A developer is in early pre-application talks with SEBC planners including the Conservation Officer on the subject of this land by the record office, currently a car park. On the basis of draft plans, which I have seen, comments have already been made by them. When these are received by the developer there will be a non-statutory informal consultation process set up for neighbours and councillors. Only then will there be a planning applicatiion, and this will be the subject of a full Development Control committee meeting held in public. The developer is well known to SEBC for small scale developments and has been working locally for several years.The whole car park and Weymed building area is to be utilised, leaving the right of way for The Manor House. (It is thought that a parking area behind the police station, recently granted planning consent for a car park, may be the quid pro quo for the loss of SEBC car park, but this is another matter!)
There are 17 units of varying sizes envisaged at present, though this may reduce for the application. Clearly some in St Mary's Square and Sparhawk Street will be affected more than others, and some will gain from the loss of the old building.
A crescent of eight 3 ½ story units is planned for the perimeter wall, which would be removed. These are at present very high indeed – about 13.5m on the car park side and as much as 15.5m on the outer side. The substation will go, but it is not known where to.
Between the gardens of 3, 4 and 4A St Mary's Square and the Manor House there would be further units. The record office remains, but obviously could be developed in future.
Watch this space, as ever, for more news.
4 comments:
Well of course 17 dwelling can fit, but will they be in context and suitable for inclusion within the historic core?
How does this application square with the other property in swan lane that was restricted to a single story by the same council planners. Can we insist that each property has at least two carparking places within the boundarys of the development, both of the above may mean the developer needs to dig down a little and remove some top soil, which may in turn show up some history. or they just get the go ahead, sod the hight and the car parking issues, because NO councillors or officials live close by.
Healthily sceptical as usual BB, but a bit unfair. Councillors can't live everywhere. Actually an ex-one does live there and if she was still in office no doubt you would say: "I suppose it will all be sorted nicely because of her". We can never win.
I have notified all surrounding neighbours, looked at the preliminary plans, and given them more info than is on here. I shall as ever be helping them to get the best deal for all.
This is very much in the early stages and not in the public domain - except via this blog. Hope I don't get ticked off!
You should not get ticked off for doing your public duty. That after all is why you were elected Yes, fair point on where councillors live, and accepted, how ever a number officials who also make the recommendations tend not to reside within the historic core either. The height and parking are comcerns, maybe the new southgate area association can help.
Rest assured I am following this one closely BB, although residents in St Mary's Square/Sparhawk St will not allow anything to be built which is not an overall improvement - any more than I will. I will try and remember to publish the informal consultation here, after which comes the formal application which anyone can comment one, and I hope you will.
Post a Comment