comments please

[labrat]

just wondering if anyone can point out any obvious mistakes - inconsistancies, plain bad spelling, or in other words basic labratiness with the following letter

 

Dear sir or madam I would like to comment on application 2009/****/**

I feel that this development would provide a general determent to the local area, the foot path alongside the proposed works is part of the Maun valley trail, looking at the cross section of the site the retaining wall will tower over the footpath along with the trees planted alongside the wall this would provide a dark tunnel that would make anyone walking down it unsafe.

It would also attract graffiti, which is already known in the general area with markings appearing on the railway bridge I feel that this would provide another target and the resulting damage would leave an unsightly path which gives an impression of being neglected.

I have also notice that the retaining wall that is already appearing around the site looks rather unsteady, it seems to have no substantial foundations and be rather thin to support the combined weight of earth, road and buildings that will be behind it, I also have worries that if the trees are planted this close to the supporting wall then there will be long term damage from their roots, possibly causing the wall to bulge or even damaging it beyond repair, either of which would cause considerable danger to pedestrians on the path

[ErikaPNP]

I've given it a bash for you:

 

Dear sir or madam,

 

I am writing to express some concern with regard to application 2009/****/**.

 

I feel that this development would provide a general determent (do you mean deterrent or detriment?) to the local area. The foot path alongside the proposed works is part of the Maun valley trail and from looking at the cross section of the site, the retaining wall will tower over the footpath along with the trees planted alongside the wall; this would provide a dark tunnel that would make anyone walking down it unsafe.

 

I feel that a strong liklihood would be that it would also attract graffiti, which is already known in the general area with markings appearing on the railway bridge. I feel that this would provide another target and the resulting damage would leave an unsightly path which gives an impression of our community being neglected.

 

I have also noticed that the retaining wall that is already appearing around the site looks rather unsteady, it seems to have no substantial foundations and be rather thin to support the combined weight of earth, road and buildings that will be behind it.

 

I also have concerns that if the trees are planted this close to the supporting wall then there will be long term damage which will originate from their roots, possibly causing the wall to bulge or even damaging it beyond repair, either of which would have a knock on effect, causing considerable danger to pedestrians on the path.

[raydetinu]

Interesting that you mention the retaining wall, being a structural engineer, what is it constructed of; concrete, brick, block,timberetc.

Is it adjoining a public road, footpath? What sort of develoment is it? If it is not part of a building then Building control may not have checked it, however if it adjouns any sort of public area it would be under there control or Highways.

Your concerns sound as if they are based on some building knowledge and appear justified so I would contact Building control of your council and perhaps mention that they look at it as you may even consider it a dangerous strucutre!

[labrat]

the walls going to be around 5 - 7 foot high with a 2 foot fence ontop at the high end, the low end the walls around 3 foot with a 2 foot fence ontop, hes only build the low end at the min but hes simply poured a layer of concrete onto the bare earth (around inch thick maybe) then one brick thickness of wall, with some rubble cemented behind it.

 

if does ajoun the footpath but he might make it thicker for the higher end, he does seem to be cememnting blocks in at the min that have been taken out of the railway bridge so it may be thicker later on

[raydetinu]

Again interesting, due you think he working to a drawing or detail issued by an Engineer or Architect for the development or just making it up as he goes along?

 

As I said before your concerns sound justified, so speak to building control, they are very helpfull and where public safety is concerned they will respond.

[labrat]

well ill try and get pictures up sometime not sure when im going past (walking at least) i do tend to drive by everyday

[labrat]

latest version of the letter

 

I feel that this development would provide a general detrimentto the local area. The foot path alongside the proposed works is part of the Maun valley trail and from looking at the cross section of the site, the retaining wall will tower over the footpath along with the trees planted alongside the wall; this would provide a dark tunnel that would make anyone walking down it unsafe. There is also the risk of falling leaves as the footpath is a slope this would leave the path slippy and thus unsuitable to pedestrians

 

I feel that a strong likelihood would be that it would also attract graffiti, which is already known in the general area with markings appearing on the railway bridge. I feel that this would provide another target and the resulting damage would leave an unsightly path which gives an impression of our community being neglected.

 

I have also noticed that the retaining wall that is already appearing around the site looks rather unsteady, it seems to have no substantial foundations and be rather thin to support the combined weight of earth, road and buildings that will be behind it.

 

I also have concerns that if the trees are planted this close to the supporting wall then there will be long term damage which will originate from their roots, possibly causing the wall to bulge or even damaging it beyond repair, either of which would have a knock on effect, causing considerable danger to pedestrians on the path.

I’m also worried about the provisions for bin space and parking, as shown on the plan there is parking for two cars this does not make provision for parking for visitors these would need to park at the top of the drive so not to block access to the houses, this would mean that they would most likely park across the top of the footpath blocking access. There has been provision made for storage of 3 bins at the top of the drive, as we operate a 3 bin system that would mean that one week in two there would be six bins stored in an area made for 3 possibly also blocking access to the footpath.

 

plan for area btw: http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/FastWEB/documents/DC05551.PDF

 

and cross section: http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/FastWEB/documents/DC05555.PDF

[labrat]

well the letters been sent- photos as promised there not very good im afraid mobile camera and all

 

wondering if he reads these boards the wall seems to have got thicker

 

 

tho i hope this isnt indicative of quality

 

these are the foundations

 

when its finished the wall should be roughly as high as the green railings

 

[labrat]

probably final update

 

Description:CONSTRUCTION OF 2 NO. DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH DETACHED GARAGES AND NEW PRIVATE DRIVE - RESUBMISSION

 

Decision Date:22 April 2009

 

Decision Type:REFUSE PERMISSION

 

Temporary Expiry Date:

 

 

Decision Level/Committee:DELEGATED DECISIONS

 

 

Conditions / Reason for Refusal:(1) Reason: The proposal is contrary to Saved Policy H2 (28/09/07) of the Mansfield District Local Plan (1998) which states: PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE URBAN BOUNDARY, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, PROVIDED THAT THEY WOULD MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: - 1) INTEGRATE WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN OF SETTLEMENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES; 2) NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN RESIDENTIAL AMENITY FOR ADJACENT OCCUPIERS DUE TO SUCH FACTORS AS LOSS OF LIGHT /SUNLIGHT, OVERLOOKING, NOISE, ETC.; 3) RETAIN IMPORTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS/FEATURES WHICH WOULD INTEGRATE THE BUILDING WITH ITS SETTING; 4) INCLUDE APPROPRIATE CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES IN ITS DESIGN; 5) BE LOCATED WHERE THERE IS, OR IS THE POTENTIAL FOR, EASY ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT; 6) INCORPORATE SUITABLE AREAS OF OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING PRIVATE GARDEN SPACE AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, TO MEET THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS. The proposal would not meet criteria 1 of the above policy as, by reason of its close proximity to a main railway line, its elevated position above Hermitage Lane and its siting to the rear of properties on Kings Lodge Drive, it would not integrate well with the existing pattern of settlement and surrounding land uses, to the detriment of the character of the area and the residential amenities of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The proposal would not meet criteria 2 of the above policy as dwelling 1 would allow unreasonable overlooking onto the private rear gardens of adjacent residential properties

Edited April 24, 2009 by labrat
removing smilies

[labrat]

hmmm least i thought it was the final update.

 

sorry to revive an old thread but got a letter saying hes appealing to the secretery of the state for the enviroment.

 

ive put a complaint in but anyone know the chances of this being rejected or allowed?

 

plus hes already started building again