Sample letter objection to main College site development

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