Tag Archives: Caledonian Road

Clydesdale Lodge, 44A Caledonian Road

17/00416/DOM. Clydesdale Lodge, 44A Caledonian Road, Chichester. Rear first floor extension and roof garden

The Executive Committee considers that this proposal is unacceptable because of the apparent un-neighbourly proximity to the boundaries and loss of privacy and outlook to neighbours in Clydesdale Avenue, Caledonian Road, and Forum House which is within the newly extended Conservation Area. We comment that the information presented was insufficient to fully understand the proposal and existing situation.

The Committee therefore objects to this application and asks that the Council refuses permission.

8 Caledonian Road

16/03777/DOM. 8 Caledonian Road, Chichester. Partial demolition and single storey addition to rear outshot.

The Executive Committee considers that this proposal is unacceptable because of the insensitive appearance of the wide patio doors and use of uPVC windows on the rear elevation of this positive property in the Conservation Area. Also it considers the proposal to be un-neighbourly, by its bulk and proximity to No 7, which, with its skewed arrangement, has a very limited outlook from its rear windows.

We therefore object to this application and ask that the Council refuses permission.

1 Caledonian Road

16/03524/DOM. 1 Caledonian Road, Chichester. Single storey rear extension with hipped roof.

The Executive Committee considers that the proposal is unacceptable because of the use of uPVC windows and the undefined detail of how the eaves gutter is maintained on the north boundary. The appearance and quality of this rear elevation is important as it is in the Conservation Area and is visible from the Market Car Park.

The Committee therefore objects to this application and requests that the Council refuses
permission.

8 Caledonian Road

16/03477/PLD. 8 Caledonian Road, Chichester. Partial demolition and single storey addition to rear outshot.

The Executive Committee considers that this design proposal is unacceptable because of the appearance of the wide patio doors on the rear elevation. Also it appears to be un-neighbourly by its bulk and proximity to No 7 which with its skewed arrangement has a very limited outlook from its rear windows.

We therefore object to this application and ask that the Council requires a modified Full
Application.