43 Downsway - appalling planning decision
12/01/2018 12:31:00......Posted by Lynne Hale
I objected to the recent planning application which was lodged for 43 Downsway for the demolition of the bungalow and erection of a building containing 7 flats, effectively built across 4 storeys. Having referred the application to the Planning Committee for a decision I attended last night’s meeting to speak against the recommendation to approve the application.
Both Dennis King, Sanderstead Residents’ Association Chairman, and I both spoke strongly against the proposal but I am very sorry to say that the Labour controlled Planning Committee completely dismissed the very real concerns about the height of this proposed development and its impact on the properties adjacent to it.
The main details of my objection to the Planning Committee are set out below:
“Thank you Chairman.
There is so much to object to with this over-intensive application on this corner site such as;
• the access, insufficient on-site parking provision, the impact of overspill parking and highways safety issues
• the density - which exceeds the London Plan recommendations and is thus significantly out of character with neighbouring properties but
• my main concern is for the living conditions of adjoining occupiers and in particular the residents of the property immediately next door to the site at number 41.
The application site at number 43 sits considerably higher than number 41 and because it is located immediately south of number 41, it was constructed as a bungalow in order to prevent over shadowing; allowing the sun to shine on number 41 and natural light to enter the property and garden.
Previous applications for number 43 have taken into full consideration the very significant topography of this site and a past refusal for a 5.1m high roof 12.5 m from the boundary respected this.
This application for the erection of a large property just 1.8m from the boundary and 8m high therefore seems completely illogical and means the residents of number 41 will suffer overlooking, loss of privacy and by putting it completely in the shade, the complete lack of natural sunlight.
It is fully recognised that light is critical in the maintenance of good mental health and that a lack of sunlight is associated with reduced cognitive function among depressed people.
Housebound people in particular need access to natural sunlight in their homes and gardens and to deliberately take away someone’s access to sunlight seems to me to be completely unacceptable.
I would invite the Committee to have another look at the photographs (in the case officer’s report) of the bungalow’s relationship with number 41 as seen from Purley Downs Road. Add on the roof height of this proposal and it will tower over number 41.
In summary, this application fails to respect the significant changes in land levels and the appalling effect which such a large dominant building will have on the living conditions of the occupiers of number 41.
Loss of sunlight, overshadowing to the detriment of residential amenity and overlooking are all substantial material planning considerations and I hope that you will therefore refuse this application"