‘THIS is a joke’ – plans to develop in a residential back garden have been blocked for the fourth time by councillors.
An avalanche of objections were made yet again for tweaked plans to construct two four-bedroom houses with two parking spaces behind 14 Lynwood Avenue, Upton with an access road by altering the existing property.
Back in January, the Observer reported members of the planning committee refused plans to develop four three-bedroom and two four-bedroom houses at the site – which is currently under appeal.
The applicant, Matt Taylor, argued the designs and layout have gone back to the drawing board to address the overdevelopment issues raised by reducing the number of proposed houses and tucking the units away from the street scene as to not impact its character.
READ MORE: A boost in Slough's data economy as major plans approved
He said: “Without being facetious, if you weren’t in a helicopter flying overhead, you wouldn’t really know that those houses are there.
“You would have a glimpse view when you pass the access at most.”
However, ward councillors, a petition with 530 signatures, and 57 emails/letters of objection – which is more than last time – disagreed.
They say the plans will still conflict with the street’s 1930’s architecture, the increase of traffic will lead to more accidents as the proposed access road is on a ‘dangerous’ bend, loss of privacy, loss of trees and biodiversity, and increase in noise.
READ MORE: Slough's 'ground-breaking' BAME coronvirus pilot a 'success'
Campaigners feared this could lead to more back garden development in Lynwood Avenue and other parts of the borough.
Councillor Balvinder S. Bains (Labour: Upton), lead member for inclusive growth and skills, called the plans a ‘joke’ as this is the fourth time this plan has been submitted although residents clearly don’t want this type of development in or near their street.
Speaking against the application, councillor Rajinder S. Sandhu (Independent: Upton), said: “This will set a precedent for other areas and road to sell their gardens and make some money.”
On Wednesday (September 9), members of the panel voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here