We agree that the dilapidated building in question would benefit from renovation and do not disagree to its use being changed from retail to residential. However we disagree that the plans that have been submitted are the best option and wish to formally object as we feel that the impact a 3 storey building will have on the neighbours has not been fully considered.
We are strongly in agreement with our neighbours in Grove road and are submitting our own version of their objection that you already have. Whilst the headings are the same, the contents are specifically relevant to our property. Please do not assume this is the same document you have already read.
Overbearing nature of the proposal: The plans that have been submitted are for a 3 storey block of flats. As a result of its height, scale, bulk and massing, the proposed development would appear over dominant from selected neighbouring properties. Churchfield House that is currently being developed and additional floors added is already unsightly. If the proposed plans for the factory were to go ahead there would be a 2nd high rise property that would be totally overbearing to the majority of neighbouring homes.
Overlooking & loss of privacy: The plans that have been submitted are for a 3 storey block of flats and it’s aeffect on the neighbouring properties has been gravely understated. By virtue of its height the proposed development would directly negatively affect the privacy of the existing residential properties on: Woodhouse Road - 37 - 43Lambert Road - 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 & 12Grove Road – 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25
They would be overlooked by main windows and secondary windows alike. Our garden at 43a Woodhouse road would be directly overlooked and our view of the sky would be blocked entirely on that side. We feel strongly that the roofline should be no higher than the existing property.
The height of the proposed building means that there would be no part of the gardens that would be ‘private’.
The plans go against Policy 7.6 B in the London Development Plan which directs LPA’s to require that buildings should; (d) not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. This is particularly important for tall buildings
It also goes against Policy DM01 from Protecting Barnet’s Character & Amenity that states: (b) Development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics. Proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets.
Detrimental impact upon residential amenities and the visual impact of a development: By virtue of its height, scale, bulk and massing, the proposed development would appear over dominant from selected neighbouring properties.The fact that the development is right up to the eastern boundary means that it will have an even greater impact on Woodhouse Road and Grove Road than the previous planning application which was refused.
Loss of light and sunlight: The existing building is 1 storey with a pitched roof. If a 3 storey property were to be built there would be a significant loss of sunlight/light for our property on Woodhouse road all year round. The applicant states that ‘The building does not create micro climates or reduce the exposure of existing buildings to daylight and sunlight.’ Which is obviously an erroneous statement. This proposed building would significantly reduce our quality of life. As stated previously, the roof height should not ideally be any higher than it is already.
Design and appearance: Apart from the flats being built on top of Churchfield House that are above the Co – Op on the main road on Woodhouse Road there are no other high rise properties in the area as all are 2 storey houses and/or flats. We therefore feel that having a 3 storey residential block of flats would not fit in with the semi-detached/terrace houses that surround it. Surely smaller 1 x storey properties with 3 bedrooms and the same amenities as proposed would fit in with the scale of the majority of properties in the area. It would also work in favour of Policy DM08(iii) that establishes dwelling size priorities for the Borough, pursuant to Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy and directs that “for market housing – homes with 4 bedrooms are the highest priority, homes with 3 bedrooms are a medium priority” . There is no mention of 2 bed units.
Overdevelopment of the site: The previous planning application was for 5 x 3 bedroom terraced houses and 2 x 2 bedroom semidetached houses, with associated car and cycle parking, refuse facilities, and amenity space. This application is for 8 x 2 bedroom flats has in fact MORE individual units than the previous application that was refused. One reason given for the refusal was; ‘The scheme would constitute and overdevelopment of the site’, surely 8 units would cause more overdevelopment than 7.
Negative affect on the prices of property affected: There is no doubt that these properties if built will be detrimental to the price of the properties affected.
Noise pollution: Having spoken to property owners in the area who have been residents for many year they have advised that the factories were never noisy. Having 8 units built will of course mean much more noise pollution from people as well as from the vehicles coming and going – deliveries, own vehicles etc.
We do NOT wish for the planning application reference number: 16/3759/FUL to be accepted by the council.
