29 August: An addendum to the CRC Synopsis has been published. See the Synopsis page for the full text.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
breaking news
College plans thrown outThe college wanted to build the £1.6m facility to house its new construction and the built environment diploma course, ready to open in April or May.
Despite receiving more than 200 objections to the scheme, city council planning officers had recommended the scheme for approval,
But members of the planning committee went against their advice to vote five to four in favour of refusing planning permission, claiming the development would spoil the character of a conservation area, and citing other concerns including loss of privacy and damage to trees.
About 40 members of the public attended yesterday's planning meeting at City Hall, a number speaking out against the college's proposals.
Kate Bell said that siting the new facility behind the existing late-Victorian Thetford Building would be like “building in abattoir in a churchyard”.
Dick Palmer, college principal, told the meeting: “This would be a flagship facility we don't believe exists elsewhere. It's an environmentally sound building and a living exemplar of sustainability.”
After the meeting, protest group CRC (College Redevelopment Concerns) said in a statement: “We will remain supportive of improvements to education facilities at City College, but any improvements need to blend in with the neighbourhood. This building clearly did not.
“The college needs to archive these ridiculous plans and start the process from the beginning with full and proper discussions with local residents.”
Town Close Residents' Group said: “We are pleased with this decision, and glad that the conservation area, its trees and the setting of the historic Thetford Building will be preserved.
“We hope that in future the college will involve residents at an earlier stage in the planning process so that we can work together to ensure the best educational facilities for the city whilst preserving the city's important heritage and habitat.”
Rejection puts college plans in doubt
 |
| How the site would have looked |
31 July 2008 15:57
The future of a new diploma course at Norwich City College is in jeopardy after plans to build a new state-of-the-art building to house the students in were rejected.
The college had proposed to build a £1.6m facility to house its new Construction and the Built Environment Diploma course which will begin in September.
Despite receiving more than 200 objections to the scheme, city council planning officers had recommended it for approval,
However, at a highly-charged meeting yesterday, members of the planning committee went against this to vote five to four in favour of refusing planning permission, claiming the development would spoil the character of a conservation area, as well as citing other concerns including loss of privacy and damage to trees.
Following the decision, Dick Palmer, principle of the college, said the long-term future of the course was now uncertain, although this year's would begin as planned in September.
He added: “I'm pleased everybody was positive about the general concept developing the main site and the need for it, but I'm worried now young people of Norwich and Norfolk won't get the facilities they deserve and a building which would take forward low carbon and sustainability.
“I'm very disappointed as the time issue is critical because the new course starts in September. We had plans in place to house the students until the new building but that was only short term. It does put the future in jeopardy and the sustainability of the site. We need to go back and have a look.”
About 40 members of the public attended the planning meeting at City Hall, a number speaking out against the college's proposals.
Speaking in front of the committee, Kate Bell said that citing the new facility behind the existing late-Victorian Thetford Building would be like “building in abattoir in a churchyard”.
But Shane Mann, president of the Student's Union, said: “In terms of the building itself the students are pleased and excited by the design. It's eye catching and would inspire young people to come to the college.”
Protest group CRC (College Redevelopment Concerns), said in a statement: “We will remain supportive of improvements to education facilities at City College, but any improvements need to blend in with the neighbourhood. This building clearly did not.
“The college needs to archive these ridiculous plans and start the process from the beginning with full and proper discussions with local residents.”
College bosses said they had not yet decided whether to appeal the decision.
The plans are not linked to the college's ambitious multi-million pound revamp.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Thetford Building Proposal Deadline
In order to assist people wishing to object to the proposed Diploma Centre in the Thetford Building Garden, CRC have collected letters from residents and delivered them by hand to City Hall. On the aftenoon of the 15th July, the deadline for objections, we delivered a total of 169 letters.
For more details about the proposal, see the Town Close site.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
For your Infomation from CRC
FROM CRC COMMITTEE - REMIT
We wish to state like our neighbours and other local residents that we are college, education and student friendly. We acknowledge that the campus in some areas falls short of what is expected in 2008 and beyond for our local students. However, the sudden and unprepared impact brought about by the enormity and scale of the proposals unveiled at the ‘Consultation Open Days’ held by the college, have resulted in causing great concern, anxiety and stress to residents.
We believe the mass and density of the proposed redevelopment should have had longer and more profound discussion with the residents of Town Close Ward at a much earlier stage in the scheme and design process. Our remit therefore is to attempt to reduce the scale of the proposals and in order to achieve this at outline stage, we have no alternative but to ask everyone to object to the principle of the development, with a wish to obtaining a refusal from the local authority. This would lead, at a later date, to fuller discussions and consultations with local residents and also those living further afield. We cannot emphasise enough the impact the scale of these proposals will have on the ward. We advise that it is imperative everyone understands the urgency and necessity to voice their objections and concerns correctly within the next few days to the planning authority.
For advice on how to object please go to the” Your Rights to object explained” section on this site
Sunday, April 6, 2008
For your Infomation from CRC
From The CRC Committee
This is a map showing Town Close Ward:-
The area of Norwich that will be most affected environmentally from the College's proposals
Map reproduced with kind permission of Ordnance Survey. Overlay © townclose.org.uk
Town Close Ward has four Councillors and they are............
Councillor Samir Jeraj, Green, Town Close, Jeraj was elected as Councillor for Town Close Ward in 2008.
Janet Bearman City Councillor for Town Close ward
Janet was elected as Councillor for Town Close Ward in 2006. In addition to her work in the ward, Janet's main interests include sustainable transport and organic gardening. Janet is spokesperson on the Environment for the Green Party City Councillors.
Stephen Little City Councillor for Town Close ward
Stephen Little was elected as City Councillor for Town Close ward in 2007. Stephen, who lives near the Lakenham end of Town Close ward, is particularly interested in protecting the unique character of Norwich and in promoting sustainable transport. Stephen is spokesperson on Culture, Leisure and Tourism for the Green Party City Councillors.
Chris Hull County Councillor for Town Close ward
In the Town Close by-election of 26 May 2005 Green Party candidate Chris Hull achieved a massive 15% swing to win the second seat for the Greens on Norfolk County Council. Chris lives on Neville Street and has lived and worked in Norwich for 24 years. Chris is a committee member of the Residents Against Unthank Tesco group. He also supported the successful campaign against the proposed development on the Hewett School playing fields. Chris is a keen cyclist and has been a campaigns volunteer for Oxfam for many years, and is a Governor at Bignold Middle School.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Residents Flyer
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW!
FACT - An Outline Planning Application has been submitted by City College to Norwich City Council for the complete redevelopment of the College campus.
FACT - This will mean total demolition of all the existing buildings razing the entire campus to the ground.
FACT - The new buildings will include 4 blocks probably up to 5 storeys high, other ancillary buildings at the North (5 storey) and South ends of the campus, an inner ring road and a two storey car park to the rear built in two phases over a period of up to eight years from now.
FACT - Don't be fooled - the so called recent 'Consultation Open Days' resulted in no amendments or changes being brought about to a layout and design already agreed and approved by the College in conjunction with their professional team, the architect and in discussion with the Planning Department. In fact data supplied by residents on returned questionnaires and collected by the College during these ‘Open Days' has been manipulated and used against us to further justify their proposals.
FACT - Don't be fooled - if this Outline Planning Application is approved by the Local Authority it will set in stone a re-development that neighbours and residents will not properly comprehend, nor have any further influence over - any 'Consultation' will be another PR exercise and again achieve nothing.
FACT - Don't be fooled - proposed use, design, external appearances or general details of proposed buildings are not known, as this information is not required at Outline stage.
FACT - If you live on IPSWICH ROAD, CECIL ROAD, GROVE WALK or IPSWICH GROVE your quality of life including loss of privacy, blocking of natural daylight and sun, vehicular noise, exhaust, headlight and light pollution, unsociable hours of operation and traffic congestion will affect you during construction and thereafter forever.
FACT - If you live further afield - IPSWICH ROAD, HORNER CLOSE, MANOR CLOSE, LIME TREE ROAD, TOWN CLOSE ROAD, CECIL ROAD, TRAFFORD ROAD, GROVE ROAD or GROVE AVENUE you will also be affected. Increasing volumes of construction traffic and an increase in vehicular traffic involving buses, coaches, cars etc will involve locally an increase in noise, exhaust pollution and congestion during construction and thereafter forever. Note - during demolition and construction of Phase 1 there will be little or no car parking available on the campus.
FACT - Nothing can be done unless all residents, neighbours and those concerned band together and let their concerns be known. You do have the right to have your say and therefore try to influence and amend the density and mass of this development.
FACT – Do not rely on others. It is vitally important to understand that we need the help of each and everyone of you.
FACT – You will have an opportunity to object by writing individually, by adding your signature to a group letter or by stating your objections in person, at the planning committee meeting at the appropriate time.
FACT - We will tell you what you can do and how to do it.
FACT – WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW!
you can call us on 07964721475 and we will help in any way possible.We can arrange to pick up any letters/information you want published until we receive our PO Box address.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Resident's Letters
27 January 2008
To whom it may concern - Regarding City College Norwich Re-development
Numbers 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 and 64 Grove Walk
As residents and neighbours with boundaries to the college we feel it appropriate that we set out, for everyone that may be affected, a history of our experiences as neighbours to the college.
Most of us with properties bounding the college will have purchased our homes after the main Brick Building was built. So we accepted we would therefore become neighbours to the college. This campus, an island site and therefore always restricted as to expansion, has subsequently been developed with an ad hoc approach, under various Principals and Architects, in an unco-ordinated way of no architectural merit. There has been no attempt to sympathetically blend in new building works with the wonderful original building, not only an iconic Norwich Educational Building, but also an iconic East Anglian Educational Building and Landmark. Due to our position at the rear of the campus we have been the victims of some of these recent ad hoc 'add ons'.
We would suggest that our experiences will be repeated, should the college redevelopment take place and directly affect everyone with a boundary in Cecil Road, most if not all of Grove Walk, Ipswich Grove and Ipswich Road. Indirectly affected will be residents with properties on the opposite sides of these roads and even those further afield.
We wish to state, so as not to be misunderstood, that we are college and student friendly and of course have no objection to the younger generation enjoying the benefits of a modern education in modern facilities, nor to these facilities being updated where appropriate, but to a scale in proportion to the size of the site and surrounding residential area. Also in accordance with reliable and factually proven projected future student numbers and teaching requirements
We are situated directly behind the material storage sheds, workshops and the Sports Hall at the rear of the college. The Sports Hall was built circa 1970 and this building is in a very good state of repair and with normal building maintenance should have at least another 30 years of life. Abutting this building are a storage area, a classroom and the workshops built some 10 years ago at a cost of £2.5 million. More recently the ancillary buildings to the workshops and the storage sheds have been built at further cost. These buildings, with normal building maintenance, should have a lifespan beyond that of the Sports Hall, ie in excess of 30 years. Bearing in mind the above and that the buildings are 'fit for purpose', it is appalling that the intention is to demolish them, replace them with a road and car park, only to build new workshops and storage areas to the rear of the properties to Cecil Road. All to suit a grandiose scheme, based on 'funding targets', which is not only out of scale, but also out of all proportion, not only on the site but also it's residential surroundings. We consider this part of the development to be not only a total waste of public funds but also will have a detrimental impact on our lives, our health and our privacy.
For the record we detail our experiences -
Generally -
Prior to the building of the workshops circa 1999 there was, travelling in a direction from the City Centre, behind numbers 52 and 54, the Sports Hall previously referred to. Then behind numbers 56, 58 and 60 a Tennis Court, and then behind numbers 62 and 64 a completely wooded area which contained specimen trees and shrubs, all of which were then and are now covered by preservation orders. However, this did not stop, during construction of the workshops, one speciment ash tree being allegedly 'accidentally' felled by a reversing JCB. Before the construction of the workshops, at pre-planning stage, so called 'Consultations' were arranged for the residents by the hierarchy of the college.
This was nothing short of what we have just experienced with the current proposals - a propaganda exercise - we had no worthwhile 'Consultations' with either the local Planning Authorities, the Architects or the College. It was a 'fait acompli' just as it is now - we were told what we were going to get - accompanied by numerous promises of how neither the building works, nor the subsequent running and use of the building would affect or impact on our lives.
Read the words on their current questionnaire and we quote - 'City College Norwich wants to deliver this new vision in partnership with the local community.....' and again - 'This is your first opportunity to comment on the proposals - the local community will be consulted at every step of the way. At the next stage, detailed proposals will be brought forward ......' . And yet we were told at the recent open days that a Detailed Planning Application was to be submitted to the Local Authority this month - February 2008. This suggests that design drawings have been finalised, by the Architect, in accordance with the College's brief and approval and also presumably in consultation with the local Planning Authority. The architectural model shows the design - 5 storey blocks, an inner ringroad to the bottom of all neighbours gardens built to carry buses and coaches, car park and bus stops to the rear, no green open spaces worth the name, no playing fields and building to a density which is quite inappropriate to the size of the site. A 'Clunking Elephant's Foot' of a concept that overpowers it's environment making the surrounding residences look like ants - 'Consultation' ? We wish!
Pre the Workshops -
The tennis courts were originally kept locked and only used for serious games for short periods at lunchtimes and late afternoons. Later standards dropped, the gate was no longer locked and there was as much football played on the courts as tennis. There was some noise, but who can argue with young people enjoying themselves, however there were balls hit into our gardens which caused some difficulty. On reflection, these were the relatively 'happy times'.
Building of the Workshops -
This was a miserable and stressful experience starting with the demolition of the existing buildings, then breaking out the foundations using large industrial hammer drills, grabs and buckets attached to the arms of JCB's. The debris then transferred (dropped) again with grabs and buckets into skips and high sided lorries for removal from site. This continued on a daily basis for weeks. There was engine noise from the heavy plant and also dumper trucks, revving of engines, reverse bleepers, diesel exhaust fumes, severe ground shocks, vibrations and general building site noise coupled with dirt being churned up into clouds of dust. When building work started the JCB's and dumper trucks remained on site and more heavy lorries delivered materials ie hardcore, (which when laid had to be compacted) concrete, re-inforcement, scaffolding, steel stanchions, steel beams, bricks, blocks, cladding and roofing panels, roller shutter doors, windows, doors, ductwork, roof lights etc etc. These materials all brought to the bottom of our gardens. This continued for more than a year with all the noise, vibrations and air pollution previously noted above. Neighbours be warned, you have eight years of this to look forward to. Tutors and students - you will not be able to think let alone teach or be taught.
Post the Workshops -
We thought it would get better - we were wrong - we now had an industrial site at the bottom of our gardens. To begin with, the college management made no attempt to keep their promises given at the so called 'Consultation' stage. Promises made included that there would be no noise or impact on our lives -
a) from staff or students
b) from vehicles. (Deliveries we were assured would be only once a week, with no mention of any other vehicles.)
This lack of control, at any management level, to ensure the tutorial staff respected our rights, resulted in the tutors running the workshops as they liked. Roller shutter doors were kept open and fire doors wedged open (against fire regulations). This allowed all the noise associated with bricklaying, carpentry and plumbing to emanate from the workshops. This included the screech of high powered machinery and loud voices raised to be heard over the general hubub. The materials were delivered by lorry then stored outside and moved around the yard to the workshops, by fork lift and/or dumper truck. Also on nice sunny days the tutors used the yard to teach instead of using the workshops. Not only did all these operations cause noise and vibration but we were not informed that this would be the policy at 'Consultation' stage. The used materials were then tipped by machine into a skip - more noise - the replacement empty skip was delivered at 6.30am ! and dropped from a considerable height before the full skip was loaded and driven away. (There was no planning permission for this activity and no mention at 'Consultation' stage). Again all this vehicular movement involved revving of engines, standing vehicles with engines idling for long periods, plus the dreaded reversing bleepers and associated exhaust pollution.
The tutor in charge of teaching scaffolding skills assumed (obviously instructed from mangagement level) that the best place for this activity was also in the yard. So on top of all the foregoing we now had scaffolding being erected and dismantled and thrown on the ground pole agains pole. Also we lost our privacy because now the students were high enough to see into the rear of our homes and gardens. We all found this very intimidating (once again there was no Planning Permission for this activity and no mention at 'Consultation stage'). Again we had problems with footballs, tin cans, radios and rowdiness at breaks and lunch times. Although there were conditions attached to the planning approval for the workshops, stating that there should be no nuisance caused to neighbours, the planners were totally ineffectual.
We approached the Environmental Health Department, who on investigation agreed with our concerns and took up our cause with the college to no avail, with the result that a Noise Abatement Notice was served on the college dated 19th July 2000 (copy attached for information).
You might think that this solved our problems - wrong again - firstly an annexe was built to the workshops, which admittedly eventually did solve the problem of workshop noise, but of course involved more construction work. Then the planners in their infinite wisdom gave permission for material storage sheds to be built, more construction work. So now these materials have to be moved across an area that the planners knew had a Noise Abatement Notice served on it, and against the advice of the Environmental Health Department. This Notice is still current. How sensible is that? Later during the building of the Nursery, approximately 8 years ago, all materials and plant once again came through this area past our gardens.
It should be noted that with all the severe problems the college has posed us as neighbours, and there have been many more than described here. This has been brought about by their inability to manage responsibly and to understand that what occurs within their boundaries impacts on our lives. Never once has any of us received a written letter of apology.
Footnote - Please note that all residents 52 - 64 Grove Walk have with only one exception lived at their addresses for ten years or more. The one exception being as concerned over the proposals as we are and wish therefore to add their voices to our concerns. We can state that the previous occupant, who is unfortunately now deceased would have concurred with the above.
Enclosure
To whom it may concern - Regarding City College Norwich Re-development
Numbers 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 and 64 Grove Walk
As residents and neighbours with boundaries to the college we feel it appropriate that we set out, for everyone that may be affected, a history of our experiences as neighbours to the college.
Most of us with properties bounding the college will have purchased our homes after the main Brick Building was built. So we accepted we would therefore become neighbours to the college. This campus, an island site and therefore always restricted as to expansion, has subsequently been developed with an ad hoc approach, under various Principals and Architects, in an unco-ordinated way of no architectural merit. There has been no attempt to sympathetically blend in new building works with the wonderful original building, not only an iconic Norwich Educational Building, but also an iconic East Anglian Educational Building and Landmark. Due to our position at the rear of the campus we have been the victims of some of these recent ad hoc 'add ons'.
We would suggest that our experiences will be repeated, should the college redevelopment take place and directly affect everyone with a boundary in Cecil Road, most if not all of Grove Walk, Ipswich Grove and Ipswich Road. Indirectly affected will be residents with properties on the opposite sides of these roads and even those further afield.
We wish to state, so as not to be misunderstood, that we are college and student friendly and of course have no objection to the younger generation enjoying the benefits of a modern education in modern facilities, nor to these facilities being updated where appropriate, but to a scale in proportion to the size of the site and surrounding residential area. Also in accordance with reliable and factually proven projected future student numbers and teaching requirements
We are situated directly behind the material storage sheds, workshops and the Sports Hall at the rear of the college. The Sports Hall was built circa 1970 and this building is in a very good state of repair and with normal building maintenance should have at least another 30 years of life. Abutting this building are a storage area, a classroom and the workshops built some 10 years ago at a cost of £2.5 million. More recently the ancillary buildings to the workshops and the storage sheds have been built at further cost. These buildings, with normal building maintenance, should have a lifespan beyond that of the Sports Hall, ie in excess of 30 years. Bearing in mind the above and that the buildings are 'fit for purpose', it is appalling that the intention is to demolish them, replace them with a road and car park, only to build new workshops and storage areas to the rear of the properties to Cecil Road. All to suit a grandiose scheme, based on 'funding targets', which is not only out of scale, but also out of all proportion, not only on the site but also it's residential surroundings. We consider this part of the development to be not only a total waste of public funds but also will have a detrimental impact on our lives, our health and our privacy.
For the record we detail our experiences -
Generally -
Prior to the building of the workshops circa 1999 there was, travelling in a direction from the City Centre, behind numbers 52 and 54, the Sports Hall previously referred to. Then behind numbers 56, 58 and 60 a Tennis Court, and then behind numbers 62 and 64 a completely wooded area which contained specimen trees and shrubs, all of which were then and are now covered by preservation orders. However, this did not stop, during construction of the workshops, one speciment ash tree being allegedly 'accidentally' felled by a reversing JCB. Before the construction of the workshops, at pre-planning stage, so called 'Consultations' were arranged for the residents by the hierarchy of the college.
This was nothing short of what we have just experienced with the current proposals - a propaganda exercise - we had no worthwhile 'Consultations' with either the local Planning Authorities, the Architects or the College. It was a 'fait acompli' just as it is now - we were told what we were going to get - accompanied by numerous promises of how neither the building works, nor the subsequent running and use of the building would affect or impact on our lives.
Read the words on their current questionnaire and we quote - 'City College Norwich wants to deliver this new vision in partnership with the local community.....' and again - 'This is your first opportunity to comment on the proposals - the local community will be consulted at every step of the way. At the next stage, detailed proposals will be brought forward ......' . And yet we were told at the recent open days that a Detailed Planning Application was to be submitted to the Local Authority this month - February 2008. This suggests that design drawings have been finalised, by the Architect, in accordance with the College's brief and approval and also presumably in consultation with the local Planning Authority. The architectural model shows the design - 5 storey blocks, an inner ringroad to the bottom of all neighbours gardens built to carry buses and coaches, car park and bus stops to the rear, no green open spaces worth the name, no playing fields and building to a density which is quite inappropriate to the size of the site. A 'Clunking Elephant's Foot' of a concept that overpowers it's environment making the surrounding residences look like ants - 'Consultation' ? We wish!
Pre the Workshops -
The tennis courts were originally kept locked and only used for serious games for short periods at lunchtimes and late afternoons. Later standards dropped, the gate was no longer locked and there was as much football played on the courts as tennis. There was some noise, but who can argue with young people enjoying themselves, however there were balls hit into our gardens which caused some difficulty. On reflection, these were the relatively 'happy times'.
Building of the Workshops -
This was a miserable and stressful experience starting with the demolition of the existing buildings, then breaking out the foundations using large industrial hammer drills, grabs and buckets attached to the arms of JCB's. The debris then transferred (dropped) again with grabs and buckets into skips and high sided lorries for removal from site. This continued on a daily basis for weeks. There was engine noise from the heavy plant and also dumper trucks, revving of engines, reverse bleepers, diesel exhaust fumes, severe ground shocks, vibrations and general building site noise coupled with dirt being churned up into clouds of dust. When building work started the JCB's and dumper trucks remained on site and more heavy lorries delivered materials ie hardcore, (which when laid had to be compacted) concrete, re-inforcement, scaffolding, steel stanchions, steel beams, bricks, blocks, cladding and roofing panels, roller shutter doors, windows, doors, ductwork, roof lights etc etc. These materials all brought to the bottom of our gardens. This continued for more than a year with all the noise, vibrations and air pollution previously noted above. Neighbours be warned, you have eight years of this to look forward to. Tutors and students - you will not be able to think let alone teach or be taught.
Post the Workshops -
We thought it would get better - we were wrong - we now had an industrial site at the bottom of our gardens. To begin with, the college management made no attempt to keep their promises given at the so called 'Consultation' stage. Promises made included that there would be no noise or impact on our lives -
a) from staff or students
b) from vehicles. (Deliveries we were assured would be only once a week, with no mention of any other vehicles.)
This lack of control, at any management level, to ensure the tutorial staff respected our rights, resulted in the tutors running the workshops as they liked. Roller shutter doors were kept open and fire doors wedged open (against fire regulations). This allowed all the noise associated with bricklaying, carpentry and plumbing to emanate from the workshops. This included the screech of high powered machinery and loud voices raised to be heard over the general hubub. The materials were delivered by lorry then stored outside and moved around the yard to the workshops, by fork lift and/or dumper truck. Also on nice sunny days the tutors used the yard to teach instead of using the workshops. Not only did all these operations cause noise and vibration but we were not informed that this would be the policy at 'Consultation' stage. The used materials were then tipped by machine into a skip - more noise - the replacement empty skip was delivered at 6.30am ! and dropped from a considerable height before the full skip was loaded and driven away. (There was no planning permission for this activity and no mention at 'Consultation' stage). Again all this vehicular movement involved revving of engines, standing vehicles with engines idling for long periods, plus the dreaded reversing bleepers and associated exhaust pollution.
The tutor in charge of teaching scaffolding skills assumed (obviously instructed from mangagement level) that the best place for this activity was also in the yard. So on top of all the foregoing we now had scaffolding being erected and dismantled and thrown on the ground pole agains pole. Also we lost our privacy because now the students were high enough to see into the rear of our homes and gardens. We all found this very intimidating (once again there was no Planning Permission for this activity and no mention at 'Consultation stage'). Again we had problems with footballs, tin cans, radios and rowdiness at breaks and lunch times. Although there were conditions attached to the planning approval for the workshops, stating that there should be no nuisance caused to neighbours, the planners were totally ineffectual.
We approached the Environmental Health Department, who on investigation agreed with our concerns and took up our cause with the college to no avail, with the result that a Noise Abatement Notice was served on the college dated 19th July 2000 (copy attached for information).
You might think that this solved our problems - wrong again - firstly an annexe was built to the workshops, which admittedly eventually did solve the problem of workshop noise, but of course involved more construction work. Then the planners in their infinite wisdom gave permission for material storage sheds to be built, more construction work. So now these materials have to be moved across an area that the planners knew had a Noise Abatement Notice served on it, and against the advice of the Environmental Health Department. This Notice is still current. How sensible is that? Later during the building of the Nursery, approximately 8 years ago, all materials and plant once again came through this area past our gardens.
It should be noted that with all the severe problems the college has posed us as neighbours, and there have been many more than described here. This has been brought about by their inability to manage responsibly and to understand that what occurs within their boundaries impacts on our lives. Never once has any of us received a written letter of apology.
Footnote - Please note that all residents 52 - 64 Grove Walk have with only one exception lived at their addresses for ten years or more. The one exception being as concerned over the proposals as we are and wish therefore to add their voices to our concerns. We can state that the previous occupant, who is unfortunately now deceased would have concurred with the above.
Enclosure
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
