Dear Ms Chambers,
REF: PLANNING APPLICATION - TW/00/01474/FUL/RCC
Thank you for your notification of the above planning application for the erection of 43 Flats with basement level parking (after demolition of Telephone House).
I am at a loss to know why the developers, Crest with Southgate, have submitted practically the same plan as before.
HEIGHT
The proposed Block B, which is the direct concern of house numbers 38 - 44 on the North side of York Road, is still four floors high. Its immediate neighbour on the South side, number 27, York House, is only three floors high, despite the fact that in the Feasibility Study, Building Height and Massing Drawing #8444, house number 27 is incorrectly shown as being four floors high.
I have tried hard to get the correct comparative heights between Block B and 40/42 York Road on the North side. After asking for assistance today from the Planning Department, using Reference Roof Plan - Levels and Sections drawing 1.01, we were unable to get the correct measurement of the buildings. It was suggested that someone had muddled the scale which was used. Can you let me know?
LIGHT
The Sunlight/Daylight reports commissioned by the developer and prepared by Schatanowski and Brooks stated that there should be no adverse loss of Sunlight/Daylight.
However, their colour projections by this company showed that, except at 10:00 am, there was considerable overshadowing continuing until their last reading at 16:00 on a day in March this year.
PRIVACY
It goes almost without saying that there is bound to be a loss of privacy, from both the proximity and height of Block B.
There has been little attempt to set the block back sufficiently, to ameliorate the problem.
TREES
It is proposed that the existing trees on the South side of York Road will be removed (see Context Section C - C, Northside Block B).
New, semi-mature trees are proposed to replace those existing, implying a further loss of privacy. These trees were planted around 1978 and it is obvious that any new trees will take some time to reach the same size.
HOUSING DENSITY
It appears the new proposal has added one more housing unit to the plan.
I understand that the number of units proposed (43) considerable exceeds what is intended in: RPG9 and PPG3 for housing density. I hope that the Council will uphold the correct guidelines. It has been suggested that 32 units might be a more appropriate application.
TRAFFIC / PARKING
Whatever density of housing may be allowed in the future, there will have to be more parking provision for these flats. Most people buying these flats at the suggested prices will have two cars; many will have visitors. Overflow parking will be sought in York Road. York Road is already having serious parking problems for the residents: it should probably be for residents only.
DURING BUILDING
If any access should be allowed through York Road for building purposes, the following should be taken into consideration: the age of the houses opposite the site; their cellars, pavements and gardens; levels of noise and dirt and indeed the parking of residents’s cars. Will alternative parking be made, for those in the way of vehicles entering and leaving? Should we apply for this, if any future building permission is granted?
CONSERVATION
As the owner of one of the oldest listed buildings in York Road, I still feel the developer could be more sensitive and less obviously profit orientated. There has to be a balance in such an area. I hope the Council would not encourage a developer who would disregard conservation.
There is a chance now, to put something really appropriate on this site. It would be a great pity to let his opportunity slip and end up with something second rate.
Yours sincerely,