Plans for new four-bed Eastbourne home refused following multiple objections
Plans for new a four-bed home in Eastbourne has been refused following objections.
The plans would have seen the new home built within the garden of 1 Attfield Walk.
The proposal had sought to demolish the current single-storey side extension to create the new home.
Plans were refused by planning officers due to the building being ‘incongruous to the character of Attfield Walk street scene’.
The planning officer’s statement said: “The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its siting, layout, design, bulk, form, footprint and appearance, be incongruous with the established pattern of development in the vicinity and fail to harmonise with the character of the area and the Attfield Walk street scene.”
Plans for the new home also proved unpopular with local residents, with 17 objections submitted to Eastbourne Borough Council.
In a written objection, one said: “The parking in our area poses an already stressful situation for residents.
"With the proposal for a extra property to be built on the site suggested, would increase the stress.
"As a resident not only do we have to have to endure buses shaking properties in the area we would also endure the noise of construction and the delivery of materials on an already constricted site.
"Seeing that there is an abundance of four-bedroom properties that are on sale in the area this dwelling is not needed to meet a demand.”
Another wrote: “There is no provision for additional parking in the plans for this new dwelling. Attfield Walk has no vehicle access and parking is only available in Percival Road or the surrounding streets, which are already overburdened with vehicles.
"Recently Percival Road was blocked due to an illegally parked car preventing buses from getting through.
"Police had to be called to remove the offending vehicle, resulting in build up of five late running buses! I am also concerned for the access of emergency vehicles using Percival Road.
“The proposed dwelling is at least one and a half times larger than existing properties and it would completely destroy the symmetry of the terrace.”