Click here to see map for location of 20 Burghfield Epsom .
21/00870/FLH Demolition of link attached garage. Erection of two storey side extension and front porch extension.
Previous application 21/00366/FLH Demolition of Link attached garage, construction of 2 storey side extension and front porch.
The Society objected to the previous application by comment on the EEBC planning website rather than by letter as usual, viewing it as an over-large extension for its setting.
The current application is not dissimilar, and many of the previous objections continue to apply. In particular, the change to the street scene and the potential affect to the pleasant suburban residential road of Burghfield is unacceptable, the extension is not subordinate to the existing house and too close to its neighbour No 19, and proposes an unsuitable white render finish out of keeping with the estate. Finally, the Society felt it was a complete misnomer to call a space of 1.46 meters depth a garage when it is clearly not.
For all these reasons, coupled with our previous representation, refusal of this application is also requested.
See our letter here.
And see our post for the previous application here.
Posted: 2 August 2021 by ecs
20 Burghfield Epsom KT17 4ND
Click here to see map for location of 20 Burghfield Epsom .
21/00870/FLH Demolition of link attached garage. Erection of two storey side extension and front porch extension.
Previous application 21/00366/FLH Demolition of Link attached garage, construction of 2 storey side extension and front porch.
The Society objected to the previous application by comment on the EEBC planning website rather than by letter as usual, viewing it as an over-large extension for its setting.
The current application is not dissimilar, and many of the previous objections continue to apply. In particular, the change to the street scene and the potential affect to the pleasant suburban residential road of Burghfield is unacceptable, the extension is not subordinate to the existing house and too close to its neighbour No 19, and proposes an unsuitable white render finish out of keeping with the estate. Finally, the Society felt it was a complete misnomer to call a space of 1.46 meters depth a garage when it is clearly not.
For all these reasons, coupled with our previous representation, refusal of this application is also requested.
See our letter here.
And see our post for the previous application here.
Category: Planning, Planning Applications
Follow us on
Recent Posts
ECS Twitter Feed
Categories