His application to build flats is flawed

2:45pm Wednesday 14th May 2008

I WRITE regarding the proposed development at 2 Westbury Road, Buckhurst Hill (Guard-ian, May 8 edition).

In his letter Chris Rotsey attempts to persuade us that his application to demolish his home and build a five-level block of ten flats including roof terrace and underground car parking is reasonable.

He asserts that his application is more modest than the proposals defeated by pressure group, Palmerston Opposition Group (POG), of which he was, at that time, a committee member.

It may be that Mr Rotsey is not being disingenuous. However, unfortunately, his recollection of the applications defeated by POG is not accurate. This may account for why he feels his own application is more acceptable than those proposals were.

He states that the first application at 81-83 Palmerston Road was for 22 flats.

According to our research, the first application (EPF/1006/99) was for a three-storey block of 12 flats including underground parking - very similar to the application he has submitted. In addition, unlike Mr Rotsey's proposal, this application did not have a roof terrace.

The case officer's recommended decision was to refuse that application (again, not to approve it as was stated in Mr Rotsey's letter), which the planning sub-committee did.

It was correct to say that the second application (EPF/1914/99) was made by Barratt's. This application was for a two to three-storey block of 12 flats including underground parking. Once again, the officer's recommended decision was to refuse, citing overdevelopment of a restricted site among other reasons.

This second application was taken to appeal and the appeal was dismissed.

A third application was also refused by the planning sub-committee.

All of these applications were to develop a much larger plot than Mr Rotsey's.

In fact more than double the size of his plot (for only two more flats than his proposed ten).

Two substantial detached homes were to be demolished. The site at 81-83 Palmerston had a street frontage of about 80 metres, whereas the street frontage of Mr Rotsey's site is about 14 metres.

The proposed flat development at 2 Westbury Road would be more than double the footprint of the existing house.

Mr Rotsey makes a point of stating that his proposal is the same height as Glenmead.

He omits to mention, however, that it is a somewhat taller structure than Glenmead, but just that it is to be built lower down a steep hill.

Having studied the plans, I fail to see how Mr Rotsey can assert that his proposed block of flats is actually lower than Bedford House.

The highest point of Bedford House's roof is the ridge apex of a tiled roof so far back from the front of the building and the common boundary with number 2 Westbury Road as to be quite irrelevant when viewed from ground level.

Almost 90 letters of objection have been received by Epping Forest District Council and 400 people have signed a statement opposing this proposal. I hope this serves to clarify the situation.

Chris Marshall, on behalf of the local residents' group, Scotland Road, Buckhurst Hill.

Around the site