Post by Madhatter on Mar 28, 2013 14:48:46 GMT
More flats have been given permission for the regal area of Long Street, despite on street parking by both residents and shoppers causing a danger. The stretch of road is supposed to be 30mph but is often exceeded as vehicles leave the traffic calmed areas of Long Street and Witherley Road.
planning.northwarks.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=103636
I'd like to know why it is up to some one who has never even been in the neighbouring house to decide as to what levels of light loss and which hours of the day light loss are acceptable. It was my understanding that loss of light and privacy where reasons to refuse. It seems that NWBC choose when they apply at what times they apply and to what degree they apply.
NWBC seem to be psychic and know that someone is a house is a lot more likely to own a car than someone in a flat, even though the benefits system has just been changed to force people to downgrade to flats.
There are many one bedroom flats in the town that have no directly associated car parking and the problems that this causes are evident in the town centre. Parking on double yellow lines, double parking, parking all day in half hour bays, parking on 'no parking signs' parking dangerously, parking on pavements. yet this application makes this out to be acceptable. Problem out of sight, out of mind.
I say this because the New Dolphin has closed and there's a planning application being processed to convert it to flats. There's also an application to turn the garden into a car park, but temptation will be to not use it and take up existing on street spaces, tempting chip shop customers to park illegally. The access is also dangerous, it being right next to the cub headquarters, with no splay and right next to a bus stop. No doubt it will get planning permission and further danger will be put on this stretch of road.
As for the 170m to a car park, do NWBC not know their own waiting times. That car park will be of little use to residents as its a 2 hour shoppers car park.
planning.northwarks.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=103636
The occupier of the neighbouring property claims that the proposed extension will block light to his bedroom because it exceeds the 45 degree line rule of thumb. This is not correct the extension would conform to the 45 degree rule, plus the rear elevations of the property are south facing and any resulting loss of light would only be for the early part of any day. lt is not considered that the extension would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling. Furthermore, I the development is not likely to lead to any significant increase in the overlooking or privacy levels enjoyed at neighbouring dwellings.
Though the previous application was refused partly because of concerns about the effect on on-street parking, the primary concern was the proposed new dwelling to the rear. Though there is a possibility that occupiers of one bedroom flats could be car owners, there is a greater prospect that the occupiers of a dwelling house be a car owners and wish to park in its near vicinity. There are many one bedroom flats in and around the town which have no directly associated car parking. This premises is within 170m of a public car park and in close walking distance of the town centre, with access to a number of other modes of transport, including bus and train travel.
Though the previous application was refused partly because of concerns about the effect on on-street parking, the primary concern was the proposed new dwelling to the rear. Though there is a possibility that occupiers of one bedroom flats could be car owners, there is a greater prospect that the occupiers of a dwelling house be a car owners and wish to park in its near vicinity. There are many one bedroom flats in and around the town which have no directly associated car parking. This premises is within 170m of a public car park and in close walking distance of the town centre, with access to a number of other modes of transport, including bus and train travel.
I'd like to know why it is up to some one who has never even been in the neighbouring house to decide as to what levels of light loss and which hours of the day light loss are acceptable. It was my understanding that loss of light and privacy where reasons to refuse. It seems that NWBC choose when they apply at what times they apply and to what degree they apply.
NWBC seem to be psychic and know that someone is a house is a lot more likely to own a car than someone in a flat, even though the benefits system has just been changed to force people to downgrade to flats.
There are many one bedroom flats in the town that have no directly associated car parking and the problems that this causes are evident in the town centre. Parking on double yellow lines, double parking, parking all day in half hour bays, parking on 'no parking signs' parking dangerously, parking on pavements. yet this application makes this out to be acceptable. Problem out of sight, out of mind.
I say this because the New Dolphin has closed and there's a planning application being processed to convert it to flats. There's also an application to turn the garden into a car park, but temptation will be to not use it and take up existing on street spaces, tempting chip shop customers to park illegally. The access is also dangerous, it being right next to the cub headquarters, with no splay and right next to a bus stop. No doubt it will get planning permission and further danger will be put on this stretch of road.
As for the 170m to a car park, do NWBC not know their own waiting times. That car park will be of little use to residents as its a 2 hour shoppers car park.