Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Jun 13
Several recent planning issues have caused local residents to voice their concerns to the Trust.
The most disturbing is the spectacular loss of trees along the road boundary of Woolverstone, Bereweeke Road, where the previous verdant growth has been removed, to the considerable detriment of the road’s appearance. Apparently some time ago the TPO listing for the group of trees was changed to TPOs for individual trees and, as the area is not in a Conservation Area, the developers who recently acquired the site have not acted illegally in removing all these trees prior to development. The Trust contacted the Head of Planning Development, who promptly responded to say that the matter had been handed on to the Arboricultural Officer and the Case Officer, indicating that a scheme was under discussion even though an actual application had not yet appeared in the lists.
Another matter worrying locals is the withdrawal by Banner Homes of their proposed development at Park House, Park Road for further discussion with the planners. Their current scheme would retain and convert the existing house into six ?ats, with two further flats over new garages and two larger houses to be built in the garden, and it seems to have been well-received in general terms by the Planning Department. Nearby residents are concerned that they might come back with another proposal to demolish the existing house, despite the fact that demolition of the house has previously been dismissed on appeal.
The proposed restaurant at Abbey Mill, Colebrook Street has worried some nearby residents because of possible disturbance from additional traffic for deliveries, etc. Provided this is taken into account when considering the scheme, the panels looking at it thought the proposed use would be appropriate for the building. We were also approached by the neighbour of Orchard Cottage, Grafton Road, a bungalow that is to be demolished to make way for a 5-bedroom house. He was worried about the possible loss of light caused by a much taller structure being built close to his house, and we advised him to approach his councillors, whom we felt would be able to help him more than we could at this stage in the planning process.
The proposal to demolish part of the wall on the front boundary of 27 Clifton Road (see the last TrustNews) has been withdrawn, as has the residential development following the demolition of Beaconsfield House, 88 Andover Road because of the threat to the survival of significant trees.
The majority of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate now seem to be for Householder applications, where it is not possible to make any additional comments to those made when considering the original application. Most of the remainder are by Written Representation, when we write a letter if we either agree or disagree with the grounds for the appeal, and write no letter when we have made only a passing comment or no comment at all on the application. It was therefore a welcome surprise to have several appeals by Written Representation to which we could add further comments.
The first was unusual, because for once we agreed with the appellant: he wants to demolish a double garage at 47 Monks Road and build a 2-bedroom dwelling, and was appealing against the refusal of his scheme. We liked the contemporary design of the new building, which we felt would provide an unobtrusive feature of interest in the street scene that would be less detrimental to the local environment that the over-large ‘dormers’(‘sheds on the roof’ is a more accurate description) that have already been installed in the area, and we therefore supported his appeal.
The next appeal was against the refusal to allow the demolition of 68 Stoney Lane to allow ten dwellings to be built on the site and behind Nos 58-72, to which we had objected. We therefore had no problem writing in support of WCC’s refusal of the scheme because of its cramped layout.
We also had no problem in supporting the refusal of the proposal to demolish Rooksacre, Lankhills Road to make way for four 5-bedroom dwellings of traditional design, to which we had objected. We regretted that no apparent thought had been given to the refurbishment and conversion of the existing house into separate dwellings, with a suitably modest new-build development in the garden, and felt that allowing it would set a very undesirable precedent for the future. It is often claimed by Inspectors that each case is considered on its own individual merits, but this was clearly not thought to be the case by the appellant, who used as supporting evidence in his Grounds for Appeal the fact that a scheme with a similar density had been allowed on appeal on the neighbouring site!