Page 482 - Appeal bundle 31 files

Appeal Bundle

Criteria i) (maintenance of communal areas), j) (sewerage infrastructure) and k)
(construction arrangements) can all be adequately addressed by planning
conditions.

Assessing the scheme against policy DP26 in the DP, it is considered that the overall
layout is reasonable. The open space proposed is located in a logical position at the
front of the site where it will be well overlooked. The Councils Urban Designer has
stated 'Consistent building lines provide well defined street edges and spaces. The
main spine road has been designed as shared space and features generously soft
landscaped thresholds that also provide a good level of separation / defensible
space (3 to 5m) for the ground floor flats; and the revised drawings now show
consistent masterplan and landscape layouts. A pedestrian-friendly surface (such as
block paving) will nevertheless be needed.

Most of the existing trees along the Lewes Road boundary are shown retained
enabling the sylvan quality of this frontage to be maintained and providing a soft
backdrop for the parking adjacent to the site entrance.

The four blocks of flats on the eastern boundary have been designed to provide
enough separation from the existing woodland belt with the revised drawings now
permitting a better relationship between the block with units 10-12 and the existing
adjacent building known as the "Barn". Conflict with the retained trees on the eastern
edge has mostly been avoided as the buildings are organised without habitable
rooms that depend alone on an aspect facing this boundary.

The southern boundary now incorporates the required 15m buffer zone to safeguard
the ancient woodland along this edge.

The rear courtyard behind the blocks (with plots 13-42) on the southern / western
corner incorporates soft landscaping to make it a more comfortable space.'

Your officer agrees with the comments that have been made above. It is considered
that as a high density scheme on an irregularly shaped site, the proposed layout is
reasonable and responds to the constraints around the site. It is felt that the way the
car parking that has been provided within the scheme is reasonable and does not
dominate the development unduly. The adequacy of the level of car parking that has
been provided will be assed later in this report.

In relation to the elevations, the Urban Designer states 'The blocks of flats have a
contemporary design softened by predominantly brick facades that, except for the
block with units 1-9, are articulated at the front by circulation cores with a contrasting
metal-clad finish. The frontages benefit from further vertical articulation generated by
grouped windows and balconies. The latter not only provide the flats with private
outdoor amenity space (missing in the previous refused scheme) but also provide
structural depth and elevational interest.

The consistent approach to the architecture gives the scheme underlying order, but
risked appearing uniform. This has been helped by the revised drawings that
incorporate different metal clad finishes and vary the articulation of the top floor. In
addition the reconfiguration of the block with units 1-9 at the site entrance has

BATES N0 000479