Rationale for objections
1. Lack of compatibility/sympathy with the Greaves area generally in terms of the design, density and height of the proposed structure.
Greaves is currently an historic residential area, consisting of mainly low-rise 19th and early 20th century housing stock, reflecting the social and demographic heritage of this area over the last 150+ years. The proposed structure is of such an immense size that it will completely dominate the area, dwarfing all the domestic homes. Residents’ reactions to the plans have been to describe them as monolithic, industrial, on an industrial scale, ugly, out of character, much larger than I imagined.
The proposed high –rise building is incompatible with the current low –rise historic and domestic building stock of the area, and is out of character in terms of design, materials, size and sympathy with the surrounding buildings into the centre of which it is being shoehorned. This is not an objection to good modern architecture per se, but the noughties yellow facades and sloping roofs are already looking dated. Does Lancaster
2. Lack of consistency with/ignoring of the local RPS heritage asset preservation requirements, and disregard of local policies in relation to sustainable communities and conservation areas
As a heritage asset, the RPS advised that the developers should retain the Greaves Hotel, and stipulated that any development should be subsidiary to that building. The present plans retain only the façade of the Greaves Hotel, and have made no attempt to create something that would be regarded a subsidiary. Indeed the number of dwellings seems to have increased from the initial concept of c. 55 to up to 60.
The design has made no effort to be integrated with the character of the landscape. It adversely affects important views into and across a conservation area. For reasons shown below, the proposed build will not maintain, but rather undermine the environmental quality and vitality of the high density Victorian and Edwardian areas in which it is to be located, by robbing the area variously of light, space, privacy, hours of sunlight, aspect and views, heritage assets, and by causing an increase to noise and traffic pollution, increased shade, and potential damage to the natural environment. Over time, as the area becomes ever more pressured spacially, it will become less attractive and could lead to the decline of Greaves as a thriving sustainable community, as a place(s) where people want to live and work, which meet the needs of residents and provides a high quality of life.
(Italics reflect statements in local policies.)
3. Lack of attention to spatial planning in terms of consideration of the nature of places and how they function, resulting in an adverse impact on the quality of the environment and lifestyle of the residents of the Greaves area in the following respects:
3.1 Unrealistic and inaccurate planning for parking
Only 20 parking places have been included to support up to 24 staff and the occupants of up to 60 apartments. The proposals are silent in relation to parking for delivery vehicles and for personal and professional visitors, likely to be significant for over 60 occupants. The Exhibitors maintained that the average age of their residents is 83 years, and that most will not have cars. Yet exhibition photographs of residents implied that they were typically in their early- mid seventies. Government and social commentary in the national press continually asserts that older people are remaining active for much longer. It is therefore fallacious to plan on current parking take-up, without future-proofing for changing health and lifestyle demographics.
It would appear that the development may be implicitly relying on overspill parking in surrounding streets. There is clearly no understanding of the existing parking problems in the streets in West Greaves, mainly caused by the high concentration of housing built long before parking /garaging was a consideration for home owners. Multiple housing occupancy and multiple car homes create difficulties currently. These are exacerbated, certainly in parts of Greaves, by commuter car parking, since the area is a short walk to town. The development proposals will undoubtedly add further to the deleterious effect on the quality of life of the people in the immediate area.
3.2 Privacy and light issues—potential breach of the 21 Metres of Separation Rule in relation to Ash Grove
The height of the proposed building will reduce both privacy and light for a number of homes in West Greaves on the streets between Bridge Rd and Brunton Rd. Potentially this may impact on up to 100 homes. Neighbours in Ash Grove will be significantly affected as they will be completely overshadowed by the new build, whose residents from a number of floors will be able to look directly into the living and bedrooms in Ash Grove. There is an absence of measurements, but it is quite possible that the 21 metres of Separation Rule governing overlooking issues may be being breached here.
Although less acute than for Ash Grove, similar issues are relevant for residents of Belle Vue Terrace (BVT), many of whom have historic full length windows, which will make viewing even easier from the other side of the road!
3.3 Failure to consider the environmental and social impact of changed access to hours of direct sunlight , and increased shade in the area
The plans have not given any consideration to the transit route of the sun and the implications of the shade issues that will be created by a building of this size. This is likely to affect, not only peoples’ leisure time, but will also impact on environmental factors such as ecosystems, gardens, natural heat levels within homes. Ash Grove, Brunton Rd and Belle Vue Terrace will be particularly affected.
The landscaping claims in the plans: featuring a seating area with full view of the downs (?—sic)capturing the sun, may appeal to the few residents who can get a seat, but it will be at the expense of the privacy and access to the sun of a large number of other people in the area. It is also debateable whether the poor residents of the east side of the proposed building will get much more than an hour or two of direct natural sunlight.
3.4 Adverse effects of noise and traffic pollution
A five storey building closely adjacent to the main A6 trunk road will create a corridor/tunnel effect in that part of the approach to Lancaster South Road , despite the fact that the road is actually wider in that area than it will be in the Greaves Rd section.
4. Adverse impact on the conservation area opposite (BVT)
4.1 Contravention of local policies on views across a conservation area
The plans for a building of this size completely ignore the Local Plan’s policy on conservation areas and their surroundings, particularly in relation to buildings and spaces and the nature of spaces, including those within and outside the actual boundary of the conservation area. This proposal both adversely affects important views into and across a conservation area (both from West Greaves and from BVT) , and leads to an unacceptable erosion of its historic form and layout. Views of the conservation area would be denied to residents of West Greaves. Views of the sunset and across to the Bay, which have been a traditional feature for those who live on and those who regularly walk down the “Monkey Rack” (as BVT has been colloquially known since the 1850s, when the gentry paraded along the terrace and enjoyed the views, to the present day). The proposed plans would destroy an important and longstanding feature of the heritage of the area.
4.2 Likely loss of hours of sunlight on BVT, with potential for detrimental effect on domestic and public gardens/ecosystems, trees with preservation orders.
There is potential damage to domestic gardens and City border planting as increased shade and less sunlight hours impact on the ecosystems. At least three trees on BVT have preservation orders on them.
4.3 Increased traffic noise and pollution
As under 3.4 above. Over time the area will look less attractive and more downtrodden. This will not be good either for the residents or for a city which is continually trying to improve and not impoverish its heritage credentials.
4.4 Loss of privacy and quality of lifestyle and environment for residents
Privacy issues as under 3.2 above. Quality of lifestyle and environment issues as under the whole of Section 4.
4.5 Potential effect on appropriate maintenance and sustainability of the conservation area, and change to social demographics
An area which is becoming dirtier, noisier, shadier (possibly with poorer gardens), less private, vistaless, but with an unattractive aspect that will date very quickly and become anachronistic, will be less attractive to current residents and less marketable to others. The social demographics of the area could change, which could impact adversely on the conservation area.
5. Questionable assessment of fitness for purpose of this location for the client group of this business. Marketability; spare capacity leeway /futureproofing.
Residents of the proposed development could experience one or more of the following disadvantages:
For east facing residents it would involve life on a trunk road with a bus –stop and a pedestrian crossing outside . High levels of noise and traffic pollution, such that windows could neither be kept clean, nor opened for fresh air. Because of the height of BVT and the trajectory of the sun these apartments may get as little as two hours or less direct sunlight per day . This adverse quality of accommodation experience could affect the marketability of however many apartments are scheduled for this section, and there could be high turnover.
For all residents it would involve living in very high density accommodation with questionable adequate outdoor recreational space for this number of residents, and with a lack of adequate parking for their own or their visitors’ cars. There appears to be no spare capacity in this plan, so, as far as can be told, no leeway for flexibility, adaptation , responsiveness to changing social and health demographics and the different needs these might bring in the future.
Professor M G Abramson and Mrs T Abramson.
18 February 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment