Thanks Mike
I don't wish to object either way.
If they build what the planning application suggests, then it looks likes a
high quality development. With prices for 3 bed flats expected at £500k then it
will need to be.
Also if it is aimed at older people wishing to downsize then it could a) bring
further diversity to the local demographics, b) bring wealthier spenders for
local shops and restaurants, c) free up other properties elsewhere for families
etc.
I appreciate that there's a number of ifs there.
However I do agree that there are legitimate concerns which could be raised by
Ecco as a comment on the application. Scale and design for example - this isn't
a conservation area, but is it an opportunity to make the point that we should
be?
Also construction management (such as hours of working, location of site
cabins, times and routes of site deliveries) will be conditioned in any
approval and again is something I'd support a comment on. Given that it's
residents parking around here, arrangements for contractors parking is also
something I'd be keen to push for.
I've mulled over the access point on Brocco Bank and drawn my own conclusion
that it's not a problem - as long as the electric roller barrier is speedy and
efficient. It's a very small number of vehicle movements and the visibility is
good. It might also help to achieve my personal aim for a reduced speeds on
Brocco Bank, including 20mph limit.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Regards
Scott
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 10:14, Mike and Jan Andrews<botanic88@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: #yiv4258616272 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}Hi
There is a Planning Application to demolish 15 Brocco Bank and replace it with
eight family flats with vehicle access onto Brocco Bank.
There has been some discussion about this Planning Application on ECCOtalk.
Three people have objections to it, wholly or in part.
I think the question now is whether we want ECCO to object to the Planning
Application:(a) as a group, or(b) as individuals.
It would be helpful if can spare a moment to reply to this email to say which
you prefer.
I have put the suggested text for a group objection, and also the link to find
the details of the Planning Application, below.
Thanks in advance.Mike
Suggested text
*We object to an old stone building being demolished when there appears to be
no valid reason to do so. preservation could be achieved. This area of
botanical gardens and Endcliffe park has old stone buildings as part of its
rich heritage as indeed has much of Sheffield and this building is no
exception. This no reason to let this type of development erode our heritage of
fine buildings. It’s quite possible to refurbish and upgrade.*The new building
is out of character with the surrounding buildings and out of character with
the nearby botanical gardens* The new building may accommodate a far greater
number or residents There are 38 bed spaces to the new site whereas the present
building has 16 bed spaces thus potentially doubling the number of people
living there. This could increase the numbers of cars using the site and
equally increase traffic in the surrounding area* Currently car access to the
building is at the back of the house from Botanical rd. The proposal to change
access to the front of the building on Brocco bank is likely to cause more
traffic problems in an already overcrowded area
Link to the Council Planning Site
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/planning-development/search-view-comment
