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
No comments:
Post a Comment