Home
Horsham today

Horsham Past

Current issues

Planning
Articles

Archive
Publications
Walks

Links

About us

 

 

 Planning: letters of representation

April 2014 

Application Comments on DC/14/0359

Application Summary

Address:

92 Hurst Road Horsham West Sussex RH12 2DT

Proposal:

Redevelopment to form 32 sheltered apartments for the elderly including communal facilities (Category II type accommodation), access, car parking and landscaping (92 - 98 Hurst Road)

Case Officer:

Peter Munnelly

Click for further information

 

Comments Details

Commenter Type:

Member of the Public

Stance:

Customer objects to the Planning Application

Reasons for comment:

- Design

- Highway Access and Parking

- Loss of General Amenity

- Overdevelopment

- Trees and Landscaping

Comments:

I am writing on behalf of the Horsham Society to object to this application. The site is on a prominent corner of two principal roads with North Parade itself an important and attractive gateway to the town centre. Any development on this corner will be much more dominant within the street scene than an equivalent sized property situated entirely within either of the two roads and it is therefore important that it is appropriate for its setting in both size and design. This proposal is too large for the site, resulting in a cramped development which would be overbearing in size and appearance and providing too little by way of external recreation space for the residents, and much too little parking. Although the east side of North Parade is characterised by taller buildings, and it is a fairly wide road, it is important that any new development does not loom over the attractive low rise buildings on the west side. The proposed development's North Parade facade is too tall, and would be out of keeping with neighbouring buildings, and the design and materials would not in our view do justice to this important site, nor meet the aspirations of the NPPF for high quality design. The way in which the important protected Turkey Oak has been incorporated into the design is grudging and it would completely overshadow the residents' amenity area. Senior citizens now expect to own cars until late in life and many also own bulky disability scooters. The provision set aside for parking is completely inadequate to cope with the needs of residents, and friends, family and professional visitors. In conclusion, we object to this application and ask the Council to refuse consent. John Steele Secretary, Planning Sub Committee