|
Reply from Chairman of planning
Subj:
|
PLEASURAMA
|
Date:
|
17/02/2004 17:07:51 GMT Standard Time
|
From:
|
jackbernard.cohen@virgin.net
|
To:
|
terranova@supanet.com, MichaelChild@aol.com
|
File:
|
scan0001.zip (463634 bytes) DL Time (639996 bps): < 1 minute
|
Sent from the Internet (Details)
|
Information from Cllr jack Cohen
Chairman of planning TDC
As you see he has had some dificulty mesuring the size of his documents,
I sent him the following reply.
Dear Mr Cohen
Thank you for your prompt reply unfortunately the pictures of the documents you sent me are clipped at the edges and difficult to read. I have two concerns myself. That they don't answer.
1 The planning and design statement for the development, on page 9 says the following.
"The views of Wellington Crescent at the top of the cliff will be retained when viewed from the harbour and the shore line, with the proposed scheme set below the cliff top.
When viewed from ground level along Wellington Crescent the buildings will not be visible as they are below the cliff face."
2 The way the height and size of the building impact on the area does not seem to have been accurately measured by anyone.
The reasons for this are that large detached concrete buildings do not usually have a public footpath in a conservation area next to their roof level so height variations of a meter or so are not noticeable.
My own calculations based on the site survey and plans submitted by the developer make the maximum height of the building 3.4 meters above the footpath surface on the cliff top. It is difficult to completely accurate due to the radical changes that will have to be made at ground level, because of the size of the building changing the road and promenade layout so this may be inaccurate by a meter or so in either direction.
My calculations relating to the lines of site suggest that it will no longer be possible to see the shoreline when looking from the cliff top over the lowest part of the development or the cliff top from the shoreline.
The planning department reckon not more than three meters above the cliff top based on holding a scale ruler next to the side elevation.
No calculations appear to have been attempted by the planning department with relation to the lines of site.
Could you clarify if you mean the proposed scheme set below the cliff top while at the same time three meters above the cliff top.
Or do you mean that the planning and design statement for the development, published with the plans at ukplanning.com under the planning application number relates to another development.
Or do you mean that you have finally had a qualified architect examine the plans and the building is in fact set below the cliff top.
I will not publish the email you sent me or the attached documents until tomorrow to give you time to prepare something more carefully.
Kind regards Michael Child
|