As with the rest of the planning process a very strict procedure pertains to the appeal. A document explaining how it works may be found online.
The deadline for submitting comments is 13 April, by which time a copy of the city council's statement will also be available. The grounds for appeal can be inspected at the Guildhall by arrangement on 01223 457142.
To write to the inspector use the reference number APP/Q0505/A/10/2122940/NWF. The address is: The Planning Inspectorate, 3/16 Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, BRISTOL, BS1 6PN. Some more information about appealing from the council:
Comments (3 copies) must be received by 13th April 2010. Any views submitted will be disclosed to the parties and may be read out at the hearing. Any views previously submitted to the Planning Department are automatically forwarded onto the Planning Inspectorate. You will only need to write if you wish to add or retract your earlier comments, or if you wish to appear at the Hearing.Why can't developers just leave Kelvin Close alone?
The Planning Inspectorate have introduced an online appeals service which you can use to comment on this appeal. You can find the service through the Appeals area of the Planning Portal – see www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs.
2 comments:
What's your take on the development at the other end of Cherry Hinton Road, on the old Tim Brinton site?
The Tim Brinton site has got somewhat further as it does have planning permission, although they now believe they can't make the finances work and are looking to backtrack on their promised payments/obligations to the Council that were part of the planning permission.
That said, I don't like the look of the design - too high, design more akin to sarf London than south Cambridge, too dense for the site, and has hopelessly too little car parking - I think it was about 0.7 spaces per flat, when there is a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed flats planned (the planners seem to think parking free developments are the same as car free developments).
All of which is a shame as the site really needs redevelopment, Cambridge needs more housing, and they could deliver something that was high quality and made financial sense if the Council was to be more flexible over its requirements in areas like the level of affordable housing (its current policy having the effect of making housing less affordable for everyone by putting the stops on quality developments...)
Post a Comment