Application Number: W/09/02588/PN Name: Mr & Mrs Seabrook Address: Western House Station Rd Blackminster Tel: Date and time of comment left: :11 Comment Type: Object to Proposal Comment: Additional to previous letter: Having viewed the recent documents added to the above application issued by Environmental Health which states when delivers may be made, we wish to point out that it will be impossible for deliveries to be made onto the actual plot, due to the tight turning from the main track, resulting in all deliveries being made whilst vehicles are still on the track, thus blocking access. In 2008 an application was agreed for the extension to the existing bungalow which stated that '...it is noted that the extension is quite large, nonetheless, it is the view of the officer that the scheme is adequately subservient to the existing dwelling house and preserves the buildings balance and proportion of surrounding area...' if the proposed build does go ahead this will no longer be the case, for both the existing and proposed build. Mr & Mrs Seabrook 19/11/09 Incorrect – sufficient frontage at The Bungalow to allow wide drive for entrance to proposed property. In addition Western House do not have right of way past own frontage and would not require access. Incorrect – If the proposal is approved then both The Bungalow and proposed property will have larger than normal gardens which are more in line with surrounding properties.

Untrue – previous issues related to greenhouses and surface water has never poured off proposed land onto the Squires. Plans have been developed to minimise impact on adjoining properties and in addition we are more than willing to accommodate any suggestions to improve i.e. frosted glass to all rear 1 st floor windows Untrue – we originally discussed 2 properties on the site and reduced this to 1. The proposed plot is of a similar size to that containing 1,2 & 3 The Squires – this is not overdevelopment and the majority of properties in this area are 2 storey. To minimise the impact of this development we have proposed a Dormer Bungalow.

Untrue – The proposed property will have a larger than average garden and will be more in keeping with other properties in the area. Untrue – The land for 7/1422 was never owned by myself and the proposal had nothing to do with me as is clear on the application. 7/2941 is in line with application and did not receive any objections. Untrue – 1 The squires has a high hedge on its own land that shades its Garden and that of neighbouring properties. The proposal will not cause loss of sunlight. Untrue – This proposal will not remove the night sky and as part of the application I would like to propose we add 2 bat boxes even though we do not have bats on the land. This is untrue – The area is very quiet apart from traffic noise and the level crossing warning sound. We do not have a sound-box effect.

We will replant as required and have planted 6 trees on the site since owning the property. Untrue – we have no badger and fox runs on or near the site. Incorrect – lorries are easily able to get up the track and the entrance will be made wide enough to allow easy access to the property. The site is not isolated and new utility pipes have just been laid which is why the track has sunk. Not due to vehicle use. Incorrect – entrance will not be sharp corner and can be made wide due to large frontage of The Bungalow onto current track. Untrue – the remaining trees will provide privacy and we will replant as required. Proposed property is a reasonable distance from The Squires, but can be moved further back or sunk down if required.

Irrelevant to the application. Untrue – the land was never owned by myself and I did not make the application. This is not a conflict of interest. As part of the development we would include rainwater harvesting for use in toilets etc and will change proposed surfacing if required. Untrue – This is a large site which is not water logged and slopes about 80cm from front of proposed house to rear fence adjoining The Squires.