Note From CRC: Typical letter of objection for re-validated main campus redevlopment application for residents not bordering the college campus and typical letter of objection to application for bore holes Thetford Building garden.
Mr Neil Campbell
Norwich City Council
Planning Services
City Hall
NORWICH
NR2 1NH
8th August 2008
Dear Sir
Planning Application Reference no. 08/00255/O
- Norwich City College, Ipswich Road, Norwich, NR2 2LJ
I wish to register the following objections to this application for the redevelopment of the City College campus - The reasons for my objection are as follows:-
* The proposal conflicts with a number of policies of Norwich City Council Local Plans;
* The most notable is EMP19;
* The proposals involve an industrial scale development on an island site, bounded on 3 sides by
established residential properties, and on the 4th by listed Georgian buildings including Town
Close Preparatory School, all situated within a tree-lined Conservation Area;
* The concept and immense scale of the proposals represent over-development of the site;
* There is a significant loss of on-site “open-space” and the loss of mature trees, should the
proposals gain approval,
* The proposals require huge allocation of public funds to the demolition of buildings and facilities,
some more than “fit for purpose”;
* The impact and scale of a 6 year industrial development on Town Close Ward will be immense;
* Proposals will significantly increase traffic noise, pollution and nuisance;
* Significant environmental damage will be caused both during demolition and building works, and
thereafter during the day to day running of the College;
* Proposals for traffic entering and leaving the site between the junctions of Cecil Road and Town
Close Road will cause untold congestion and prejudice highway safety at a point already subject
to delays and hazard due to proximity to the entrance/exit for Town Close Preparatory School;
* The recent installation of a speed camera in the vicinity, and the proposal for a new pedestrian
crossing between the two entrances give cause for even greater concern;
* Legal safety requirements during Phase I of the development would render most if not all of the
Campus out of bounds for either students or traffic during construction, with no alternative
parking available, as admitted by the College.
These proposals represent gross over-development of a site considered too small for purpose by the City Architect’s Department in the early 1950’s, and we believe this application should be refused as it stands, and that a detailed planning proposal should be made based on a reduced proposal designed with sympathetic addition and the retention of major buildings on the site which are considered fit for purpose.
Yours faithfully
Sunday, 10 August 2008
Sample letter objection to bore holes Thetford Building
Mr Neil Campbell
Norwich City Council
Planning Services
City Hall
NORWICH
NR2 1NH
8th August 2008
Dear Sir
Planning Application Reference no. DC/08/00710/F
- Norwich City College, Ipswich Road, Norwich, NR2 2LJ
We wish to raise the following concerns and objections to the above application which is for excavation of deep bore holes for a ground source heat recovery system. We are particularly concerned as to how the proposals will affect the area of Cecil Road at the Ipswich Road end, and the corresponding part of Ipswich Road itself.
The Design & Access Statement accompanying the above application states that the proposed deep bore holes are to provide heating for the newly constructed Eco-Building to be located on this site.
Application has no Purpose
The above building was subject of Application No. 08/00420/F which was refused by the Planning Committee on 31st July 2008.
The reasons for refusal were:-
1) Impact on the Conservation Area;
2) Inappropriate nature of the development;
3) Loss of local amenity;
4) Damage and future damage to trees
In view of the refusal of Application No. 08/00420/F, it is difficult to see the purpose of Application No. 08/00710/F.
Furthermore, our objections to 08/00420/F also apply in part to 08/00710/F.
Concerns About Subsidence
We understand that it appears this issue has not been addressed in the Design & Access statement, except by way of brief reference to “An investigation (has been) undertaken....to ascertain the suitability of the location for bore holes of this type, and it has been deemed to be suitable..”
No reference is made in the planning application to problems of subsidence to residents’ properties in the surrounding area. It is know that the general location and neighbouring properties are situated on “bad ground”, and as a consequence, many residents’ properties have, and suffer from, subsidence, resulting in structural movement to their properties. The remedial works have included both underpinning and piling.
During construction of a small access driveway from Cecil Road to Cromwell House Care Home, structural movement, caused by subsidence from these minor works, to two adjacent houses on Cecil Road, led to the necessity of these houses being underpinned. These houses are positioned almost directly opposite to the site of the proposed boreholes.
Under the circumstances, we wish to object to the proposals on the grounds that deep boreholes are likely to mean that further dangerous subsidence could result in the immediate area. This would be enormously detrimental to the residents of Cecil Road.
In view of the identified subsidence in adjacent properties, the Council is asked to require the Developer to fully investigate subsidence risk.
Flood Risk Assessment
We object to any proposals which would cause any additional flow of any kind into or out of the ground in this area. Although the College is on relatively high ground, it is very noticeable that there is a very high groundwater table. A major acquifer runs through the area. The nature of the area is such that even very light rainfalls take an abnormally long time to drain away.
Reviewing the 1878 Ordnance Survey Map of the area shows that two small streams (“cockeys”) run from the Grove Walk end of the site down towards Ipswich Road. The proposed plans for boreholes appear to take no account of the original topography of the area. We note in passing the comments on the main plans for the College Redevelopment (No 08/00255/O) that part of the site regularly floods.
Damage to Trees
Application No. 08/00420/F for the Eco-Building made proposals to remove a number of trees near the Thetford Building. The present application for deep boreholes appears predicated upon the removal of those trees – in particular fine specimen trees in the garden of the Thetford Building – because the boreholes shown on the Deep Borehole Location Plan are precisely where the trees are sited.
The removal of large quantities of groundwater will clearly have an adverse effect on the trees in the immediate vicinity and for this reason also we request that the plans are refused.
Yours faithfully
Norwich City Council
Planning Services
City Hall
NORWICH
NR2 1NH
8th August 2008
Dear Sir
Planning Application Reference no. DC/08/00710/F
- Norwich City College, Ipswich Road, Norwich, NR2 2LJ
We wish to raise the following concerns and objections to the above application which is for excavation of deep bore holes for a ground source heat recovery system. We are particularly concerned as to how the proposals will affect the area of Cecil Road at the Ipswich Road end, and the corresponding part of Ipswich Road itself.
The Design & Access Statement accompanying the above application states that the proposed deep bore holes are to provide heating for the newly constructed Eco-Building to be located on this site.
Application has no Purpose
The above building was subject of Application No. 08/00420/F which was refused by the Planning Committee on 31st July 2008.
The reasons for refusal were:-
1) Impact on the Conservation Area;
2) Inappropriate nature of the development;
3) Loss of local amenity;
4) Damage and future damage to trees
In view of the refusal of Application No. 08/00420/F, it is difficult to see the purpose of Application No. 08/00710/F.
Furthermore, our objections to 08/00420/F also apply in part to 08/00710/F.
Concerns About Subsidence
We understand that it appears this issue has not been addressed in the Design & Access statement, except by way of brief reference to “An investigation (has been) undertaken....to ascertain the suitability of the location for bore holes of this type, and it has been deemed to be suitable..”
No reference is made in the planning application to problems of subsidence to residents’ properties in the surrounding area. It is know that the general location and neighbouring properties are situated on “bad ground”, and as a consequence, many residents’ properties have, and suffer from, subsidence, resulting in structural movement to their properties. The remedial works have included both underpinning and piling.
During construction of a small access driveway from Cecil Road to Cromwell House Care Home, structural movement, caused by subsidence from these minor works, to two adjacent houses on Cecil Road, led to the necessity of these houses being underpinned. These houses are positioned almost directly opposite to the site of the proposed boreholes.
Under the circumstances, we wish to object to the proposals on the grounds that deep boreholes are likely to mean that further dangerous subsidence could result in the immediate area. This would be enormously detrimental to the residents of Cecil Road.
In view of the identified subsidence in adjacent properties, the Council is asked to require the Developer to fully investigate subsidence risk.
Flood Risk Assessment
We object to any proposals which would cause any additional flow of any kind into or out of the ground in this area. Although the College is on relatively high ground, it is very noticeable that there is a very high groundwater table. A major acquifer runs through the area. The nature of the area is such that even very light rainfalls take an abnormally long time to drain away.
Reviewing the 1878 Ordnance Survey Map of the area shows that two small streams (“cockeys”) run from the Grove Walk end of the site down towards Ipswich Road. The proposed plans for boreholes appear to take no account of the original topography of the area. We note in passing the comments on the main plans for the College Redevelopment (No 08/00255/O) that part of the site regularly floods.
Damage to Trees
Application No. 08/00420/F for the Eco-Building made proposals to remove a number of trees near the Thetford Building. The present application for deep boreholes appears predicated upon the removal of those trees – in particular fine specimen trees in the garden of the Thetford Building – because the boreholes shown on the Deep Borehole Location Plan are precisely where the trees are sited.
The removal of large quantities of groundwater will clearly have an adverse effect on the trees in the immediate vicinity and for this reason also we request that the plans are refused.
Yours faithfully
Monday, 14 April 2008
Note
Please note this page will be continually updated
Further information and advice has been added:-
14/04/2008
18/04/2008
For sample letters of objection Click Here
Further information and advice has been added:-
14/04/2008
18/04/2008
For sample letters of objection Click Here
Sunday, 30 March 2008
CRC Your Rights To Object Explained
FROM THE COMMITTEE - How To Object:-
We are indebted to ROY SPEER and MICHAEL DADE for allowing us to quote from their book ‘HOW TO STOP AND INFLUENCE PLANNING PERMISSION’ as a basis for the following advice on how you can object to the College Redevelopment
We have found this book most useful and informative and recommend it without hesitation to anyone researching this planning application or facing a similar situation in the future
Grounds for objecting specifically to the City College Development for those wishing to speak at the planning committee or those wishing to write stating their objections independently please accept the following advice, the committee will be happy to write the letter on behalf of individuals or letters for group signatories, but all should be based on the following-
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTING
Planning Policy
· Conflict with Structure Plan, Local Plan or UDP policies (click here for Local Plan ) EMP18 and EMP19 specifically applies to the college campus.
· Not complying with Councils informal policy guidance
Special Descriptions
· Loss of important Tree Preservation Order trees
· Conflict with character of Conservation area (west side of Ipswich Road
directly opposite College)
Site Considerations
· Over development
· Excessive bulk or scale
· Incompatibility with the design of existing buildings on the campus(if Phase 2
does not take place)
· Insufficient parking spaces in accordance with PPG 13 (Planning Policy
Guidance 13)
· Failure to meet Council’s access and on-site turning standards
Neighbours
· Overlooking adjoining properties
· Blocking natural light
· General noise, disturbance, smells, pollution
· Unsociable hours of operation
Surrounding Area
· Dominating nearby buildings
· Conflict with the pattern of development
· Poor relationship with adjoining buildings
· Visually damaging in the landscape and setting
· Conflict with the character of the area (incompatibility with the design of
existing residential areas on three sides and conservation area containing listed
buildings on Ipswich Road)
· Environmental damage caused by vehicles
· Inconvenience for pedestrians, road system is inadequate
· Prejudice highway safety(both on and off the campus due to pedestrians
crossing roads especially on campus)
· Loss of open space
· Better alternative sites available (e.g. green field sites adjacent to University
Campus, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital or Cattle Market. Hall road
or any other available brown field site in the City centre)
Again with the help of Roy Speer and Michael Dade, we suggest the following Do’s:-
·Do- use the notes you made at the ‘Consultation Open Days’ or when studying
the Outline Planning Application
·Do- limit your comments to the actual College Redevelopment proposals
·Do- base your arguments on known facts
·Do- back up your assertions with evidence where you can
·Do- concentrate on planning issues
·Do- explain why the proposal would be harmful and to whom
·Do- make your points as brief and concise as you can
·Do- be as specific in your claims as you can
·Do- word process the letter if possible, failing that, write very clearly
·Do- quote the application reference number and address
The Planning Officer overseeing the application is Mr Neil Campbell, Planning Department, City Hall, St. Peter's Street, Norwich NR2 1NH.
The application number is 08/00255/O the address is City College, 5 Ipswich Road, Norwich, NR2 2LJ
How to make your objections more effective
· Do- stick to relevant planning grounds, which have been outlined earlier, you
don’t have to cover all grounds, just those you believe will affect you (this is
very important do not raise or elaborate on issues that you know will not affect
you) make sure you focus clearly and succinctly on the main issues.
· Do not- refer to non-planning issues or be emotional. Both of these will
undermine your case
· If, like the committee, you are College and student friendly and support an
upgrading of the College facilities, but are concerned by its density, mass,
height, overlooking, your loss of privacy, road, car park etc. of the current
proposals, state how you would like to see the proposals amended if planning
permission were to be given (this is optional)
And the Don’ts
· Do Not- exaggerate the likely effects of the proposal
· Do Not- make personal remarks about the College or their motives
· Do Not- make assumptions as to the applicant’s (the College) intentions.
However, you may like to raise concerns about the proposals (see Site
Considerations)
· Do Not- include factors unrelated to the use of the land, such as the value of
your property (although the reasons why your property would be devalued might be
relevant)
· Do Not- make unsubstantiated claims
· Do Not- use emotive generalisations (e.g. we’ve had enough problems, how
much more can we take? etc)
· Do Not- underline – USE CAPITIAL LETTERS or exclamation marks in the
text!!!!!
NOTE – Also please remember Planning matters do not include the following:-
· Spoiling of views
· Effect on property values
· Covenant affecting properties
· Nuisance caused by building work
Also please remember whichever method of objection you choose either individually or with a group letter you can only put your signature to one letter
We are indebted to ROY SPEER and MICHAEL DADE for allowing us to quote from their book ‘HOW TO STOP AND INFLUENCE PLANNING PERMISSION’ as a basis for the following advice on how you can object to the College Redevelopment
We have found this book most useful and informative and recommend it without hesitation to anyone researching this planning application or facing a similar situation in the future
Grounds for objecting specifically to the City College Development for those wishing to speak at the planning committee or those wishing to write stating their objections independently please accept the following advice, the committee will be happy to write the letter on behalf of individuals or letters for group signatories, but all should be based on the following-
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTING
Planning Policy
· Conflict with Structure Plan, Local Plan or UDP policies (click here for Local Plan ) EMP18 and EMP19 specifically applies to the college campus.
· Not complying with Councils informal policy guidance
Special Descriptions
· Loss of important Tree Preservation Order trees
· Conflict with character of Conservation area (west side of Ipswich Road
directly opposite College)
Site Considerations
· Over development
· Excessive bulk or scale
· Incompatibility with the design of existing buildings on the campus(if Phase 2
does not take place)
· Insufficient parking spaces in accordance with PPG 13 (Planning Policy
Guidance 13)
· Failure to meet Council’s access and on-site turning standards
Neighbours
· Overlooking adjoining properties
· Blocking natural light
· General noise, disturbance, smells, pollution
· Unsociable hours of operation
Surrounding Area
· Dominating nearby buildings
· Conflict with the pattern of development
· Poor relationship with adjoining buildings
· Visually damaging in the landscape and setting
· Conflict with the character of the area (incompatibility with the design of
existing residential areas on three sides and conservation area containing listed
buildings on Ipswich Road)
· Environmental damage caused by vehicles
· Inconvenience for pedestrians, road system is inadequate
· Prejudice highway safety(both on and off the campus due to pedestrians
crossing roads especially on campus)
· Loss of open space
· Better alternative sites available (e.g. green field sites adjacent to University
Campus, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital or Cattle Market. Hall road
or any other available brown field site in the City centre)
Again with the help of Roy Speer and Michael Dade, we suggest the following Do’s:-
·Do- use the notes you made at the ‘Consultation Open Days’ or when studying
the Outline Planning Application
·Do- limit your comments to the actual College Redevelopment proposals
·Do- base your arguments on known facts
·Do- back up your assertions with evidence where you can
·Do- concentrate on planning issues
·Do- explain why the proposal would be harmful and to whom
·Do- make your points as brief and concise as you can
·Do- be as specific in your claims as you can
·Do- word process the letter if possible, failing that, write very clearly
·Do- quote the application reference number and address
The Planning Officer overseeing the application is Mr Neil Campbell, Planning Department, City Hall, St. Peter's Street, Norwich NR2 1NH.
The application number is 08/00255/O the address is City College, 5 Ipswich Road, Norwich, NR2 2LJ
How to make your objections more effective
· Do- stick to relevant planning grounds, which have been outlined earlier, you
don’t have to cover all grounds, just those you believe will affect you (this is
very important do not raise or elaborate on issues that you know will not affect
you) make sure you focus clearly and succinctly on the main issues.
· Do not- refer to non-planning issues or be emotional. Both of these will
undermine your case
· If, like the committee, you are College and student friendly and support an
upgrading of the College facilities, but are concerned by its density, mass,
height, overlooking, your loss of privacy, road, car park etc. of the current
proposals, state how you would like to see the proposals amended if planning
permission were to be given (this is optional)
And the Don’ts
· Do Not- exaggerate the likely effects of the proposal
· Do Not- make personal remarks about the College or their motives
· Do Not- make assumptions as to the applicant’s (the College) intentions.
However, you may like to raise concerns about the proposals (see Site
Considerations)
· Do Not- include factors unrelated to the use of the land, such as the value of
your property (although the reasons why your property would be devalued might be
relevant)
· Do Not- make unsubstantiated claims
· Do Not- use emotive generalisations (e.g. we’ve had enough problems, how
much more can we take? etc)
· Do Not- underline – USE CAPITIAL LETTERS or exclamation marks in the
text!!!!!
NOTE – Also please remember Planning matters do not include the following:-
· Spoiling of views
· Effect on property values
· Covenant affecting properties
· Nuisance caused by building work
Also please remember whichever method of objection you choose either individually or with a group letter you can only put your signature to one letter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)