New house to be built in Kenilworth conservation area...

[dutchman]

Despite nine objections from neighbours and serious concerns from Kenilworth Town Council, permission has been granted for a three storey house to be built on land next to 26 Fieldgate Lane.

The application, submitted by Bramfield Properties of West Yorkshire, relates to the (southern) side garden to 26 Fieldgate Lane.

The main concerns from neighbours were that the development would have a harmful or negative impact to conservation area, the infills are not appropriate and it would result in the loss of spaciousness. There were also concerns expressed about traffic safety and parking, impact upon neighbouring trees and loss of privacy.

But, in the opinion of the district planning authority, the proposed development is of an “acceptable standard of design which would not cause unacceptable harm to the architectural and historic character of the conservation area within which the site is located and will not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents by reason of overbearing effect, loss of light or privacy”.

Three members of the planning committee who refused the application were all Kenilworth councillors, but they were outvoted by other committee members at the meeting held at Leamington town hall on Tuesday evening.

Cllr Felicity Bunker (Con, Kenilworth Park Hill) said: “I voted against it on the grounds that the development would be detrimental to the area because its a very special conservation one.

“The difficulty was that there wasn’t any planning grounds to turn the application down as the applicant had worked with planning officers to find something that was acceptable.”

Bertie MacKay, who chaired the meeting when this application was being discussed because planning committee chairman Cllr George Illingworth (Con, Abbey) declared a prejudicial interest, voted for the application to be granted. He said: “I think the development will harmonise with the area.

“There have been similar previous applications for this site which were refused, but this one seemed to address all the points refused in the past as the applicant worked closely with planning officers.”