It is upsetting to find that the applicant uses falsehood and misrepresentation in order to try to achieve his aim.

I enclose a map used in the applicant’s presentation brochure and submit another which shows the facts as they are and not as the applicant makes them out to be.

The map I submit shows the actual Full and Part Heights of Houses.

The map submitted by the applicant shows buildings as solid buildings going all the way up to the roof, even if the rear extension is only one storey high. This serves the applicant’s intention to show a greater density of buildings than there actually is so that his own does not look so completely out of place.

No 27 York Road and its integral neighbour is shown as a 4 storey house. Yet it has only three storeys and a very small cellar which is completely below street level. The planned Block B next to it has four storeys above street level.

For the purpose of this application, one needs to apply the street as level from where one starts counting the storeys above ground. Cellars and basements are therefore irrelevant, we speak of the actual floors above ground. You will find that most of the applicant’s height shadings are false and misleading as intended. No 27 has three storeys above ground. Yet the applicant wants to erect a building with four storeys above ground right next to it, claiming that No 27 has four storeys too.

In the previous planning refusal due regard to listed buildings and their settings was given as a reason for refusal.

Houses No 40 and 42 are the oldest in the street, being late Regency, yet no due regard is given to their setting, only the setting of the old Trinity School house, which is of Victorian date. The proposed Block B opposite Nos 40 and 42 is four storeys high, whilst mine and my neighbours house is only three storeys high.

When one considers that BT wants to build on the south side of York Road, this would cut off a lot of light for the residents of the north side which happens to have the lowest houses in the entire south side of York road right opposite the much taller proposed blocks of flats.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the impact of the proposed buildings on York Road is shown from many angles yet assiduously avoided where it counts, namely on the opposite side of the road, because it would look very bad indeed. There is no drawing showing the south side superimposed on the north side or vice versa - as it would show the true impact of the proposed buildings.

Nowhere in the application does the applicant even mention that he plans to erect the tallest buildings facing the lowest houses - some of them listed - on the north side of York Road. The applicant contravenes the instructions that the setting of listed houses has to be taken into consideration. This has been disregarded blantly.

As houses on Church Road - contrary to York Road - are deeply set back on either side, one does not need to worry about the privation of light by the north side on the south side, as there is effectively none.

Therefore one can look at the north side as one unit without having to worry about any south side implications.

There are houses on either side of Telephone House which taken together provide a good guideline as far as a skyline for any proposed block of flats is concerned, bearing in mind yet again that the listed Georgian terrace to the West has three storeys above ground and Hanover House to the east of Telephone House has two storeys. The applicant proposes to put between them a five-storey building.

The applicant has taken the old church - which to all intents and purposes as a structure can only be called a house of worship and definitely not a residence or a block of flats - and the old redundant BT office block as a guideline as to the height of a residential building, ie the proposed block of flats (A). The height of a church and a then non-existent office block are entirely irrelevant as a guideline to the height of any future residential building being erected in this stretch of road. Only the houses on either side of the then empty plot are, which means that a building with three floors is the best solution.

The applicant belabours the point that he has taken the previous historic terrace as guideline for the height of building he wants to erect on York Road adjoining the still extant end of terrace.

However, this is a fallacy as there were no buildings behind the terrace towards Church Road and now there will be, therefore the York road frontage need not be as high as the former buildings there. After all, the rest of the environment has not changed apart from the additional two-storey Clarenden Mews terrace.

In this instance the height of the houses opposite needs to be the guideline for any housing to be erected on the south side as the proposed blocks restrict light and infringe on the residential amenities of their neighbours opposite considerably,contrary to the light impact study done by the applicant.

Historically, there are no purpose built blocks of flats in York or Church Road. The blocks are still far too massive for both streets, but particularly for York Road, and have a detrimental impact in this Conservation area.

The applicant tries to squeeze far too many flats into the space available to maximise his profits and has actually increased the number of flats to 43.

The level of density permitted by law for this conservation area is 16 units, not 43, please see RPG 9 and RPG3. According to the applicant, the BT plot measures 0.307 hectares and the government guideline per hectare is between 30 to 50 dwellings. Using 50 as a calculation basis, 16 units would represent the Government guideline at the outside, which would be in keeping with the York Road population density and is acceptable. Anything above it is not. Calculated at 30 units per hectare the figure would be 11 units. And certainly not the proposed 43 units the applicant tries to impose on the Conservation area for reasons of profit or, in the actual words of an involved Crest developer at the Civic Society meeting, "we want to maximise our profits - any way we can".

Proposed Block D has a brick finish. Yet all York Road buildings are rendered. The affordable housing would stick out like a sore thumb.

Historically, the trees were a condition for BT to plant to lessen the impact of Telephone House on York Road and to improve the York Road environment with a treescape. I refer you to the details in the old planning records.

In order for the extant trees to grow where they are, the block of flats needs to be set back sufficiently to allow room for the growing trees. The applicant wants to take these up and replace them with "appropriate" trees. Why? Because the applicant has not allowed sufficient space in front of his blocks of flats in York Road for the extant trees to grow, yet shows fully grown trees on his drawings reaching up to the roof of the proposed blocks of flats facing York Road. This is misrepresentation. There is no need to take up the trees in the first place, just to give them the space they need to grow. We do not want pollarded trees with branches and no leaves because there is no space for them to grow.

This is set close to the pavement and the plan envisages felling the existing significant trees which are in a Conservation area and under protection as such, with no trees envisaged in front.

The applicant completely disregards the significant trees in this Conservation area.

Church road is a wide, two way street with no parking either side. The buildings in Church Road opposite the old BT site are mainly commercial. If access is via Church Road no residents are inconvenienced by an additional, say 60 - 70 cars. For this reason alone, Church road is the ideal point for access.

At present access is envisaged via York Road. York Road is a very narrow one-way residential street and has parking on the north side during daytime and on both sides at night all the way, meaning there is no further parking space available. This narrowness is already a problem for ambulances, the police and, in particular, the fire brigade. If the development is accessed by York Road this will further reduce the number of night parkings for York Road residents, especially as the entrance needs to be wide enough to allow access for the fire brigade.

The car parking with all pertaining problems has been addressed insufficiently by allocating about one parking space per flat and only four for visitors. York Road is not elastic and cannot provide more spaces than there are already, let alone less.

The flats planned are mainly two bedroom flats with very few three bedroom ones. This means that a two bedroom flat can be occupied by up to four people, often with two cars. Only 38 plus 4 parking spaces (the latter for affordable housing) are allocated for 43 flats. The number of flats implies that there could be a minimum of 43 cars, rising to a maximum of 86.

Where do those extra cars park?

Only Four parking spaces are allocated to visitors. If visitors go to the Crest flats via York Road they will try to park in York Road. This puts an unacceptable strain on the already overused parking facilities in the road.

And were will all the tradespeople park who will have business in the flats? In over-used York road, to the total detriment of the present residents.

I understand that Mrs Ruth Chambers came away from the most recent meeting of the Civic Society with the impression that it was in favour of the proposed development when the opposite was the case.

It makes sense for the applicant to consult with the Local Planning Authority about what is allowed and what is not. However, to mention these consultations frequently creates the impression the applicant is doing something he should not, knowing full well that his excessive number of units is what he is trying to make feasible. However, this casts both parties in dubious light in view of the plans submitted, which do not reflect the four points on which the first planning application was refused.

And what is the applicant negotiating with the Local Planning Authority?

I hope the applicant is using the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority is not being manipulated.