SEPT / OCT 2010

SENT 23 SEPTEMBER.

Planning Application W2010/1056.   The Boots Company, Unit 1 Westgate House, Warwick. 

Dear Ms Butler,

We wish to object to the proposed new signage at Boots in Warwick, the introduction of the bright blue fascia along the Market Street elevation will compete with the colour of the building and detract from its architecture. The same colour however will darken and further deaden the frontage under the covered pedestrian way which is permanently in shade. There is a presumption against posters on the glass of shopfronts; filling windows with vinyl graphics instead of displays will give the premises an abandoned and derelict appearance.

For these reasons we would ask the Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed changes.

 

Planning Application W2010/1139   Wickes, 22 Coten End, Warwick. 

Dear Mr Smith,

We wish to object the new signage which is the subject of this planning application. The size of the fascia boards and the size of the lettering completely blocks out the architecture of the building reducing it to the status of a warehouse shed on an industrial estate. This new development of shops is on a small scale and is on the edge of a Conservation Area with which it is in keeping. The setting and views out of a Conservation Area are protected by Local Plan policy DAP 8 which was a consideration when the buildings were designed and given planning permission and when nearby Sainsburys reduced the size of their proposed signage. It is our view that letters applied to the building fascia would be more appropriate and limited to over the entrance bay.

 

Planning Application W2010/0842.   54 St Nicholas Church Street, Warwick. 

Dear Ms Galloway,

While having no objection to this planning application we would ask that the roof lights be of a conservation quality.

 

SENT 5 OCTOBER

 

Planning Application W2010/0690/0691LB.   The Kings High School for Girls, Smith Street, Warwick. 

Dear Mr Wallsgrove,

While we have no planning objections to the proposals to increase the capacity of the dining hall, the development may give rise to an issue of overlooking to and from the neighbours who may wish to take up the matter. It is apparent that by increasing the dining capacity the total school numbers could be increased, an implication which should be considered by the planning officers.

 

Planning Application W2010/ 1127   Land at Gog Brook Farm, Warwick

Dear Mr Wallsgrove,

We have concerns over this proposed change of use of designated employment land to residential development in that the Warwick District Council would need to allocate other less well sited greenfield land to meet its employment land provision. It would be easier to find land suitable for building 100 dwellings, which could be on brownfield sites, than to find suitable employment land. 

When the layout of the Southwest Warwick development was first decided on, we were given to  understand that the reason this parcel of land, bordered by residential development to the north and east, was designated as employment land was because it abutted the Cordon Sanitaire and was therefore unsuitable for housing, presumably this is no longer a consideration. 

One of the disappointments of the Southwest Warwick housing development is its lack of services and its lack of a Community Centre, it seems to us that building even more houses there will only heighten these shortcomings. 

There is no indication on the plans that the provision of affordable housing is part of the scheme, Local Plan policy SC11 requires a provision of 40%, and we hope that you will be able to confirm that this will be provided.

Of major concern is the impact on Warwick town centre of traffic arising from the proposed development. While the Transport Assessment makes a passing reference to Longbridge Island and examines in fine detail the impact that traffic from the development would have on Edgehill Drive and on the Stratford Road traffic island, its effect on Warwick town centre is not mentioned. The County Council Local Transport Plan in its Principles of Sustainable Development requires that the distance of a development from a town centre be appraised and how it encourages all transport movements to the town centre and other main nodes in the town. 

Although the calculated two way trips during the morning and afternoon peaks for housing on the site are half of those for an employment development the patterns are different, the departure trips from housing in the morning peak are twice that of  departures from employment and will serve to increase the morning traffic queue of those seeking to pass through Warwick Town Centre. It could be reasonably argued that a lack of employment opportunities at the Southwest Warwick development will oblige local residents to commute to other centres of employment, some by way of Warwick Town Centre.

In line with the decision of the Planning Inspector on the 1996 Local Plan, like all other housing developments in Southwest Warwick, a

development on this site would be required to generate section 106 contributions  towards reducing the impact of its traffic on Warwick town centre.

We would ask the Council to address these concerns and comments in deciding the outcome of this planning application.

We would also ask, that should the Council be minded to grant outline permission for this development, the siting of the intrusive car park in front of the dominant curved block of flats facing east be reconsidered. The car park will seriously spoil the view of the development  across the landscaping from the entrance at Stratford Road.

 

Planning Application W2010/ 1152LB.   Neville Court, Jury Street, Warwick.   

Dear Mr Wallsgrove,

We would not like to see building No. 2 painted in Sonnet Green nor building No.4 painted in Ice Blue, not only are the colours too cool for a north facing facade they are inappropriate for Georgian buildings; historically they would have been painted in earth colours.