WE would like to make an observation that last week’s story and headline (News Guardian, January 26, ‘Housing lined up for old training centre site’) may have given the impression that approval for this planning application is a ‘given’.
The article was written before the formal consultation period was over, and unfortunately the newspaper reporter would not have been aware of our objection, as the nearest most affected neighbours, to the height of the proposals.
A little deeper search of the paper’s archive would have revealed that the previous two applications for 55 and 34, private apartments respectively (and not a care home as suggested) were turned down due to scale, massing, density and height, as well as the impact on the trees.
We have never been against redevelopment of this site in principle, and there is much to commend this current application and the improved consultation process this time.
However, one of the main reasons for the two previous applications being rejected by the planning committee – with four then three-storey proposed heights respectively – still remains.
Your readers may be aware of the sensitive and special nature of this site in the Camp Terrace conservation area, and will appreciate how important it is to get the right development.
But this should not be to the detriment of the existing residents.
We hope that the planning committee will recognise that it is with reluctance we felt forced to object but that they will take into account, when the application is considered at the planning meeting, the significance of the reasons for the failure of the two previous applications.
MR AND MRS GREY