APPLICATION NO: 12/00081/FUL OFFICER: Mr Martin Chandler

DATE REGISTERED: 19th January 2012 DATE OF EXPIRY : 19th April 2012

WARD: St Marks PARISH: NONE

APPLICANT: Bromford Home Ownership And Spirax Sarco Ltd

LOCATION: Spirax Sarco Ltd, Tennyson Road, Cheltenham

PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising 35 dwellings (including 40 per cent affordable housing), with associated access, parking, landscaping works following demolition of existing factory

REPRESENTATIONS

Number of contributors 4 Number of objections 4 Number of representations 0 Number of supporting 0

61 Surrey Avenue Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 8DF

Reason(s) See attached letter

Comments: 21st February 2012 Letter attached.

55 Surrey Avenue Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 8DF

Reason(s) See attached email

Comments: 17th February 2012 E-mail attached.

59 Surrey Avenue Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 8DF

Reason(s) See comments below

Comments: 16th February 2012

1. I object to the wall being demolished and replaced by a 6ft fence. The wall is a safeguard from trespassers.

2. These houses directly at the bottom of the garden would overlook my property directly into my bedrooms.

3. The ground level on the Spirax site is higher by about 4 or 5 ft so this would invade my privacy when houses are erected close to my boundary.

4. My view would be impeded and any activity in the garden would be overlooked by these tenants.

5. Originally when I purchased this property I believed that Spirax would be a permanent fixture, so I would never have to contend with these issues listed above, this was a major factor for me.

6. I have spoken with my neighbours and we all have he same opinion and objections.

57 Surrey Avenue Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL51 8DF

Reason(s) See comments below

Comments: 22nd February 2012 Further to your visit to me on the 14th February 2010 to discuss the plans for the Spirax site at Tennyson Road Cheltenham, I am emailing to outline our objections to the current plans: The developers at the initial stages assured us that the wall joining our property would be retained. When we suggested that it should be repaired and/or replaced they agreed to examine the wall but never did. The boundary wall between our property and the Spirax factory is to be replaced by a six foot fence. This would allow the properties situated to the rear of our garden an uninterrupted view of both our garden and house. Due to the elevated position the properties will hold, the occupants would be able to see directly into our home. This is a wholly unacceptable loss of privacy. It was suggested that a possible solution would be that the properties be moved back into the site; this would mean that because the site slopes up away from our property that although further away no improvement in privacy would be gained. We feel that the repair and retention of the boundary wall would be the only solution.