HS/FA/12/00178
|
Change of use from a workshop/greenhouse to a dwelling
|
Rear of South View, 3 Salters Lane, Hastings, TN34 3HB
- Details
- Comments (30)
- Constraints (0)
- Documents (76)
- Related Cases (1)
- Total Consulted: 13
- Comments Received: 30
- Objections: 29
- Supporting: 0
-
Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 30|1|2|3|Next
Mr Martyn Saunders-Rawlins & Ms Kathe Deutsch
Comment submitted date: Wed 21 Mar 2012
Not Available
Comment submitted date: Tue 17 Apr 2012
Not Available
Comment submitted date: Thu 10 May 2012
Not Available
Comment submitted date: Thu 17 May 2012
Not Available
Anne Scott
Comment submitted date: Tue 24 Apr 2012
Not Available
Mr & Mrs Jenner
Comment submitted date: Mon 02 Apr 2012
Not Available
Comment submitted date: Mon 23 Apr 2012
Not Available
Mr Philip Bennetts
Comment submitted date: Wed 28 Mar 2012
Holm Oak
The Croft
Hastings
TN34 3HH
28 March 2012
Dear Mr Tanner,
Re: Planning Application HS/FA/12/00178 ?Rear of South View, 3 Salters Lane.
I object to the application on the following grounds:
1. Environmental issues.
a) The proposed development is within a garden in a conservation area. The garden is adjacent to my garden (on the other side of Salters Lane). The immediate area is extremely quiet and peaceful. Any development would impact upon this. An example of this was the noise and disturbance caused by significant work to the garden area the subject of this application.
b) Parking. To carry out work at the site to date the applicant has parked in a private area in order to access the site. This has caused personal disturbance and demonstrates the unsuitability of the proposed development in that there is no available parking for the site.
c) The only area for rubbish collection will be on Salters Lane. The lane is narrow and any dustbin or bags will inevitably cause an obstruction to the passageway. The committee will be aware of the number of elderly people who use Salters Lane and require unobstructed access.
d) The area of Salters lane and Love Lane suffers from flooding in heavy rain. The development will inevitably increase the amount of hard area (concrete, brick external walkways) which will increase run off and exacerbate the present problem.
2. Effect on Landscape. The proposed development within a garden within a conservation area will have a significant and damaging impact upon the surrounding landscape by reducing the amount of garden space within the community.
3. Precedent. To permit the development of a garden shed into a dwelling within conservation area is to open the floodgates and will result in the overpopulation of an already congested area.
4. Request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
a) I have been told that the applicant was employed by the council. I do not know if this is true. Is it?
b) If the answer is yes. Does the applicant know anyone within the council who has submitted any documentation relevant to the planning application?
c) If the answer to a) is yes has the applicant had any meetings with anyone employed by the council concerning this application. If so I would ask for disclosure of the material.
d) If the answer to a) is yes has any employee of the council submitted any document in support of the application.
5. I do not ask for the above information to cause trouble. You will understand and no doubt agree that there should be transparency in all applications particularly if the applicant was a former employee. I look forward to the information requested as it may as you will appreciate have an impact on submissions as to the composition of the planning committee.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Bennetts
Comment submitted date: Thu 29 Mar 2012
Not Available
Comment submitted date: Mon 23 Apr 2012
Not Available
Sue Palmer
Comment submitted date: Thu 19 Apr 2012
Not Available
Mr Tim O'Brien
Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Apr 2012
Not Available
Mr Neil Mather
Comment submitted date: Tue 03 Apr 2012
I object to the proposed development in the following bases:
1. It would be a precedent for allowing further development in the large back gardens along Love Lane. This is highly undersirable in this conservation area.
2. It does not preserve or enhance the environment of the conservation area.
3. Previous applications to build dwellings on the site have been rejected on appeal by Planning Inspectors. The gardens of that street provide rare open space in Old Town and their loss would be detrimental to the area.
4. The appliant has claimed that the current greenhouse/workshop are an eyesore. This is nonsense. The new owner has removed the attractive hedging that adjoins the site, which has itself caused detriment to the appearance of the area. The addition of this modern bungalow to the conservation area will absolutely not enhance or preserve the area.
5. There is a severe shortage of parking in the area. It is simply not true to assert as the applicant does that there is ample residents parking on Croft Road. The position is the same on the High Street. The unadopted road down The Croft, maintained by the residents, regularly has no parking available for residents and they habve nowhere else to park. This application and the precedent it gives will cause additional problems to the parking in the area.
6. Emergency access to Love Lane and The Croft for fire and ambulance services will be further hindered by the building works and additional parking required.
7. There is nowhere sensible for skips to be placed to enable waste to be eliminated from the site. There is no access for lorries on The Croft and they cannot get down the narrow road past resident cars. They would have to block the narrow High Street or very narrow part of Croft Road at the top of Salters Lane.
8. There is a risk of damage to the historic and vulnerable york paving stones on Salters Lane by heavy building works.
The Old Town is a valuable asset to the whole area of Hastings. Allowing such modern residential development in gardens in this conservation area will adversely affect the area as a tourist attraction and source of employment.
Neil Mather
Ms Talia Griffiths
Comment submitted date: Tue 03 Apr 2012
Not Available
Mr D. Edwards
Comment submitted date: Mon 02 Apr 2012
Not Available
Ms Tina Hendrickse
Comment submitted date: Fri 30 Mar 2012
Not Available
Showing 1-10 of 30|1|2|3|Next