Demolition of a single dwelling and erection of 2 apartment blocks comprising 9 residential units of 1 x2 bed and 8 x 3 bed units with associated access alterations, car/cycle parking and landscaping works. UPDATE 31 JULY - Awaiting decision but an appeal has been lodged for non-determination within the time allowed.

The CRA object to this application.  The principal issues are:

(i) The adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and the visual amenity of the street scene.

(ii) The adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining and neighbouring properties

The CRA have the following detailed objections:

(1) This is back-land development, Council policies state development should respect the character of the area and have regard to the form and layout of existing and adjacent dwellings, privacy and maintenance of sunlight/ daylight.  The area is comprised of properties of varied design and form in terms of their scale and appearance but they are predominantly detached dwellings of mostly 2 storey dwellings.  The proposed design for 2 x 4-storey blocks of flats would be a significant overdevelopment of this site due to the proposed scale and massing of the design.  It is not in tune with the area or the form and layout of adjacent properties. It also raises substantial concerns regarding the amount of the built form proposed for a site so close to the Green Belt; a site of Nature Conservation Interest and in an Archaeological Priority Zone.  This area has already had a significant amount of inappropriate infill proposals all said to maximise the potential of the site but which in reality propose developments of over-dominant style and bulk with little attention to the character of the site; the existing residents or the facilities being proposed for any future occupants – the only maximisation being sought is profit. 

(2) Any proposal for development is required not to cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring dwellings particularly as regards dominance or overshadowing. The character of Woodfield Hill is of low-density dwellings on large plots.  The elevation plans show how dominant the proposed development would be of neighbouring properties and it is well forward of the existing building line. The size, depth and mass of the two proposed blocks of flats will be overbearing of neighbouring properties resulting in visual intrusion and loss of privacy.  The depth, mass and bulk of dwelling that is being proposed would adversely impinge upon the immediate aspect and amenity of the neighbouring properties.  

(3) The parking provision is ludicrously inadequate for the size and potential occupation levels of the 9 family flats being proposed supporting the conclusion that the proposal is overdevelopment of the site.  All accommodation is for multiple family occupation where it is likely that more than 1 car will be the norm, especially in this location.  There is no parking provision for visitors and there no space for deliveries.  There is nowhere to safely park in surrounding roads and parking on Woodfield Hill itself would be dangerous to other road users.  Accessibility is poor in this area. 

(4) There will be a significant increase in the amount of traffic accessing and leaving the site via the one entrance.  The new estate road necessary to provide access to parking and the rear block of flats may adversely impact the protected trees along the boundary.

(5) In terms of the amenities provided for future residents the refuse disposal provisions compromise a good standard of living especially for the back block of units – occupiers would have substantially further than 25m to drag their bins to get them to the kerbside collection point.  There does not appear to be any appropriate area set aside for items of bulk waste.

(6) Impact upon and loss of substantial trees and mature hedging is a major concern being replaced by hard landscaping and built form. The site and adjacent properties contain mature and protected trees that will be adversely affected by this substantial overdevelopment of the site.  The amount of the development proposed leaves very little scope for any replacement planting or to ensure the site integrates into this leafy setting. Policies on retention of biodiversity and no adverse impact upon animals and plants and their habitat do not appear to have been accommodated in this proposal.

It is requested that this application be refused.