This is for the building that will form part of Granville House, objections need to sent by tomorrow.
This picture shows what was there before.
This picture shows what they want to build.
With these objections it is partly the number of people who object that counts, so I wouldn’t worry too much that your objection makes a lot of sense or conforms to planning law. But if you don’t like the new plans, I doubt that the council will be able to do much about them unless they get quite a few objections.
My planning objection is below.
Planning objection
Dear Sir/Madam,
In the first instance could you kindly confirm your receipt
of this objection?
As a Ramsgate and Eastcliff ward resident I wish to object
to the following planning applications.
L/TH/12/1019 LAND
ADJACENT GRANVILLE HOUSE, VICTORIA PARADE, RAMSGATE, CT11 8DF
F/TH/12/1018 LAND
ADJACENT GRANVILLE HOUSE, VICTORIA PARADE, RAMSGATE, CT11 8DF
This development forms an extension to the grade II listed
Victorian building that fronted the whole block.
Most was designed by Edward Pugin although parts by J T
Wimperis all was built in the same Victorian Gothic style between 1867 and
1880.
Part of the development was demolished by a bomb in WW2 and
part demolished in the early 1980s to make way for a 1980s development that
didn’t occur.
Then in the early 2000s a completely different attitude to
the status of this important Victorian Gothic Pugin building was taken, and a
substantial part of it was rebuilt in the Victorian Gothic style, when the new
part was completed it was reclassified as a Grade II listed building and then
went on to win an award by Thanet District Council for attention to detail.
The current application has a strong resemblance to the
highly unsuitable 1980s plans that were abandoned and is devoid of any
sympathetic architectural detail.
I would like to object on the following grounds.
The whole reconstruction project should be in the same
architectural style, particularly as a considerable part already has been
rebuilt in that style.
There could have been a case for a modern and dramatic
design as the original was when first built, had part of the building not been
newly rebuilt in the original style
I can see no case for this proposal that has the look of
1980s economy and featureless buildings, designed around the popular plastic
double glazed windows of the time.
The proposed building uses a different bricklaying style to
the Flemish bond used in the rest of the building.
The proposed building has a glazed tower which appears to be
of a confrontational design to the existing tower.
It is important to remember that the relationship between
the Pugins and the town of Ramsgate already has a significant effect on the
local economy with the restoration of Pugin’s house The Grange and the current
restoration Pugin’s church. The way in which the remainder of Pugin’s Granville
House is rebuilt is likely to have a significant impact on Ramsgate’s heritage
and Regeneration.”
On the brickwork front
This is Flemish bond
This is what they want to use, stretcher bond
I have added a few more pictures for historical interest.
Incidentally here is the link fro live tweets from the council meeting
https://twitter.com/GazetteMargate
I agree with the reasons you give though I dont quite go with the view that numbers count as much as you might think. Planning Committee has its own mind and isn't afraid to vote accordingly.
ReplyDeleteJames, if these plans get passed through on the nod, and stranger things have happened, telling the council that the Pleasurama development stood 3 metres above the cliff didn’t stop that one from going through, my guess would be that if in a few months time I ask the council why the plans got passed, the answer will be hardly anyone objected.
DeleteTo ensure that it doesnt just get put through on the nod, contacting either Cllr Everitt or David Green, asking for it to be called-in to Planning Committee isnt a bad idea. It can then appear on an agenda and be discussed in public. With a number of Ramsgate Cllrs on that Committee, the feeling would be that it would get a good airing.
DeleteLets not over-do the impact of an objection, its not a veto.
Michael, The email address shown on this post bounces emails, on-line comments should be directed through the www.ukplanning.co.uk site and you need to be logged in to comment.
ReplyDeleteReadit I got this response, which is what I usually get.
Delete-----Original Message-----
From: Planning Services
To: michaelchild
Sent: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:04
Subject: Automated Response From: Planning Services
IF YOU ARE COMMENTING ON A PLANNING APPLICATION YOU WILL NEED TO SUPPLY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER THAT YOUR REPRESENTATION CAN BE REGISTERED.
Thank you for contacting the Planning Department of Thanet District Council.
We acknowledge receipt of your email, the contents of which are noted/receiving attention.
If your enquiry requires urgent attention, please telephone (01843) 577000.
Thank you
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete