委员会允许五布雷对官rec房屋ommendations despite 'urbanisation' fears

The council has opted to allow a controversial five-home plan in Bray which has gone back and forth over its housing design.

Developers want to turn Zaman House and Awan House on Church Road, The Fisheries, into five detached homes.

This site has a long history – previously, there was a bid to turn them into six semi-detached homes, which was actually approved. The new scheme would replace the old one – so it came down to which of the two the Maidenhead Development Management Committee felt would be best.

总之,在spac关注的领域iousness of the proposals. In either case, the changes would mean an increase in density and diminishing of space around the buildings.

Zaman House is 8.6m tall and 30m wide; Awan House is 8.8m tall and 20.6 metres wide, separated by a gap of 13 metres. There are 5-7m metre gaps on either side of each house.

The new houses would each measure 10m high and 10-12m wide. There would be a gap of 3m between each on the five houses.

Councillors felt the denser build would impact the spaciousness that is typical of the character of the area. But it is ‘less dense’ than the approved scheme and ‘an improvement’ on it, argued the applicant’s representative.

Councillor Gary Reeves (Lib Dem, Cox Green) agreed these designs had ‘more interesting architecture’ between the two, while Cllr Geoff Hill (TBFI, Oldfield) also felt these homes were ‘less dominant’.

However, others including Kashmir Singh (Lib Dem, Riverside), remained concerned over ‘needless urbanisation’ which will ‘set a precedent’.

Cllr Maureen Hunt (Con, Hurley and Walthams) was also not keen on the plans but noted that there will be urbanisation whichever of the two schemes is built.

Another consideration is affordable housing. Because the area covers 1,000sqft, this triggers the requirement for a financial contribution towards this. The applicant has indicated they would be willing to do so. They have also already contributed money towards carbon off-setting.

Officers had recommended against the proposals, citing harm to a conversation area, ‘poor design’ and dominance affecting the area’s character. The committee preferred the new designs – so voted to go against this and approve the scheme.