Planning Application 23/00081/ful – To build two semi-detached, three bedroom houses
Our resident’s association strongly object to the above planning application for the following reasons: –
The Angus Close development was built by Davis Homes. In 1966 it was marketed by them at the Ideal Homes Exhibition. It was to be an ‘open plan’ site with no fenced or hedged front gardens. It was to have green areas with trees for the residents to enjoy. This is why Davis Homes left the ‘green space’ by 17 – 27 Angus Close and the ‘green space’ outside houses 47 – 55 and did not build on it. It is part of the design of the existing development and that is how it should stay. In Angus Close there are no grass verges. These two ‘green spaces’ are all that the residents have.
In the Design and Access statement under ‘use’ it says that it is partially used as pedestrian access to houses 17-37. It omits to mention that it is not only a pedestrian access but it is also parking spaces for 6 cars. The residents who live in houses 17-37 do not have a drive, neither do a large number of other residents who live at the top of Angus Close. If the new development should go ahead the residents will lose the 6 x car parking spaces and 5 x road car parking spaces. If the new residents own more than one car they will also be taking up road parking space. This could mean the loss of 13 x car parking spaces which on a road where residents often have to search for somewhere to park would make the situation completely impossible.
As there is so little grassed area remaining in Angus Close if the ‘green space ’ outside houses 17 -37 is concreted over it will increase the chances of flooding. Due to Angus Close being on an incline this has already happened to properties at the bottom of Angus Close.
Quality of Life and Elevation of Proposed Houses
If the proposed development goes ahead, it will be detrimental to the ‘quality of life’ of the residents living in houses 17-37. They currently look out of their windows at green space and trees. If this development goes ahead, they will instead look out at brick walls or fencing. The footpaths to their front doors are down steps. The proposed new houses will be on a higher elevation which will be imposing and extremely oppressive for these poor residents. It will also create a loss of light in their homes.
Other Reasons to Refuse Planning Permission
The rear gardens should be 7.5m long to minimize overlooking of gardens. This does not look to be the case.
Amenity space should be 50m2. This is tight for house B.
The rear elevation separation distance between elevations is well under the ‘not less than 21m’ rule.
In the Design and Access Statement it has included the erection of two-bedroom, two storey houses at numbers 11 and 48 Angus Close.
We would like to point out that these are in no way the same as this application because they were built in existing gardens and did not take away ‘green space’ from the residents. Permission was given at a time when permission was given for most applications due to the high housing targets that had been imposed on Kingston. We understand that housing targets are no longer mandatory just advisory so no more ‘tilted balance’ for the time being.
We understand that planning bias is changing from primacy on numbers to build better and is more in keeping with the existing local community. Bio diversity has crept up the priority scale. In view of this we do not think that this shoed in back garden development should even be considered by our planning department. It is a clear example of opportunism by the applicant.