Planning – Application Comments

I wish to firmly object to this planning application for a number of reasons as outlined below:
I have lived at my address, which backs onto the rear garden of 107 Lindengate Avenue, for 12 years. Up until Autumn 2018, my rear garden enjoyed total privacy from anyone overlooking it due to the large conifers that were in situ. The owners of no 107 comlpetely removed these trees, which they have the right to do so as they were in their garden, however, they did not actually discuss this with me nor my neighbour at no 30 Peppleton Close until they had actually removed a significant amount of the trees. We had gone from having very private rear gardens to being totally overlooked by 107 Lindengate Avenue. Over the coming months the conifers have been replaced by a 2.5m fence, which im sure provides a lovely view from the rear of no 107 but from mine and my neighbours vew it is a total eyesore. It is well over the height is should be before planning permission is required and also has electrical wires dangling through on my side of the fence. All that said, it has provided me with some privacy which was lacking with just the original boundary fence in situ. I attach photographs of the current situation which highlights the said fencing. I would also like to object to the drawing entitled 'existing and proposed block plans' which was uploaded with the planning application. This 'drawing' is not a correct ordnance based illustration and misleads the planning department considering the application. The drawing shows that the rear of no 107 Lindengate Avenue is backing onto what looks like a street or ten foot, when in fact it actually backs onto three separate rear gardens. It also does not show that there is a shared double garage with no 105 Lindengate Avenue on the drawing. Attached is a google map which shows the street layout of Lindengate Avenue and Peppleton Close for your consideration. I firmly object to the proposed extension to the rear of no 107 Lindengate Avenue. The sheer scale and size of the extension will significantly impact onmy day to day enjoyment of my home and will invade mine and my daughters privacy as the rear of no 107 Lindengate directly looks onto the rear of my property. I already feel that i live in a 'goldfish bowl' since the removal of the trees, without the rear of no 107 being significantly extended closer to my property. The rear elevation drawing shows a window to the proposed third floor which will not be required to be obscured as it is overlooking the rear garden and not onto the front side or elevation if the property. Therefore, this will invade my privacy even more as this window will directly look into my bedroom window and will also provide an improved view into my conservatory and kitchen, where me and my young daughter spend a considerable amount of time in. On the drawings submitted the extension is classed as a 'two storey rear extension with roof space'. However, due to the scale and size of this and the fact that there are nine windows proposed to be installed on the third floor, this is more in keeping with a bedroom/workspace rather than just a roofspace, therefore, i believe the description i somewhat misleading. It should read 'three storey extension'. If the planning application is approved, it will set a precedent, in terms of scale and size, other residents in the area who may want to extend their properties nor is it in keeping with the surrounding properties and area. I have been led to believe that one of the reasons for the extension is to enable the owner to run a private business from this property. If this is the case and that is what the third floor is being used for this unduly cncerns me as not only will i have the owners being able to look into the property invading my privacy, there will be complete strangers doing this which concerns me no end. This is not to mention the additional pressure that this will put on the already restricted on street parking space down Lindengate Avenue.

Not Available

My husband, three children and i live next door to 107 Lindengate Avenue and share a drive with the property. I am writing to strongly object the application for the following reasons:
The applicants have verbally told neighbours that part of the dwelling is to be used as a nail salon. As we drive we are concerned about the amount of comings and goings and traffic this will cause both to us on the drive but also the rest of the street. As the applicants already park two cars and a large van on the drive. This business will be i believe run on evenings as the applicant is employed during the day. As our Avenue is already a big safety issue to residents especially those with children as parking is becoming a issue and already putting children at risk due to no yellow lines on the road and people double parking. An emergency vehicle at some times of the day would struggle to reach parts of the Avenue. This wuld also cause people visiting the house at all hours and at night would be an issue, for our children at bed time and the noise this would create. I also believe the extension will effect the amount of daylight we get in our garden and into the back rooms of our house. My view from the first floor windows looking at the drawings of the proposal will be a obstructed with this building. I believe this proposal would be overbearing to our property. I hope the points i have raised will be taken into consideration when determining this application.

My partner, daughter and i have lived in a property (30 Peppleton Close) to the rear of 107 Lindengate for the past 7 years, enjoying as a family until recently a very private plot and garden. This changed when the applicants removed all the tall conifer trees (c.15 feet) at the rear of their garden and erected a fence that is 2.5m high. Having now also read the proposed application we are writing to firmly object to the proposal. We implore you to take into consider the following points when considering the application. The proposed extension size and scale are invasive to our privacy, the rear of the property directly faces ours, and this proposal and windows would affect the privacy in each room, and the garden of our home as the rear of the proposal will be in much greater proximity, and having 3 floors of windows. The proposed extension is of a size and scale unlike any other in the are, and significantly increases the floor space of the semi-detached property. Accepting this application will set a precedent not befitting of the remainder of the development in both style and scale. The proposed side elevation shows the application more in our opinion as a 3 storey extension rather than two with roof space - the roof space is of a significant size and well lit by eight windows/sky lights - which feels more like an additional room. The tree that's have been removed have been replaced by a fence higher than the height requiring planning permission (2 metres) - has planning permission been approved for this? I have attached two images of the rear of the property showing the privacy afforded by the conifer trees, and the height of the fence including visible electrical wires on our side. The fence as you can see from the images is an eyesore, and not what was agreed with the applicant (6 foot was the verbal agreement). We also note in the objection from Mr Crellin (107 Lindengate) that the applicants have also verbally suggested the dwelling will be used as a nail salon in the future - we agree with the objections made on this point, and also expect a restrictive covenant is in place to not use the private home as a business. Also to note our property is sold subject to contract, which in full disclosure have notified our solicitor of this application. The feedback from the purchasers is one of concern over the size and scale of the proposed extension, and the impact on privacy. Approval of this application could also therefore have a further serious personal impact on our family. We trust the above objections will be taken into account when assessing the application.