4.24
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 5775
Received: 20/04/2014
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The only building in the old Convent site that is clearly visible to passers-by is the building that runs along the lower end of Magdalen Road and which to appearances is not in a bad state of repair and can't be classed as an eyesore having a 'harmful impact' on the area. It is actually a beautiful building that greatly enhances the area and should be protected as should the whole of the Convent Grounds (north and south) by being classed as Private Open Space.
The only building in the old Convent site that is clearly visible to passers-by is the building that runs along the lower end of Magdalen Road and which to appearances is not in a bad state of repair and can't be classed as an eyesore having a 'harmful impact' on the area. It is actually a beautiful building that greatly enhances the area and should be protected as should the whole of the Convent Grounds (north and south) by being classed as Private Open Space.
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 5850
Received: 22/04/2014
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Planning can mean hard choices between benefits and disbenefits, and about what is saved, and how.
So is this potential 'approval of built development that would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms' an enabling development under national criteria or is it not?
Planning can mean hard choices between benefits and disbenefits, and about what is saved, and how.
So is this potential 'approval of built development that would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms' an enabling development under national criteria or is it not?
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 5920
Received: 22/04/2014
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The phrase 'a unique collection of Grade 11* and Grade 11 listed buildings' should be replaced with a term that includes all the heritage assets on the site.
See attached -
Name: T Jarvis
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5914-5920 inclusive