Page 31 - Archive in reverse date order

APPX A
PRECEDENTS FOR REFUSAL

1. There have been three previous applications to build on the area of backland at the
rear of 22 St James Way. These were in 1967, 1973 and 1984.

2. Below are the strong views of previous Chief Planning Officers in defence of this
garden-land:-..

“The formation of a new cul de sac and the erection of seven dwellings, if permitted,
on the...area of backland...would deprive the adjoining residents of amenities and
privacy which they might reasonably expect to enjoy” [1967].

“Access is unacceptable and the passage of vehicles...would be a considerable
nuisance to adjacent residents...bungalow would be on rising ground...loss of
privacy...Risk to Cedar tree (root damage)...and the proposal would be out of
character with the neighbourhood and would introduce a disturbing activity at the
rear...”. [1973] These views were summarised as:-

(1) A form of undesirable backland development...detrimental to the amenities of
adjoining properties” and (2) Development would be out of character with the
existing development in the vicinity, dominating and overlooking properties in St
James Way”.

“This piece of land...backland area between St James Way and The Grove...remains
quite unsuitable for a building project of any kind, flanked as it is at each end and by
two* very ancient and giant Lebanon Cedar Trees...their branches span a wide area of
the plot...inevitably the roots of the trees will be subject to damage when foundations
are being excavated for the building and the access road...it is a garden area and must
remain so even if it is allowed to go back to nature”. [1985]

*protected by a Tree Preservation Order

3. The planning applications of 1973 and 1984 were for nothing more than a single-
storey dwelling with an access drive from St James Way. The current application is for
five houses, garages and a new road running the length of this backland site, one also
taking in garden land behind 28 St James Way.

4. The planning applications of 1973 and 1984 went to Appeal, and both were
dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in the following terms:-

“The Local Planning Authority maintains that the Appeal site is unsatisfactory for
residential development. It is considered that the reasons for refusal...were soundly
based” [14 June 1985]

/APPX B