Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Village Penthouses | |
Posted by: | Richard Jennings | |
Date/Time: | 27/08/15 22:43:00 |
"I do think that the Directors of Chiswick Village should be liable for the costs incurred by CV and not the shareholders. I, for one, objected to service charges being used for this." I got the impression that CV's objections were supported by a large majority of the shareholders. The Planning Committee's refusal of planning consent, on 31 July 2014, was for these reasons: "a) The application would create 15 flats that were not accessible for those with impaired mobility. b) There would be accumulative overdevelopment which leads to inadequate parking provision. [As I understand it, a net loss of 16 parking spaces.] c) The development would have a detrimental impact on the two adjacent conservation areas, as the extensions were not in keeping with the existing buildings and would seriously harm their existing collective historic and architectural interest and setting. d) There were concerns over loss of amenity to existing residents through overlooking from the penthouse amenity space into the existing top floor flats, and the impact from the scheme on daylight to the existing flats." I'd be interested in Adam's view of these reasons, some of which seem to be similar to those which led to the inspector's refusal of earlier schemes. |