13 CLARE AVENUE - 15/01118/H
Following further revisions to the original design, the Bishopston Society's latest response is as follows :
We are writing further to our earlier comments on the latest/revised design for this 2 storey side extension.
On closer inspection we see that the revised scheme has an eaves level which is significantly higher than the original design. The hipped roof of the proposed extension is at the same level as the main roof. This is unnecessarily high as the floor level in the new bedroom is set down from the main house. We are concerned that the roof being so high will be unreasonably high and overbearing and will cast deep shadow over the side elevation and patio area of no. 11.
We recommend that the eaves level of the new roof is dropped down to the same level as on the original design, as shown on the marked up drawings attached.
Furthermore, we are concerned about the position and width of the rear window to the new bedroom which would overlook the rear garden area of no. 11. We recommend that the window is reduced in width and moved across, away from no. 11. We are also concerned about the 2no. rooflights to the bedroom which we consider are not required to provide adequate daylight to the room and will impact on the privacy and quietness of the neighbours’ patio. We recommend that the rooflights are reduced from 2no. to 1no., set high enough that it will not overlook the neighbours’ property and fixed shut.
Our last point is that the side wall of the new extension should be painted a light colour so as to maximise reflected daylight in the patio area of no.11.
Whilst we welcome the more traditional design approach of the second scheme, we are concerned that the impact of the proposals on the neighbours in no. 11 will be unreasonable and that the design should be amended as we have indicated.
We recommend refusal of the revised design
Following revisions to the original design, the Bishopston Society response was as follows :
We are writing in response to the revised designs submitted for this application following earlier negative comments.
We are relieved that the design has been adjusted to blend in with the existing house and the streetscene as a whole. Our only comment is in relation to blending in with the existing. The rear elevation is shown wrongly as being set back from the face of the existing house, when in fact both the rear wall and the roof run in flush with the existing house. It is critical in this case that the finish to both the roof and the rear wall actually are blended into the existing, both in material and colour, in order that the new extension is not a ‘sore thumb’ on the side of the house.
Our original response was :
We are concerned about this extremely bold proposal for a 2 storey extension to a small 1930’s semi. We feel that the design is out of character with the area and would be highly disruptive within the streetscene.
We are also concerned about the large window proposed at first floor level to the rear elevation, which looks very angular in relation to the existing house and would overlook the neighbour’s garden.
We recommend refusal.