1. No site plan has been submitted providing sufficient information about how much area of the rear patio will be occupied by the extension.
2. No information has been provided on how the extension will affect the neighbouring garden walls.
3. What is the maximum height of the extension in relation to the neighbouring ground levels? The drawings only provide dimensions for the ceiling heights. The zone for the roof is approximately 275mm which will not be sufficient for adequate insulation, ventilation, and a minimum roof slope for drainage.
4. The planning statement states that “the design of the proposed roof has been carefully considered to minimise the impact on the neighbouring properties”. As mentioned above, it is impossible to check how the roof relates to the neighbouring properties. Also, the design of the roof is questionable as it does not show any drainage pipes, the zone for the actual roof buildup seems to be too shallow, and there is no slope to drain the flat roof. Therefore, it appears that the design of the roof has not been carefully considered.
5. The planning statement says that the proposal does “not significantly harm the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of noise pollution, air, or light.” If the height of the extension is higher than, e.g., the garden wall of 4 Datchelor Place, the extension will indeed harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties by overshadowing and overbearing. There is also not sufficient information provided on how noise pollution will be managed. Will the roof lights be non-openable? Is there sufficient acoustic insulation within the walls and the roof proposed? How will the extension be ventilated? If air conditioning units are proposed, they should be shown on the drawings and adequate acoustic attenuation should be provided.
6. The proposed 3D view indicates an extract pipe but there is no information available about its dimension, exact position, height, and acoustic attenuation. More information should be provided before the application can be assessed.
7. It is not evident from the application that the proposal is of ‘high quality’, as mentioned in the planning statement.
8. There is contradictory information regarding the materials in the application form and the planning statement. In the application form, it states: “Timber stud wall with exterior white finishing to match with existing building”, and in the planning statement, it says:” External walls: Timber Stud, internal finish with 2 layers of fireproof plasterboard, and timber cladding finish.” The main material of the existing building is yellow brick, so a white timber cladding would not match the materials of the existing building. However, if a timber cladding is proposed and would be acceptable from a planning policy point of view, the applicant should provide clarification of the type and colour of the external finish.
Based on the above, the Camberwell Society objects to this application.