Policy CLB1 - 1-3 Chapel Park Road
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 5769
Received: 20/04/2014
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
There is no justification for knocking down these fine buildings, which are on the cusp of a conservation area and opposite two other architecturally valuable buildings, The Baptist Church and the derelict house on the other side of the road.
27 units are too many in an already overpopulated area-this means that they will tower over the site- overshadowing the area around it.
The proposed designs are not as nice as the buildings that are already present. It is not environmentally friendly to knock down two perfectly sound and substantial villas.
There is no justification for knocking down these fine buildings, which are on the cusp of a conservation area and opposite two other architecturally valuable buildings, The Baptist Church and the derelict house on the other side of the road.
27 units are too many in an already overpopulated area-this means that they will tower over the site- overshadowing the area around it.
The proposed designs are not as nice as the buildings that are already present. It is not environmentally friendly to knock down two perfectly sound and substantial villas.
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 5919
Received: 22/04/2014
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Demolition of these victorian villas would seriously harm the Kings Road Conservation Area. This is a steeply sloping site with a history of land instability. In spite of this HBC did not address Network Rails serious concerns regarding HS/OA/13/00577 even though this means that Network Rail would accept no liability for any resultant tunnel incident.
See attached -
Name: T Jarvis
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5914-5920 inclusive
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 5927
Received: 22/04/2014
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This involves the unnecessary destruction of fine existing buildings which are part of the coherent architectural heritage Central St. Leonards. Their destruction would be an act of vandalism on a par with the misguided destruction of much of our Victorian architectural heritage all over Britain in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. I thought we had learnt from past mistakes.
See attached.
Name: B Sell
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5926 & 5927 inclusive
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 5937
Received: 22/04/2014
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Demolition of these victorian villas would seriously harm the Kings Rd Conservation Area, Nicolas Antram in his HBC commissioned 2007 report recommended that 1-3 Chapel Park Rd & 6-8 Ellenslea Rd be included in the Kings Rd Conservation Area. 6-8 Ellenslea Rd have subsequently been included, but inexplicably 1-3 Chapel Park Rd have not, though they were identified to have important town-scape merit. NWR will not pay for damage done to the tunnel etc. without being given a stability survey prior to planning permisssion being given, this was ignored so it could cost the Borough a great deal of money.
See attached -
Name: M Jarvis
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5929-5940 inclusive.
Object
Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014
Representation ID: 6012
Received: 22/04/2014
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Highly controversial proposal. The planning permission ran out on the hugely overdeveloped proposal (and undeveloped). The site is unstable and adjacent to the railway tunnel.
This is another site where an outline planning permission was rushed through with support by the Planner - varied with a raft of conditions.
The existing pair of semi detached homes are heritage assets & should be retained. It is extremely unlikely that the proposed development will ever go ahead.
See attached -
Name: A Ingleton
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5994-6032 & 6034-6040 inclusive