1. I am concerned about the proposed new car park on the northern side.
Firstly, there are 4 trees on this site of various qualities, and in my opinion, one or more of these should be worthy of retention.
Secondly, I am concerned about the noise likely to emanate late at night as people leave the bar/restaurant and the slamming of car doors in close proximity to residential homes.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the turning of vehicles at night and headlights shining into nearby windows of the residential area of Dolphin Drive.
If trees do have to be lost and the car park does have to be constructed then more consideration should be given to soundproofing and building a northern wall boundary. This would have the effect of limiting noise, containing headlights, and providing additional security for vehicles while their owners are within the bar/restaurant.
2. I am concerned about aspects of the southern boundary of the whole site. I do not regard the low rail as sufficient security for the maisonettes. The proposed bike sheds would be an easy target for thieves accessing the site from the Town Council's public car park. The low rail border would also serve to encourage residents and visitors to the flats to park in the public car park, causing inconvenience to motorists using the football fields, particularly at weekends.
Even a 6ft high close boarded fence would be inadequate as there would then exist the problem of maintenance. I would recommend a 2m high wall boundary to improve security and to discourage use of the public car park.
3. To make the site more secure, the western edge of the car park should have a retaining wall to discourage random walk-throughs with inherent opportunistic theft.
4. I do not think that having three different places for bin storage is a good design. It would assist the refuse collection service if there was one central place for all of the bins.
5. I object to the reference in the design and access statement that refers to the grass verge on the southern edge of the site being referred to as an amenity area for the residents of the maisonettes. The grass verge there would surely fall to the Town Council to maintain, and maintenance efforts would be increased. I'm also unhappy about the lack of mention of the trees on the southern boundary and any help in the application to explain what will happen to them should the application go through.
If trees do have to be lost and the car park does have to be constructed then more consideration should be given to soundproofing and building a northern wall boundary. This would have the effect of limiting noise, containing headlights, and providing additional security for vehicles while their owners are within the bar/restaurant.
2. I am concerned about aspects of the southern boundary of the whole site. I do not regard the low rail as sufficient security for the maisonettes. The proposed bike sheds would be an easy target for thieves accessing the site from the Town Council's public car park. The low rail border would also serve to encourage residents and visitors to the flats to park in the public car park, causing inconvenience to motorists using the football fields, particularly at weekends.
Even a 6ft high close boarded fence would be inadequate as there would then exist the problem of maintenance. I would recommend a 2m high wall boundary to improve security and to discourage use of the public car park.
3. To make the site more secure, the western edge of the car park should have a retaining wall to discourage random walk-throughs with inherent opportunistic theft.
4. I do not think that having three different places for bin storage is a good design. It would assist the refuse collection service if there was one central place for all of the bins.
5. I object to the reference in the design and access statement that refers to the grass verge on the southern edge of the site being referred to as an amenity area for the residents of the maisonettes. The grass verge there would surely fall to the Town Council to maintain, and maintenance efforts would be increased. I'm also unhappy about the lack of mention of the trees on the southern boundary and any help in the application to explain what will happen to them should the application go through.
