This is not sustainable development
Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
What we said at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
What we said at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states Sustainable development is at the heart of the planning system. And we believe this is not Sustainable development.
Environmental
We have already made the point - that by targeting a lesser BREEAM rating the development falls short on environmental standards;
And in terms of the historic environment - Historic England states the scheme does not meet the Government’s definition of sustainable development. They should know! (And they do).
This is enough to stop this application dead in the water.
But let’s continue..
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states there are two other dimensions to sustainable development: social and economic...
Social
As many as 60 sociological studies show that people living in poorly designed large blocks suffer more from isolation, depression and crime.
This can be particularly true for anyone living in those units deep in the centre of the plan, where there is a loss of connection with the street, and thus the wider neighbourhood.
The design panel explained this issue nicely. It would be so complicated to explain to visitors how to get to your apartment, that after the first 10 times you would probably give up:
"It was not clear where the main street entrances to many of the apartments would be, particularly for those units deep in the centre of the plan” the design panel said, and goes on “It was also not clear how a visitor might find their way from the car park to a particular apartment without the use of extensive signage. Residents should be able to give clear and simple directions to their visitors. The depth of plan means that internal corridors will have little or no daylight."
The social role of sustainable development, the NPPF tells us, is in "supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities… to meet the needs of present and future generations"
This scheme of blocks, towers and corridors - fails in its arrangement, to promote community, connection and personal relevance. It is overlooking and confronting at its edge; and isolating at its core.
Economic
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to link unhealthy communities; isolation, depression and crime - to an economic burden over the life of the development. The council will be looking to cut its social care budget - not expand it.
Secondly economics is also about resources: The council owned land to the North is earmarked in the SPD for redevelopment. - but it will be compromised by this scheme. Its 12 storey Ashdown Road tower will overshadow and block precious sun and light from the south. And what about views, air quality, wind?
QC’s opinion
Residents have had to raise money and hire a QC. In the words of our QC Matthew Horton the Officers earlier report was "entirely inadequate" and "unlawful" in its judgement about the sustainability of the proposal. He said it "failed to apply the correct test set out in the NPPF... namely 'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' "
This is not sustainable development. Not in social terms, environmental nor economic
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states Sustainable development is at the heart of the planning system. And we believe this is not Sustainable development.
Environmental
We have already made the point - that by targeting a lesser BREEAM rating the development falls short on environmental standards;
And in terms of the historic environment - Historic England states the scheme does not meet the Government’s definition of sustainable development. They should know! (And they do).
This is enough to stop this application dead in the water.
But let’s continue..
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states there are two other dimensions to sustainable development: social and economic...
Social
As many as 60 sociological studies show that people living in poorly designed large blocks suffer more from isolation, depression and crime.
This can be particularly true for anyone living in those units deep in the centre of the plan, where there is a loss of connection with the street, and thus the wider neighbourhood.
The design panel explained this issue nicely. It would be so complicated to explain to visitors how to get to your apartment, that after the first 10 times you would probably give up:
"It was not clear where the main street entrances to many of the apartments would be, particularly for those units deep in the centre of the plan” the design panel said, and goes on “It was also not clear how a visitor might find their way from the car park to a particular apartment without the use of extensive signage. Residents should be able to give clear and simple directions to their visitors. The depth of plan means that internal corridors will have little or no daylight."
The social role of sustainable development, the NPPF tells us, is in "supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities… to meet the needs of present and future generations"
This scheme of blocks, towers and corridors - fails in its arrangement, to promote community, connection and personal relevance. It is overlooking and confronting at its edge; and isolating at its core.
Economic
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to link unhealthy communities; isolation, depression and crime - to an economic burden over the life of the development. The council will be looking to cut its social care budget - not expand it.
Secondly economics is also about resources: The council owned land to the North is earmarked in the SPD for redevelopment. - but it will be compromised by this scheme. Its 12 storey Ashdown Road tower will overshadow and block precious sun and light from the south. And what about views, air quality, wind?
QC’s opinion
Residents have had to raise money and hire a QC. In the words of our QC Matthew Horton the Officers earlier report was "entirely inadequate" and "unlawful" in its judgement about the sustainability of the proposal. He said it "failed to apply the correct test set out in the NPPF... namely 'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' "
This is not sustainable development. Not in social terms, environmental nor economic