref: 22/02666/OUT) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 9 flats (4 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed) over 4 floors with 9 car parking spaces. The design is totally out of character, and there is only a very small outside amenity area. Comment: Propose objection based on: Loss of a family home, Over-development, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties, Inadequate car parking.
49A Selcroft Road (Ref: 22/02651/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of a 3 storey building comprising 8 flats (1 x 1 bed, 7 x 2 bed) with 6 car parking spaces. Comment: Propose objection based on: Loss of a family home, Over-development, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties, Inadequate car parking.
56 Smitham Downs Road – Land to Rear (Ref: 22/02644/FUL) Comment: This appears to be an application to seek consent for the 4 bed detached house that has not been built in accordance with the granted planning consent. It seems to follow enforcement action, or the threat thereof. The specific breaches are: 1. Ridge is 200mm higher than the consented scheme; 2. The eaves are 400mm higher than the consented scheme; 3. The ground floor level is 550mm higher than the consented scheme; 4. Different materials used on the elevations than the consented scheme. Propose objection on the basis that the scheme should have been built in accordance with the planning consent. Developers must be sent a message that choosing to ignore planning requirements has both practical and financial consequences.
1A Woodcote Valley Road (Ref: 22/01483/FUL) Construction of rear extensions at first and second floor level and conversion of the property into 5 flats (1 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 1 x 4 bed) with 6 car parking spaces. Comment: This is the second application for this property. The previous application was to convert the property into an 8 person HMO, and was refused. Propose objection based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties.