Letter sent from The Kingscliffe Society to:Sue Dubberley, Case Officer BHCC Planning
Re: Planning Application No BH2015/02443 The Aquarium Terraces
Our planning and licensing committee members are finding it very difficult to review the documents and drawings submitted with the above application insofar that the information contained on the Application Form and the information shown on the drawings are not consistent, the datum levels change from plans to elevations and to sections, on the architectural drawings and again to that in the structural report.
Whats more the drawings are at scales of 1 : 200 & 250 when the local planning requirement is for 1 : 100 scale. The design and access, planning and transport statements plus structural and noise reports again have conflicting statements insofar as hours of operation, datum levels, construction materials and ' public rights of way 'the public must find this all very confusing. Item 8 of the structural report, requires 6 items of very important information that is critical to the total structural redevelopment of this Grade II listed structure. Without this we can not comment and the conservation officer must be in a similar situation.
He also states, on page 8 paragraph 4, that he recommends that the structure should be as lightweight as possible. avoiding heavy construction materials such as concrete slabs and favouring lightweight framed solutions. Whereas the roof construction is shown as concrete with shingles and dune roof construction when rain soaked this must be the heaviest roof construction ever. This must be resolved before any planning decision is taken.
There are no demolition drawings, which is one of the main subjects of this application, we cannot therefore review this subject. There are no contextual drawings again making it hard to review the proposed elevations. There are no plant room details on the architectural drawings again how can we review and comment on them. There are many other inconsistencies between drawings and the subject statements in the reports, for us to be able to review them.
Our above comments are not just restricted to our Society but are also the views and opinions of many others in the St James's Street and Conservation Areas. With respect may we have these situations resolved to enable us to review and comment on this Major Planning Application. Should these planning application anomalies not be resolved and available to the public before the committees decision, then the applicant will be simply able to apply for minor amendments resulting in a very different development. With respect we reserve our rights to comment on this application once these situations have been resolved.
Yours sincerely
Trevor N Scoble
Licensing and Planning Committee Member for and on behalf of The Kingscliffe Society