The general policy of the Warwick District Council is to allow the Officers of the Planning Department to approve most planning appilcations. However if objections to the plans are received from the Warwick Society, or other persons, then the matter is put before the Planning Committtee for their consideration.
The committee of the Society meets regularly to inspect and consider any planning application that may impact on the life of our town. We send many letters (currently we are using emails) on planning matters, to the local authority and other bodies in a continual attempt to improve the quality of building work in the town, especially within the conservation area. eg
PLANS FROM 28 APRIL 2008

Planning Application W2008/ 0074 8 Eastgate, Warwick
Dear Sir
It is our view that the square louvred grill would be preferable in this application and would provide a better match for the stonework.

Planning Application W2008/415 The Lodge, Campriano Drive, Warwick
Dear Ms Galloway
While appreciating the problems created by users of the footpath alongside the boundary of the Lodge we wish to object to the erection of more fencing. The fencing on the railway embankment and bordering housing along the path is ugly and detracts from the high quality design of the Emscote Lawn development. We would ask that hedging be used to provide the required privacy and grown against a temporary open fence until it has become established. In the long term the hedge will prove more durable and vandal proof than a fence and certainly be more attractive.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/417 Sainsburys Store, Shire Retail Park, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We deplore the loss of landscaping arising from this development and find the new landscaping proposed as inadequate. We would ask that Sainsburys be required to look at this shortcoming and make proposals for to remedy it.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/420/422CA 31, 33 and 35 Smith Street, Warwick
Dear Ms Smith
We have no objection in principle to this development. We would ask that deep mullions be used on the remodelled shopfronts which will provide greater privacy when viewed from shallow angles. We see the siting of the disabled toilet as unsatisfactory, The door opens directly into the restaurant it will be possible to see into it.
We are not entirely happy with the wide gates proposed for No. 33, details of which are to be provided later. Great care will need to be taken in their design because of their impact on the historic street; we would ask that a further planning application be made for public consideration when firm proposals are available.

Planning Application W2008/421 West Wind, Stratford Road, Warwick.
Dear Sir
While we have no objection to this development we have concerns over the access from the Stratford Road and the design of the boundary wall. There is to be a school children's crossing in the close vicinity of the site which needs to be taken into account when considering the application.

Planning Application W2008/428. 51 Humphris Street, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to the proposed box dormer window to be built on the roof of this dwelling. Box dormers detract from the appearance the small roofs of houses, especially in terraces, and represent an eyesore.
Notwithstanding this objection, dormer windows should be clad in tiles to match the existing roof.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/439/445LB 7 Myton Crescent, Warwick.
Dear Sir
While not objecting to the extension to the children's playroom we see the height of the window sills as an oversight; these should be lower, so that children can see out of the window, and will be in keeping with the sill heights of other windows in the house.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/477 3 Howard Walk, Warwick
Dear Sir
We would ask you to check that this proposed development conforms to the 45 degree rule.

Planning Application W2008/478 5 Howard Walk, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We would ask you to check that this proposed development conforms to the 45 degree rule.

Planning Application W2008/502 6 Chase Meadow Square, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to the proposal to cover the three side windows of this shop unit with opaque advertising material. Covering shop front windows in this way detracts from the appearance of the building and degrades the local amenity. We understand that there is a policy that requires advertising matter to be set back one metre from the glass.
It is seen as unfortunate that the pharmacy chose to take over this unit when there are other units without side windows.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/519LB The Punchbowl Hotel, 1 The Butts, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove
While not objecting to the proposed new signage we do question the veracity of the reference to "Warwick's famous tunnels"

Planning Application W2008/533 Shell Warwick, 54 Stratford Road
Dear Mr Wallsgrove.
We wish to object to the free-standing illuminated corporate sign that has been erected at the Shell service station at 54 Stratford Road. It is too high and too wide and being double sided exceeds the 4.6 sq. metres of advertising permitted under class 6 on a single forecourt. Forecourt advertisements must not be illuminated in any circumstances. The new sign is much larger than the totem sign that was there previously, it dwarfs the service station, is out of scale with the dwellings close by and the illumination is a nuisance to nearby residents. It is an unwelcome intrusion into a largely residential area. The speed limit on the Stratford Road is 30 mph so there is no need for a sign such as this which can be read at 70 mph from 100 metres.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2008/560 Gladedale Homes, Portobello, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to express our disappointment at the paucity of landscaping proposed for this site particularly the low number of trees.
We would ask that a maintenance condition be included in any permission granted until such time that the landscaping and trees are fully established.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/0571 Admiral Taverns, 34 Vine Lane, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We note that there has been no neighbour consultation regarding this application.
In view of past problems with disturbance to nearby residents arising from the activities at this public house, we would ask that before planning permission is granted for this extraction duct the Environmental Officer satisfies himself that there will be no noise or smells emanating from it likely to create a public nuisance.

Planning Application W2008/583 Unit 3, Lock Lane, Warwick.
Dear Sir
There is no information on this planning application as to where in Lock Lane the storage unit is to be located. However we are concerned about any increases in traffic in Lock Lane. Although it is unadopted it is the route for primary school children from the Millers Road area to Woodloes and is on the County Council's Safe Cycle Route from Woodloes to Aylesford School. There should be no further developments in this area which are likely to attract heavy vehicles and create hazards for pedestrians and school children. There are already serious hazards associated with the manoeuvring of heavy vehicles in Millers Road
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

........................................................................................................

Herewith planning comments from 10 March sent on 12 March.

Planning Application W2008/207/2208LB Zetland Arms, 11 Church Street, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to the planning application to erect a canopy over a designated smoking area at the rear of these premises. The proposed aluminium frame canopy with its shallow pitches will be in conflict with the appearance of this listed building, it will not enhance its setting and will be unsympathetic to the neighbouring houses, all in the Conservation Area.
It is our view that the proposals do not meet the requirements for a totally open building as it is below the level of the garden, it has the entrance to the conservatory (and from that to the main building) as a back wall and is confined on two sides by adjacent walls. Access to the garden will by way of the smoking area which is contrary to the concept of smoke free public places.
The proposals show no consideration to the house at 13 church Street with steps shown closely adjoining the party wall. Now that the dangers of passive smoking is recognised it is unacceptable that the smoke should be removed from the public house and inflicted on close neighbours. The smoking shelter will not only be a source of smells and fumes but also of additional noise and disturbance.
The licensee is not obliged to cater for smokers, there are public houses that are completely smoking free and in view of the Zetland Arms' location in the middle of a residential area it should be the same.
We would ask the District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2008/210 Thresher Group, 33 St John's, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to this retrospective application for fascia signage which is already in place. The fascia is too wide and too high to the detriment of the shop front and the windows above. We would prefer to see the signage painted on to the shutter storage box, which will reduce its bulky appearance, and see it illuminated by trough lighting. The swan neck light fittings are inappropriate and are intrusive by night and day.
Threshers is one of the first shops that a visitor sees when arriving at Warwick by train and from the Coventry Road by car, this signage is not a good impression to take into our charming market town.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/ 252. 40 St Nicholas Church Street, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to the planning application for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of this dwelling. The development will detract from the careful design of this Georgian style group of houses and, although located at the rear, will be visible from the Castle Hill and Gerard Street frontages. It will not enhance the Conservation Area.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2008/268 LB Bear and Baculus, 52 High Street, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove
While having sympathy for the confusion over house numbers as a result of the bricking up of the High Street entrance to this handsome listed building we wish to object to the totally inappropriate signs that have been put up on its walls. They are too big. The brushed aluminium plates with incised black lettering and the ugly arrow, while suited to a commercial application on a modern office block, is unsuited to signage for domestic dwellings adjacent to the Lord Leycester Hospital. The entrance in Brooke Street already has full details of the address engraved in the large glass fanlight over the front door.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2008/298/301LB. 21 Jury Street, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We welcome the sensitive restoration of this handsome building and the retention and improvement of the many period features described. We hope that more features will be revealed and treated in the same careful way.

Planning Application W2008/305. Warwick Castle, Warwick.
Dear Sir
While not objecting to a children's playground within the castle grounds we do strongly object to the proposed location of the playground which is the subject of this planning application.
Warwick Castle grounds are a grade one registered landscape. The view from the conservatory to the river is a very important, carefully contrived,18th century landscape and is clearly visible from the motte. Under no circumstances should this lovely setting be blighted by any sort of development.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

January Planning applications

Planning Application W2006/1989 Former Trinity School Site, Myton Road, Warwick.

Dear Mr Wallsgrove
We wish to object to the proposal in this application to increase the number of dwellings in Phase 2 at the western side of the site from the 16 in the current approved plan to 34 and, in so doing, lowering the standard of amenity and housing provision.
A moratorium on further increases in housing numbers is contained in the
Supplementary Planning Document "Managing Housing Supply" which was adopted by the District Council in September 2005.
During 2004 and 2005 planning applications had been made for development of this site, W2004/1060 for 76 dwellings and W2005/0025 for 73 dwellings and had been refused. An appeal against the refusals was made and was dismissed on 12 September 2005. A subsequent Planning Application 06/0123 for 58 dwellings was granted permission as it was seen to answer the concerns raised in the Appeal Inspector's report.

It is our view that raising the numbers of dwellings from 58 to 76 would
breach the terms of the moratorium.
It is also our view that increasing the numbers in phase 2 from 16 to 34
will lead to the low standard of amenity and housing provision which the
Inspector had criticised.
The proposals do not meet the requirements of Local Plan Policy DP1 Layout and Design in that they do not harmonise with or enhance the existing settlement and will have deleterious impact on the character and appearance of Myton Road which is one of detached houses set in gardens and landscaping.
The four detached houses fronting Myton Road are higher than their existing neighbours and their setting is cramped. To achieve the increased number of dwellings together with the requirement for car parking has necessitated a severe loss of amenity space, in an unacceptable level of overlooking and resulted in the creation of hazards from vehicle movements in restricted spaces.

This layout does not conform to the Local Plan policy DP2 in that it
does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development.

We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Notwithstanding the above we would ask that hardstanding for car parking be of permeable construction.
.........................................................................................................

Herewith planning comments from the meeting on 18 December 2007.

Planning Application W2007/1887 22 Coten End, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to the proposal to use part of these premises as a hot food take-away. There is already a superfluity of these establishments in the area at St Johns and in Smith Street. The unit proposed has inadequate rear access with only restricted space for temporary storage of food waste and packaging. Servicing and delivery will need to be carried across the pavement at the front. The rear access is on the boundary with Coten End School which presents special risks from vermin and other contaminants. It is to be next door to a unit where dry cleaning is to be carried out using harmful chemicals giving off obnoxious fumes with food safety implications. The upper floor of this development is given over to flats, the cooking smells and the noise from customers using the car park into the late evening are likely to represent a nuisance to the residents and intrude into the full enjoyment of their homes.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/1891 Kia, 43 Stratford Road, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to the proposal to erect a 3.85 high internally illuminated advertising stand and to display advertising over the full length on the fascia on the Stratford Road frontage of these premises. Such developments are inappropriate in this small scale residential urban area with traffic speeds to be limited to 30 mph. A precedent has not been set by the Shell garage opposite as planning permission has not been given for the large illuminated sign erected there.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/1894 Former Benford Premises, Lower Cape, Warwick.
Dear Sir
The detail drawings for this application show only a gateway and fencing although reference is made to a new office block and industrial building for which no details are given.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/1909 Units 2 and 3 Westgate House, Market Street, Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler
We wish to object to the proposal to use part of the pedestrian way at the front of these premises for the storage of shopping trolleys. These and the proposed fixed structure will cause obstruction to the free movement of pedestrians and represent a hazard to the blind, partially sighted and disabled, a hazard that will become greater when trolleys are being manoeuvred in this restricted space. It is not practicable to transfer shopping from the store to the car park as the pavement is of rustic texture and an unsuitable surface for the passage of laden standard trolleys which would become unmanageable on the ramp down into Puckerings Lane. The pedestrian way provides access to other stores and it would be unfair to detract from their pleasant setting by the clutter that would arise from this proposal. The previous occupants of the store Budgens and farm Foods all stored the shopping trolleys inside the building, Marks and Spencers should do the same.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/1911 Units 2and 3 Westgate House, Market Street, Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler
We wish to object to the proposed fascia sign on the frontage of these premises on to Brook Street. The sign is much to large, more suited to a retail park, and totally out of place in the small scale setting of a narrow street in a Conservation Area. We also wish to object to the proposal to cover the inside of the windows facing Brook Street with vinyl for displaying advertising, such treatment of a large shop front in the centre of a small town is unacceptable and shows a cavalier disregard of the town, its inhabitants and its visitors.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/1912 Units 2 and 3 Westgate House, Market Street, Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler
We wish to object to the excessive number of air conditioning units proposed for the Marks and Spencer store in Westgate House, there are to be three on the single storey roof and six in the yard. Apart from the unsustainability of such installations the noise and heat generated by the units in this confined yard will create a nuisance to residents of the flats nearby and detract from the full enjoyment of their homes. These proposals then are contrary to the Local Plan Core Strategy DP2 Amenity.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/1937/1938LB 2 Church Street, Warwick.
Dear Sir
While welcoming the proposed improvements to this shop front we are not in favour of the swan neck lighting units over the fascia which do not conform to the Councils guidelines on shop fronts in the Conservation Area. We are concerned that the planted tubs shown on the drawing may present a footpath hazard close to the road junction
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/1953 St John's House, St John's, Warwick
Dear Sir
We wish to object strongly to the proposed new signs on the street wall of the historic St John's House. It is apparent that no thought has been given to its design which is unusually graphically inept. The use of black lettering on a white background using the same unimaginative font of different sizes and the plethora of logos which are of no interest has produced a sign that is unworthy of the building that it is advertising. We would strongly recommend that a graphic artist be employed to design a sign with white or gold lettering on a dark green background using the signs for Warwick Castle, the National Trust, English Heritage and St Mary's church as a guide.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/2009 57 Coten End, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to the proposed change of use of this shop from newsagent to hot food take-away. There is a superfluity of such establishments at St Johns and in Smith Street so there is not a need for more. The premises are unsuitable for the proposed purpose, they are on a restricted site with inadequate rear access with no space to handle food waste and packaging arising from the business, these activities will spread on to the pavement cluttering the street scene. Around the shop are various houses and flats whose residents will be subject to cooking smells and late evening noise arising from indiscriminate cars parking, vehicles arriving and departing and the associated raised voices and car door slamming.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/2017 10 Avery Court, Warwick.
Dear Sir
The Georgian style blocks at Avery Court were carefully designed by Petiphers to reflect their location near the castle entrance, St Nicholas Church Street and Mill Street. Particular care was taken over the fenestration. We object to the proposal to change a set of windows in one flat and would point out that noise reduction is effected by secondary glazing, double glazing is for heat retention.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/2025 146 Myton Road, Warwick
Dear Mr Wallsgrove.
We wish to object to this planning application simply on the grounds that the proposed new house is too big for the site and is out of scale with its neighbours.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/2030LB 22 Saltisford, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We wish to object to this planning application as there is no indication where the satellite dish is to be mounted on this listed building.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/1711 The King's High School, Smith Street, Warwick.

Dear Ms Butler
Whilst conceding that the new proposals for the development of the old Borough School building are less damaging than those previously submitted, we do regret that building was not put on to the "Local List" to ensure its protection and that there was no call from the Council for a development brief for the whole site to guide any future development.

We regret that the addition of extensions to the old building pays little regard to the form and elevations of the building. Its mass, and its natural lighting, will be irrevocably damaged by the extensions. Although the presence of the existing building has been retained, and the style of the extensions is derivative of it rather than aggressive to it, the plans still do not pay sufficient regard to it in that some architectural features of the new extensions are out of keeping.

We are opposed to the use of uPVC window framing (which has uncertain durability) in a Conservation Area and particularly in this setting, timber would be more appropriate and preferred. The windows on the north elevation, across which is a mezzanine floor, should be glazed in obscure glass. External windows to the recording, practise, and rehearsal (concert hall) rooms should be non opening and secondary glazed to prevent the emission of noise. The rooms should instead be provided with adequate artificial ventilation.

We welcome the proposal to make a new entrance to the rear of the school from Priory Road but object to modifying the boundary wall to provide a splay at the entrance, it would be preferable to widen the pavement and so reduce traffic speeds in Priory Road and improve the safety of the exit from the Council's car park.

We support the premise that the reduced car parking provision will encourage alternative travel modes but are concerned that this arrangement may not conform to S.P.D. on Vehicle Parking Standards. We are also concerned that arrangements have not been made for the storage and handling of waste arising from the expanded site without the use of the public highway.

We would ask Warwick District Council to defer planning permission for this application until our objections have been addressed and incorporated into a final plan.

Planning Application W2007/1790LB/1840. 23 Market Place, Warwick.
Dear Mr Haslett
In our e-mail of 14 November regarding the treatment of the shopfronts of this listed building we omitted to include our strong objection to the proposed "opaque white backing vinyl to inside face of the whole window" on the New Street elevation. This treatment gives the shop a neglected and dismal appearance unsuited to this lively shopping area. The window should be used for the display of goods and the layout of the shop re-arranged to suit.

From John Turner, Plans Secretary.
59 West Street, Warwick. CV34 6AB Telephone 01926 491410.
25 October 2007

Planning Applications W2007/1616 Building 310 Gallagher Way.
Planning Applications W2007/1617 Building 210 Gallagher Way.
Planning Applications W2007/1616 Building 220 and 230 Gallagher Way.
All at Gallagher Way, Warwick.

Dear Sir.
The 20 hectares of land, of which these proposed developments form part, was allocated in the Warwick District Local Plan of 1995. At the same time 1,430 dwellings were allocated to Heathcote Home Farm, now called Warwick Gates, and have all been built. Housing and employment land was also allocated to south west Warwick for 1,100 dwellings and 20 hectares for employment. The employment allocations in both cases were given in land area without correlation to the anticipated number of employees.

At the Public Enquiry into the 1995 Local Plan the impact of traffic on Warwick town centre arising from the south west Warwick development was raised as a serious matter of concern and the County Council agreed to seek to mitigate this impact. The same concern was not raised for the development of Heathcote Home Farm although it created similar problems , because of the railway, the river and Warwick Castle Park, access to it from the north, east and west is only by way of conurbations.

At the time of the allocations Warwick Technology Park was seen as a low employment, low rise, low environmental impact development requiring clean rural air for high technology industries, it has since become a windfall office block estate set in in car parks. The Technology Park attracted a major employer, National Grid, from Coventry in spite of a regional planning policy which sought to resist relocation from major urban areas such as Coventry. Another windfall office development is at the I.B.M. site at Birmingham Road Warwick which has attracted another major employer, Marconi, also from Coventry. It would seem that the Local Plan employment land policies have been compromised by these windfall developments creating traffic and infrastructure problems even before the policies have been implemented.

Although the idea that employment land should be located next to a housing development to reduce commuting might seem to make sense, there are those who would prefer to work at a distance from their home, when the housing is provided before the employment they have no choice. The residents of Warwick Gates and Southwest Warwick are already employed elsewhere.

Warwick District is a high housing cost area, whether employment opportunities will attract employees to live in Warwick District is uncertain and dependant on house prices. The S.P.D. on affordable housing indicates that a salary of £40,000 a year is required for a first time buyer to obtain an average a flat or maisonette in the area at £161,000. A cheaper option is to commute from a less costly area.

Our concern then is that the take up of this allocated land to build office blocks and provide 500 car parking spaces (possibly 2,500 at a later date) will add to the acute problems of traffic and congestion in Warwick town centre, on the feeder roads and on the local road network.

We do not see that the space given over to car parking is an effective and efficient land use when more than half of the area of each of the four sites is given over to car parking. This is a profligate waste of good amenity land when car parking could be provided underground. The amount of car parking proposed refutes the claim that the site is easily accessible and well connected to public transport.

The Local Plan at policy DP12 seeks to encourage energy efficiency yet the buildings proposed with their plant rooms built into the roof do not seem to be designed with passive ventilation or other carbon footprint reducing technologies incorporated into the buildings. We understand that more governmental guidance on these matters is expected next year.

It would be difficult to refuse planning permission for these developments as they were approved in principle in 1995 but we are concerned over the likely effects of their implementation.

Regards
John Turner

NB. Building 230 is not included in the schedule on the Master Plan.

PLANNING RESPONSES FROM 14 AUGUST SENT 22 AUGUST 2007

Planning Application W2007/1227 60 Smith Street, Warwick
Dear Mr Wallsgrove
We wish to object to the proposal to change the use of the ground floor of these premises from retail shop to domestic use. The Local Plan at Policy TCP4 para. 7.23 seeks to ensure that core areas of primary retail frontages are protected from the introduction of an unacceptable level of non shopping uses. We see the break in the important primary retail frontage of Smith Street as contrary to the intention of this policy and as setting a prejudicial precedent.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/1280 3 The Templars, Bridge End, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove.
We wish to object to the proposal to build over the existing garage with a pitched roof at this dwelling. The development will be unneighbourly in that it will block the view from The Templars and other properties through to Castle Park so urbanising the carefully designed pastoral Bridge End development of the 1960's. The introduction of roof lights in place of tiles in a Conservation Area is to be discouraged particularly as the roof will be visible from Warwick Castle.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/1282 Warwick Cemetery Lodge, Wedgenock Lane, Warwick.
Dear Ms Galloway
We wish to object to the proposal to build a detached garage with a study in the roof space at the cemetery lodge. The lodge is a handsome 19th century building and will be demeaned by this badly proportioned building whose half-hipped roof conflicts with the roof of the main house.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/1308 The Wheatsheaf Hotel, 54 West Street Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove.
We wish to object to the the proposal to use these premises for a take-away and delivery service. The hotel is on a corner site fronting the very busy West Street at the junction with Crompton Street, there is inadequate car parking and the road junction is a traffic hazard. It should be noted that there are already three take-aways within 150 metres of the Wheatsheaf.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/1324 40 St Nicholas Church Street, Warwick.
Dear Sir.
This proposed development is described as a rear extension when in fact the front of the house overlooks the car yard at the rear of the Earls of Warwick development so that the extension will be at its front. The modern industrial design of the roof intrudes and clashes with the faux Georgian architecture of the Earls of Warwick which was designed to complement the castle entrance, St Nicholas Church and the houses in St Nicholas Church Street. It appears to us that the extension breaks the 45 degree rule by extending twice as far as the rule permits.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Herewith plans from 24 July sent on 30 July 07

Planning Application W2007/1051/1167LB. 8 High Street, Warwick. ( formerly Fusspots)
Dear Ms. Butler
The application documents are unclear, but the applications appear to cover both change of use of the first floor from residential to retail and changes to the fascia and external signs. We note that a licence application has also been made for the sale of wine on the premises.
We welcome the change to a single fascia along the whole frontage, replacing the separate central board. We accept that the hanging sign is of appropriate size (420X600mm), colour (claret) and typeface; but its bracket should be simpler, with a single circle supporting the horizontal arm. The artist's impression shows a much larger sign, and this would be unacceptable under the Conservation Area guidelines. The artist's impression includes large green 'boules' suspended from brackets, but the latter are not shown on the drawing; we would oppose the inclusion of such brackets as inappropriate for the listed building.
We are concerned at the proposal to change the use of the first floor from residential to retail, as it would make less viable the continuing residential use of the second floor. We note that the only access to the latter is through the ground floor shop and the proposed first floor gallery. We recommend that, if the change of use of the first floor is agreed, a condition should be imposed which assures the continued residential use of the second floor, presumably in connection with the business beneath.

Planning Application W2007/1148. 181 Cape Road, Warwick. (former prison dairy)
Dear Ms Galloway
The application does not make clear the the materials which it is proposed to use. We are strongly of the opinion that these should be predominantly grey, brick, slate and lead, to maintain design integrity with the original structure. We would ask you to satisfy yourself that appropriate materials are to be used in developing this significant building before recommending the granting of planning permission.

Planning Applications W2007/1127 and 1135 IBM Site, Warwick.
Dear Mr Haslett
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for these proposed developments at the IBM site. Full details of the grounds for our objection are attached.

Planning Applications 7/1127 and 1135 IBM Birmingham Road

We note that there are two related applications: 1127 to remove the car parking from the south part of the site and replace it around building 3; and 1135 for outline permission for new buildings on the vacated space, doubling the total building floor area of the whole site.
While increases in employment accommodation may contribute to the economic activity of the area, we are concerned that growth on this scale disproportionately attracts jobs to Warwick. The town is already a 'net importer' of labour, and the jobs accommodated in the proposed new buildings will largely be filled by people commuting into the town, not by local residents.
The employment allocations in the Local Plan at policy SSP1 and at appendix 1 are made to specific sites which do not include the IBM site. While there is no correlation in the policy of land allocated in hectares and employee numbers it seems to us that the proposed development represents a large proportion of the 7.5 hectares allocated to Warwick District by the County Structure Plan up to 2011. The District Council may well find itself having to curtail other developments at more sustainable sites to prevent over provision.
The Regional Spatial Strategy requires regeneration of the major urban areas of the region. This is not achieved, either sustainably or efficiently, by development on this scale outside the conurbation. It has been reported in the press that the Marconi company is moving from Coventry to this site, a move that would be completely contrary to the main thrust of this strategy.
Taken together, the proposals represent severe over-development of this carefully-landscaped but already densely-occupied site. We object to both applications:
1127 This proposal would cause the removal of large numbers of maturing trees planted as part of the original landscaping, with severely negative effects on the capture of carbon dioxide which is essential to balance increasing use of fossil fuels. It is therefore unsustainable and should not be classified as a brown field site.
It would, by installing hard surfacing on large areas which are currently under vegetation, substantially increase rapid run-off during rainfall, increasing pressure on the surface water drainage system. This would result in surplus water flowing into the Grand Union canal, which has on previous occasions caused widespread flooding as it overflows along its length.
1135 This effect would be made much worse by the second proposal. It packs office blocks densely onto a large part of the site, separated only by double rows of car parking, where now there is considerable landscaped and treed space. The height of the new buildings would be about two floors higher than that of the existing development, affecting the setting of the town, and visible from many areas within and outside it, including the cemetery.
The proposal would increase the gross floor area of buildings on the site as a whole from 29,000m2 to at least 56,000m2, virtually double. It would therefore probably increase by over 2,000 the number of employees on the site in its B1 use.
The main reason for our objection is the effect that the increased intensity of use would have on the local road system.
The application proposes to realign the entrance junction from the Birmingham Road, and to provide traffic lights at it and all around the A46 / A4177 roundabout. The purpose of the latter is to meet a Highways Agency requirement to avoid cars queuing beyond the entrances to the slip roads from the dual carriageway. Their effect is to give priority to long distance traffic leaving the by-pass over local traffic, delaying the latter. An experiment conducted early in 2007 confirmed this impact, and confirmed that the local road network cannot meet all the demands placed on it. It is also likely that the increased peak flow on the A46 will lead to renewed congestion on the main road: the stretch between Longbridge and Leek Wootton will become an increasingly evident two-lane bottleneck if the proposed enlargement of the Longbridge junction goes ahead.
For many employees on the site, the preferred route will be in the other direction, through Warwick town centre. No mitigatory measures at all are proposed to protect the town centre from the resulting increase in traffic. At peak times, it is already congested beyond its capacity. Poor air quality in the town centre has led to the establishment of an AQMA, and this is likely to be increased in size. Measures resulting from planning consents in South West Warwick are being developed to reduce the impact if traffic on town centre streets. These would be negated if development on this scale were permitted here.
In mitigation, the application proposes a 'travel plan', but this only sets out a process for managing the use of cars and other modes, and does not commit the developer to any firm objectives for the use of sustainable modes. Nor could conditions to reduce car use be applied to the existing occupants of the other buildings on the site. The practical steps proposed to encourage use of other modes are wholly inadequate to achieve this end: some cycle parking, some exposed bus stops - but no bus services, even from Coventry, probably the major source of employees - and a reliance on employees walking 800m, across the A46 interchange, from Warwick Parkway station - for those whose homes are along the line served from it.
We urge the Council to reject both applications.

Herewith response sent 2 July 2007

Planning Application W2007/0983LB Zetland Arms, 11 Church Street, Warwick.

Dear Ms Galloway
We wish to object to the planning application for the erection of a smoking shelter at the rear of the Zetland Arms in Church Street, Warwick. The proposed shelter awning and balustrade are unsympathetic to this listed building and to the neighbouring houses, all in the Conservation Area. It is our view that the proposals do not meet the requirements for a totally open building as it is below the level of the garden and has the entrance to the conservatory (and from that to the main building) as a back wall. The proposals show no consideration to the neighbours with steps shown closely adjoining the party wall of number 13 Church Street. Now that the dangers of passive smoking is recognised it is unacceptable that the smoke should be removed from the public house and inflicted on the close neighbours. The smoking shelter will not only be a source of smells and fumes but also the source of additional noise and disturbance.
The licensee is not obliged to cater for smokers, there are public houses that are completely smoking free and in view of the Zetlands Arms' location in the middle of a residential area it should be the same.
We would ask the District Council to refuse planning permission for this application

Planning Application W2007/0590LB Zetland Arms, 11 Church Street,
Warwick.
Dear Ms Galloway.
We wish to object to the retrospective planning application for development already carried out in the garden of this public house. The garden is within the curtilage of a listed building and work should not commence until listed building consent has been obtained.
The work as carried out is totally out of keeping with the historic Zetland Arms, is insensitive to its setting and does nothing to enhance the Conservation Area.
The effect of the development will be to extend the activities of the public house to the full extent of the former garden and so give rise to noise and disturbance to neighbours. Because of the large expanse of hard paving noise will reverberate and be accentuated with the paving acting as a reflecting sounding board. The raised patio at the end of the garden will result in overlooking of neighbours garden and its elevation will project noise over a wide area, the neighbours will be deprived of their privacy and the rights to the enjoyment of their property.
In view of climate change and the exceptional downpours of rain which are now a feature of it gardens should not be covered over with impermeable paving particularly in a confined area such as this, flower beds and grassed areas should be retained and trees and shrubs should be planted to serve as rain water buffers.
It is mandatory that where development is to be carried out at sites such as
11 Church Street the opportunity for carrying out archaeological surveys should be offered to the County Council Museum Services, failure to do so is a breach of planning regulations.
It is our view that the raised patio should be removed and the paving reduced in area with ample soak-away or permeable paving installed.
Notwithstanding the above if the Council is minded to grant planning permission we would ask it to use its powers to make conditions to prevent noise nuisance, limit the hours of use of the garden by the public and prohibit the use of lighting.
It is unclear why the proposed smoking area should be elevated when it is likely that this will lead to overlooking of the neighbour's property. We find the round arches of the structure inappropriate in the context of an 18th century listed building and would ask that a more suitable design be submitted.
This development shows a complete lack of historic sensibility in its relationship with a much admired old public house and its setting in this very sensitive part of the Conservation Area, it is unneighbourly and is totally lacking in concern for others.

We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Regards
John Turner

Herewith planning comments from meeting on 27 March sent on 1 &2 April.

Planning Application W2007/0122 48 Coten End, Warwick
Dear Ms Galloway
We wish to object to the proposal to replace the hipped roofs by lowered flat roofs on this handsome and conspicuous house within the Conservation Area. Although doing so may improve the symmetry of the main building it will not enhance its overall appearance.
Additionally, these proposals will introduce unnecessary complications to the the internal layout.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/308 Listed Building. Millwright Arms, 69 Coten End, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove
We are not in favour enlarging the modern flat roofed structure to provide covered area within the curtilage of a listed building and find the proposed balustrading as inappropriate in this setting.
The provision of outdoor gas heating is seen as highly inefficient and contrary to the governments policy of seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/0322 Hill Close Gardens, Hampton Street, Warwick Dear Ms Butler The ethos at Hill Close Gardens is to restore what were Victorian Pleasure Gardens and provide a modern high technology reception centre. It is our view that the proposal to erect a pastiche of a "Victorian" green house does not fit with this ethos, it would not be a restoration and would detract from the authenticity of the summer houses. We would suggest that a less conspicuous, modern lean to green house erected in front of the blank wall of the Linen Street house would be more appropriate.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/0327 Alburn Minos Dev. 22 Coten End, Warwick Dear Mr Wallsgrove Although we would welcome a suitable development for this site we wish to object to the proposals put forward in this application. Setting back the building line as proposed with major car parking on the road frontage will produce a dead area to the detriment of the street scene, this is a criticism that can be levelled at the Healy Court development close by and should not be repeated here.
We would suggest that the protruding frontage should align with the listed building at 24 Coten End with remainder of the block aligned with the existing shops to the west of the site. Access to the rear for additional parking would be by way of an arch with space allocated at the front for emergency, service and delivery vehicles. In this way the layout would accord with the recommendations of the Council for Architecture and the Built Environment which is to maintain the streetscape by locating car parking behind buildings. In addition, bringing the building forward would be of benefit to the residents of the proposed flats in that they would be further away from noise generated by the activities at Coten End school.
It is intended that the proposed shops be frequented by passing commuters and motorists but one would expect that much of the trade will come from local pedestrians and cyclists which should be encouraged. The provision for
pedestrians in these proposals is poor with an unnecessarily circuituous
access and narrow pavements vying with car parking spaces.
We would ask that consideration be given to the proposed opening hours of the shops and limitations imposed by way of conditions so that the flat dwellers and local residents are not disturbed by the noise from activity during unsociable hours.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/345/347LB (was 0027) Icon House, Jury Street, Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler
Although the applicant has satisfied the Distance Separation rule with respect to Castle Lane House by reducing the proposed extension to single storey, we see the windows at the gable end overlooking the garden as unneighbourly and the reduction of the area in the yard as rendering it unusable for dining and only fit for outside storage which is likely to be unsightly .
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/0362/0369LB 49 West Street, Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler
We would ask that the opportunity is taken when moving the windows to modify them so that they match the three light windows of the main house.

Planning Application W2007/0373 9 High Street, Warwick Dear Ms Butler We wish to strongly object to the hanging sign which is the subject of this retrospective planning application. The shop at 9 High Street is a listed building with a handsome shopfront, such a sign is completely out of place in this setting. The sign is too big, the wrong shape, the colour is too strident, the supporting metalwork is too heavy and industrial and the trough lighting excessive. It is badly located and represents an eyesore which should be removed.
It is our view that the building and shopfront is unsuited to the display of a hanging sign.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/0422 Queens Square, Warwick.
Dear Ms Prince
We welcome this excellent layout of affordable homes.

12 March 2007

Planning Application W2007/0267 Lidl UK, Hurrans Garden Centre, Myton Road, Warwick.

Dear Mr Haslett
We wish to object to the proposal to build a food store with service area and car park and to carry out other ancillary work at Hurrans Nursery Myton Road Warwick. on the grounds that The development will be contrary to Local Policies UAP3, DP1 and DP2 and TCP1,2 and 3. in that it will be to the detriment of the retail sector of Leamington, attract an excessive volume of vehicular traffic, be too large for the site and be inappropriate to this part of Warwick.

The planning application does not merely propose a change of land use code from Retail Service to Convenience and Durable but a completely new development. Hurrans is a garden nursery comprising a covered area made up of a low glazed metal structure in the form of a green house, an open air paved garden area and a car park. It would not be possible for a convenience and durable supermarket to carry on its business from such premises. Because the existing building is to be demolished and replaced by one more than twice its size this application represents a new development on a brown field site outside the town centre and is subject to the requirements of policy UAP3 in the Local Plan. The proposals do not meet the criteria of this policy and for that reason planning permission for the development should be refused.

There is no proven quantitative need for the development as there are several supermarkets in Leamington and Warwick town centres or at a similar distance from them. Leamington is designated as a sub regional shopping centre and a strategic town centre at policy PA 11 in the Regional Spatial Strategy Planning Guide for the West Midlands. Warwick District Local Plan policies TCP 1,2 and 3 seek to protect and enhance this and other town centres with a particular emphasis on providing shopping growth in Leamington.

It has not been shown that there are no sequentially preferable sites or buildings in the town centres

The proposal would not reduce the length of car journeys associated with shopping. The applicant's market position is for the high volume low price sector. The density of housing within 1 kilometre of the site is very low so this large store will not be a "local" supermarket. The premise that pedestrians will be drawn from a 2 kilometre radius and cyclist from a 5 kilometre radius and carry home bulk purchases is false, the store will overwhelmingly be used by car drivers buying in bulk. We are concerned that the store will attract vehicular traffic from as much as a 15 km away with implications for increased through traffic using Warwick town centre streets.
The location of proposed store is not well placed for those who do not have cars yet would be expected to take advantage of the applicants marketing policy.

The proposed development is not highly accessible by foot or cycle. Myton Road is a very busy traffic thoroughfare, although a pedestrian access to the store is shown yet there is no indication of any form of safe road crossing nor is the car park pedestrian friendly.

The applicant has not shown how the proposed development complies with policy UAP3 nor has it been justified by a Retail Impact Assessment as required.

Notwithstanding our view that Local Plan policy UAP3 is not satisfied we would point out that because the store will be used overwhelmingly by motorists the traffic and parking estimates that have been put forward are suspect. The proposed car parking provision is inadequate (rendered more so by the need to give access to delivery lorries driving across it to access the loading bay) and will lead to parking problems in the surrounding residential streets and roads. The estimated volume of traffic using Myton Road from which the site would be served is derived from a traffic survey carried out 4.30 to 6.30 pm on one Thursday afternoon. The figures quoted are misleading as they are a fraction of those used by Warwickshire County Council, collected over an extended period, in justification of the reduction of the speed limit on Myton Road from 40 to 30 miles per hour. Myton Road is already called to operate at over capacity during the peak hours leading to serious congestion on the surrounding network.

Myton Road is a unique leafy residential suburb of Warwick, the proposed building with its mass and height will be a detrimental intrusion into the area, it is described as a single storey building yet the apex of the roof is over 8 metres high and the eaves on the canal elevation more than 5 metres. It will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby users and residents contrary to Local Plan Amenity policies DP1 and DP2

The proposed cosmetic work to the elevations cannot prettify what is essentially a warehouse erected in a residential area. The proposal to install dummy windows with internal artwork, which will lend themselves to advertising displays, on the Myton Road elevation is particularly objectionable and inappropriate.

The frontage to the canal with its lorry unloading bay for goods inwards, refuse handling and external storage areas presents an industrial aspect to what is now a recreational amenity for the general public. British Waterways seek to enhance the landscape features of the canal system whereas these proposals will do the opposite. The siting of such a large building with its associated car park and its impact on the local road system and residential area are all contrary to Local Plan policies DP1 and DP2.

We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Regards
John Turner

PLANS FROM 13 FEBRUARY 2007 SENT ON 17TH.

Planning Application W2007/0187 Westgate School, Bowling Green Street,
Warwick

Dear Ms Butler
We do not question the need for a Children's Centre but the erection of a factory made building in the grounds of Westgate School which has recently been taken into the Conservation Area and is close to the listed Hill Close Gardens we see as totally inappropriate. Local Plan policy DAP 10 seeks to preserve or enhance the special architectural and historic interest and appearance of Conservation Areas. At para. 9.39 the policy states "In order to retain and enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Areas in the District, any new development must be of the highest quality and be in keeping with the existing scale and form of the special architectural or historic character of the Conservation Area. Development will be expected to respect the setting of Conservation Areas and important views both in and out of them."
We share the view that a building such as proposed, where consideration has only been given to cost, should not be introduced into a learning
environment. The building proposed could still be there in 50 years and will continually demean the important work carried out in it. We would ask that a quality brick building be designed and erected to complement those of the school and so demonstrate a commitment to the Children's Centre concept and the enhancement of the Conservation Area.

We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2006/1933 Priory House, Priory Park, Cape Road, Warwick
Dear Mr Wallsgrove
We wish to object to the proposal to construct a car park adjacent to Priory House on the site of the County Records Office. We see this car park as an encroachment and an undesirable development on the green space of Priory Park. We are concerned that encouraging the accessing of the Record Office by car will create hazards on the path leading to the office from Cape Road which also serves as a pedestrian access to the Priory Medical Centre; the path is narrow and has no pavements.
Notwithstanding the above, should planning permission be granted it should be conditional on use of a permeable hard-standing for vehicles.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2006/1940 9 High Street, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove
We have no comment to make on the internal work carried out at these premises as there are no structural alterations and the work is reversible.
The Design of Access Statement refers to change of colour and erection of sign, these do not appear to form part of this application yet an illuminated hanging sign has already been erected. We drew the attention of the Enforcement Officer to this sign on 24 November 2006 as follows:-
Dear Mr Perry.
We would draw your attention to new fascia signage and a new externally illuminated hanging sign erected at these premises. We have no record of an approved planning application for these developments.
The illuminated hanging sign is proportioned in landscape, is garish and has been erected between two first floor windows, which is contrary to planning guidelines, and is likely to inconvenience the residents of the two upper floors.
No 9 High Street is a listed building and the shop front has a particularly handsome cornice which is demeaned by the new hanging sign. We note that the colour of the shop front has been changed to brown and cream and would ask you to ascertain whether the colour change has been approved.
Since that message Dave Fry, Enforcement Officer, has advised me that he is looking into the matter.
If the sign is part of this application we would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for it.

Planning Application W2007/0061 Warwick Racecourse, Hampton Road, Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler.
We have no objection to the provision of parking for the course ambulance. We would much prefer to see the wooden gates used as shown on drawing no. 239. 0419 rather than the propriety metal mesh gates as described in the design statement. There are no details of the proposed security measures for access from the parking place to the course, there would seem to be a need for a second gate and fence together with a specification on the limitation of use to prevent the parking area being used as an entrance to the course from the Hampton Road.
The access splay shown is excessive for such an occasional use and should be designed to provide priority of use to pedestrians and by the cycle path, it should conform to the enhancements at present under consideration for Friars Street and the Hampton Road.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application until more detailed proposals have been submitted.

Planning Application W2007/0120 4 Church Street, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove.
It is unfortunate that our advice was not followed by ascertaining the noise levels of the air conditioning units before they were installed at these premises, we would ask that these noisy units be replaced rather than installing noise insulating equipment.
Notwithstanding this objection, if the Council is minded to approve silencing methods then the cabinets should be wooden and so be more in keeping with the conservation area and reduce the risk of noise attenuation from metal louvres and panels.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Planning Application W2007/0125 Brook Farm, Myton Road, Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler
We would reiterate our objections (W2006/822) to the proposal to proposal to remodel the entrance to Brook Farm from the Myton Road. The present arrangement is suitable for existing traffic levels and there is no indication in the application that the levels are likely to increase. Widening the entrance and creating a splay will benefit vehicle drivers using the drive in that they will be able to travel faster and take less care but will be to the detriment of the safety of pedestrians and cyclists who, in this area, are likely to be school children. With the development of the former Trinity School site it is likely that the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists will increase.
If there is a danger of collision at the junction then traffic calming should be introduced not measures to increase traffic speed. If there is a problem of visibility then this can be improved by trimming hedges or by waiting to see if it is improved by development of the adjoining site. If there is a problem of vehicles passing then a passing point should be introduced at a suitable point in the lane.
We would point out that the new Special Needs school is not shown on the application plans.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.

Planning Application W2007/0141 "Cambria" Woodloes Lane, Warwick.
Dear Sir
We see the proposal to remove a mature tree on this sensitive site on the urban fringe to simplify the locating of a new garage as regrettable. We would ask that the tree be preserved and the garage located elsewhere on what is a large site.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM PLANS MEETINGS 8 and 22nd. JANUARY 2007

Sent 10 January 2007
Planning Application W2006/1963 3 The Butts, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove,
It is not clear from the drawings whether the proposed satellite dish will
be visible from The Butts or from Priory Road. It is our view that it should
be concealed in the courtyard in accordance with the Council's guidance on the positioning of satellite dishes on listed buildings in the Conservation Area.

Planning Application W2006/1983 Warwick Boat Club, 33 Mill Street,
Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove,
We commend the care that has been taken to match the style of the proposed extensions with the existing building. We do regret however, that PVC cladding has been introduced where equally modern techniques with timber decoration and preservation can make this traditional material equally durable and more in keeping with the original construction.

Planning Application W2006/1988 Lloyds TSB, Swan Street, Warwick.
Dear Ms Prince
Although we welcome the removal of the curlicue bracket supporting the
hanging sign we are not in favour of combining logo and lettering on the two outer fascias, we would prefer to see the single sign over the centre fascia retained.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Sent 17 January 2007
Planning Application W2006/1939 17 Old Square, Warwick
Dear Ms Butler
The drawing accompanying this application shows a hanging sign which is not
existing and not included in the description of proposed works. If it is to
be included then we ask that planning permission be refused as the proposed
position is too high, and does not conform to the District Council's
guidelines on hanging signs in the Conservation Area.

FROM PLANS MEETING 22 JANUARY 2007
Sent 31 January
Planning Application W2007/0027/0028LB Icon House 12-14 Jury Street,
Warwick.
Dear Ms Butler
We wish to object to the proposals to build a two storey extension at the
rear of these premises on the grounds that the separation distance between
them and Castle Lane House (12.5 metres approx.) will be less than that
required (16metres) by Supplementary Planning Guidance issued by the
Council. The windows proposed in the gable end will look into the garden and bedrooms of Castle Lane House contrary to the intentions of the Guide which are "To limit the potential for over-development, loss of privacy and dominance over adjoining dwellings and secure a reasonable standard amenity and outlook for local residents."
Part of Icon House is in use as a restaurant with a frontage on Jury Street,
the already inadequate space at the rear will be further reduced by the
proposed extension.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this
application.

Planning Application W2006/1989 Former Trinity School Site, Myton Road, Warwick.

Dear Mr Wallsgrove
We wish to object to the proposal in this application to increase the number of dwellings in Phase 2 at the western side of the site from the 16 in the current approved plan to 34 and, in so doing, lowering the standard of amenity and housing provision.
A moratorium on further increases in housing numbers is contained in the
Supplementary Planning Document "Managing Housing Supply" which was adopted by the District Council in September 2005.
During 2004 and 2005 planning applications had been made for development of this site, W2004/1060 for 76 dwellings and W2005/0025 for 73 dwellings and had been refused. An appeal against the refusals was made and was dismissed on 12 September 2005. A subsequent Planning Application 06/0123 for 58
dwellings was granted permission as it was seen to answer the concerns
raised in the Appeal Inspector's report.
It is our view that raising the numbers of dwellings from 58 to 76 would
breach the terms of the moratorium.
It is also our view that increasing the numbers in phase 2 from 16 to 34
will lead to the low standard of amenity and housing provision which the
Inspector had criticised.
The proposals do not meet the requirements of Local Plan Policy DP1 Layout and Design in that they do not harmonise with or enhance the existing settlement and will have deleterious impact on the character and appearance of Myton Road which is one of detached houses set in gardens and landscaping.
The four detached houses fronting Myton Road are higher than their existing neighbours and their setting is cramped. To achieve the increased number of dwellings together with the requirement for car parking has necessitated a severe loss of amenity space, in an unacceptable level of overlooking and resulted in the creation of hazards from vehicle movements in restricted
spaces. This layout does not conform to the Local Plan policy DP2 in that it does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users/occupiers of the development.

We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

Notwithstanding the above we would ask that hardstanding for car parking be of permeable construction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLANNING RESPONSE FROM MEETING 12 DECEMBER, SENT ON 17 DECEMBER 2006

Planning Application W2006/1702 Former Trinity School site, Myton Road, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove.
We find the proposed landscaping inadequate for the size and setting of this site. There are too many suburban small stature trees dotted about and insufficient forest trees. These should be planted in the wider spaces between the buildings used to demarcate the eastern boundary and complement the trees existing on the boundary to the west.
Demolition work is already taking place on the site and we are concerned over the inadequate protection afforded by split wood palings to the existing trees which are to remain. We would ask that the weld-mesh fencing shown on the drawings should be substituted at once.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application in its present form.

If you agree with our points of view as expressed here, why don't you Join us