Planning comments from 25 February.
Planning Application W2008/1766. 268 Myton Road, Warwick.
Dear Mr Wallsgrove,
We would reiterate our strong objections of 29 January to the removal of the distinguishing rococo gable feature of this important landmark house from the inter-war period and its conversion into a dull contemporary style house of no merit. Although some of the original windows have been changed this should not set a precedent for changing the remaining original windows for those of the same style.
The roof should be tiled with same red pantiles as at present. This house appears to have already been extended over the years and we would draw the Planning Officers attention to the possibility that the proposed development may exceed the permitted expansion of the 1949 footprint.
Having seen the drawings again when they were resubmitted we wish to object to the large building comprising a two car car port and 3 store rooms proposed in the front garden and to the two storey extensions at the rear. It is our view that these proposed developments are contrary to the Local Plan policy DP1 in that they do not positively contribute to character and quality of their environment through good layout and design nor do they reflect and respect local architectural and historical distinctiveness. They are also contrary to Policy DP2 in that they have an adverse impact on the amenity of the nearby users and residents as the rear extensions overshadow the neighbours conservatory at No 270 and do not satisfy the 45 degree rule.
There is a significant discrepancy in the submitted drawings of the building in the front garden, although there is a one metre gap shown between the walls and the boundary the foundations and extended eaves will interfere with the roots and branches of the mature trees which are actually growing in this gap and not on the boundary as shown. It is likely that such interference will kill them.
We see Myton Road as having a special character which we seek to preserve, it is a view shared by the Appeal Inspector in his comments on the development of the former Trinity School site.
We would ask Warwick District Council to refuse planning permission for this application.
Planning Application W2009/ 0111 203 Myton Road, Warwick.
Dear Sir,
The colour of the proposed new garage doors is not shown on the application; we would like to see black doors with a white surround to match the colours of the existing handsome house.
Planning Application W2009/ 0131 48 Coten End, Warwick.
Dear Sir,
There are some minor details to the Coten End frontage that we would like to see made before granting planning permission. We would like to see bay window modified to match the windows of the main house by reducing the length of side windows and introducing a glazing bar to the central light and would suggest that the garage door should not be white and too conspicuous, but painted in a dark colour.
Planning Application W2009/143LB 23 Market Place, Warwick.
Dear Sir,
While not objecting to the conversion of the space given to selling greetings cards into one serving coffee and heated foods we would draw the Councils attention to the possibility that fume extraction and air conditioning may be required in view of the continued sale of chocolates. This shop is in a confined area where there is no space to accommodate such equipment.
Planning Application W2009/144 Tesco, Emscote Road, Warwick.
Dear Sir,
0144 Tesco, Emscote Road
We wish to object to the expansion of non food sales at this supermarket and see this expansion as threatening the survival of Warwick town centre shops which are vital to the maintenance of the historic fabric of the town. It will reduce the vitality of town centre commerce which the Council seeks to protect in its Local Plan policy TCP2 Directing Retail Development. This policy calls for the direction of new retail developments to the mixed use area of Warwick town centre.
We would ask the Council to refuse planning permission for this application.
Planning Application W2009/0164LB 68 Smith Street, Warwick.
Dear Sir,
We do not object to the replacement of the rotted door at the bookseller’s shop but are concerned at the loss of the charming double arched window which has been replaced by a door to give access to what was formerly part of the bookshop. We have seen no planning application for this change nor for the change of use of the newly created independent shop.
