NOTTINGHAM | No 1. Brook Street | Pro

[danz013]

This is probably my second most hated proposal in Nottingham... i'll explain why below... heres the renders...its mostly residential....

image hosted on flickr
image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr
image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr
image hosted on flickr


The reason I hate this proposal so much is because below was the original proposals.... The original plans were 10 times better.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


Nottingham City Council they are putting this through to a CABE design review and I hope they tear the developers apart.

[Stefan88]

One Word - Shite.

[Furrydice]

Guys, do we know when the proposal is going to CABE? Perhaps we should write directly to CABE before they do....... I want to make damn sure they know about the original proposals. Doubt it would get us anywhere but at least it might embarrass the Council!

[danz013]

Well... I spoke to the council, and they said the next step for Sovereign house was to send it through to the East Midlands Design Review (CABE)... he never said when, he just said they have to work out with the developer when and how they will do this... then later on in the conversation he mentioned he hopes Brook street will also go through to the design review. Thats all I know...but yeah...your absolutely right.... we should get into contact with CABE first.

[danz013]

here what they said about brook street in the july comittee meetings.

31 1 BROOK STREET

Further to minute 153 dated 21 March 2007, consideration was given to a report of the Director (Planning, Transport and Highways), copies of which had been circulated, on application 07/00019/PFUL3, submitted by Lace Market Properties, on behalf of Lace Market Properties Eastside Limited, for permission for demolition of the existing building and erection of a 9-14 storey mixed use development, comprising 244 apartments, with ground/first floor commercial and leisure uses (Classes A1, A2, B1, D1 and D2) and associated basement car parking.

The Director reported receipt of the following:-

(a) further responses to consultation from:-

(i) the Highways Section stating that, although the proposed access and car parking layout was acceptable, and the stepped access into the commercial units on Bath Street and the trees in the footway on Brook Street had been deleted, it was concerned that the stepping out of the existing telephone exchange on Bath Street would be a hazard to the visually impaired and recommended that it was angled at the point where it met the proposed building. It also suggested other recommendations in association with required highways works;

(ii) English Heritage stated that although the proposed development had been substantially reduced in height, it was still a tall building and the need for information about its impact was required;

(b) a response from the applicant to the report, advising that average apartment sizes would be 50.4 square metres for a one bed, 67.5 square metres for a two bed and 113 square metres for a three bed, that it was not feasible to amend the ratio of apartment sizes as demand for three bed units was limited. The applicant further stated that Knight Frank and Nottingham University reports backed this view, a Nottingham Core Strategic Market Assessment also stated that the need for medium to large units was 1%, compared to 5% being provided in the scheme and that there was a lack of family amenities in the inner city area where the development was located.

In response, the Director stated the following:-

(a)(i) that the further Highways response had been noted and the suggested recommendations would be discussed with the applicant;

(a)(ii) that the issues of height and mass, raised by English Heritage, were assessed in the appraisal section of the report and it was considered that sufficient information had been provided;

(b) that the applicant’s clarification of average apartment sizes was noted as a correction to paragraph 3.7, that the Knight Frank report noted that the Nottingham City Centre living experience was evolving, considered that regeneration zones had the potential to widen the central Nottingham market offer and that provision of a more diverse mix may assist in diversifying demand demographic. However, the report also recognised that provision of units was only part of the process and that provision of amenities was also necessary, and it was important that policy and regeneration-led market intervention aided widening of market demand. The applicants stated position was acknowledged; however, it was recommended that the percentage of three bed apartments be increased, reflecting existing amenities and the further potential of the area.

The Director also reported that paragraph 3.7 of the report needed to be amended as the number of proposed three bed apartments was 13, and not 17 as stated.

RESOLVED that determination of this item be deferred to enable discussion between the applicants and officers with regard to the design and the size of apartments.

[danz013]

With this new design... because of the grieve they got with the first plan, its seems they've just gave up and created something that just fits in. I really don't think its innovative at all.

With all the resistance down that side of town, i'm not sure what else they can do. Thats why I think its important we continue to use the comments forms to formally support GOOD applications

[danz013]

Heres what the site looks like now.... Wheres furry? haven't heard from him in a while? Guess he's enjoying the sun lol.

image hosted on flickr

[Stefan88]

Such a prime site for a tall building, it's just a shame it won't happen.
The building that currently occupies the site really is ugly.
People will think exactly the same about the proposed development for the site in about 30 years time.

[danz013]

maybe even 20? I think No. 1 Brook Street still has a long way before it gets approved...the problem is though...i don't see the design changing.

[Stefan88]

Could be 20. The amount of shitty new highrise going up at the moment some of them really will turn into the slums of the future.
We don't seem to be learning our lesson of tower blocks. They created masses of problems and so will thee if there not built well.

[Stefan88]

I got a letter today from the council regarding Brook Street. Did anyone else get the same one?

Application No. 07/00019/PFUL3
Appeal By. Lace Market Properties
Appeal Reference No. Q3060/A07/2053286/NWF
Location. No.1 Brook Street, Nottingham, NG1 1DY
Proposal. Demolition of existing building and erection of 9-14 storey mixed use development compromising 244 apartments, with ground/first floor commerical and leisure uses (Use Classes A1, A2, B1 AND D2) and basement car parking. (Revised application) (AMENDED DESCRIPTION)

I'am writing to let you know that an appeal has been made to the Planning Inspectorate against the failure of the City Council to determine the above application within the time limits allowed.

The appeal will be dealt with at an informal hearing and I will inform you of the commencement date when it has been arranged.

Images of all public plans and documents submitted withthe original application may be viewed on our website at www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/planning. Any comments made on the original application, unless they were expressly confidential, will be forwarded to the inspector dealing with this case, and copied to the appellant, and will be taken into account before the appeal is determined.

You can submit comments on the appeal in writing or online to the Planning Inspectorate with in 42 day (6 weeks) of 11th September 2007.

1. It is open to the Secetary Of State to allow the appeal.
2. Any letter sent to the Planning Inspectorate will be disclosed to the City Council, the appelant and the Inspetor dealing wiuth this appeal.
3. Letters received by the Planning Inspectorate after the above 42 day (6 week) deadline may not be considered.
4. A copy of the Planning Inspectorate's booklet "Guide to taking part in planning appeals can be obtained free of charge from Mr J. Rae on the above telephone number.
5. The Planning Inspectorate will acknowlegde your letter and / or send you a copy of the appeal decision only if you specifically ask them to do so.

If anyone wants to phone up and get a copy of the report the number is 0115 9155430.

Email.

Mr J. Rae

development.control@nottinghamcity.gov.uk

[bantam]

Yeah I got one. In fact I got two for some reason.

Don't really understand what they're trying to achieve by appealing. How can you appeal against a decision that hasn't been made?! Surely they're not going to get an answer any quicker...

[danz013]

Yup I got it too...

Really disappointed in LMP. I thought they were all about making Notts a better place. They've got loads of projects, I don't see what the rush is with this one. I'll be writing letters of support for the council and you guys should probably do the same.

At the end of the day, this scheme is not good enough, the council are simply trying to improve the scheme...

[Stefan88]

I'll probably write an online objection to the project.
I agree with all of your comments about LMP. They say they have Nottingham's best intentions at heart etc etc but they clearly don't. Yes they may have some good designs for the other apartment complexes they plan to build here but there all about making money at the end of the day.

[4ward4notts]

where do you write this online objection? i fully support the council taking there time.... a building of greater or equal height to the bt building will suit the area... no one uses the park anyway and it is a bit dodge around there... tramp, drugs and the like..... really need to brighten up that area as you go into st anns that is the bigger issue, not a bit of sun light on a park which is hardly used!!!

a good development on that site could be the catalyst!!!

[danz013]

Where do I start... Council have release the agenda for the committee meetings next week. Its only coming to the meeting to highlight the fact and the reasons (failure to reach a section 106 agreement) that this has gone to appeal.

City Council really seem to be against the development. Things in the section 106 agreements which are causing problems are sample panels for assessment, details of surfacing of external areas, large scale design details... basically everything to do with the design lol.

Also.. the council have brought back up a lot of our older objections lol.. take a look at some of them...

City Resident *: Object. Design is even blander than previous. Site is an important gateway to city centre and an innovative high quality building should be encouraged. High-rise building would be more suitable or even an eye-catching low-rise. Approval will only encourage more poor designs.

City Resident *: Object. Area is perfect for build of significant height which would help Nottingham compete with other cities. Would boost St.Ann’s area and ‘wall’ factor is not an issue. Hope for resubmission of tall and innovative design.

City Resident *: Object. Plans look boring and bland. Original tower plans were more iconic. Area is one of the most suitable for high rise and would not damage views. Nottingham is expected to compete, but plans are encouraging developers that creativity is not a necessity.

City Resident *: Object. New proposal is boring and uninspiring, incorporating poor materials that will look cheap. Proposed height will be dwarfed by surrounding buildings. Prefer previous tower scheme and public square that this included.

Nottingham Civic Development Forum: Object. Internet-based group seeking to promote bold and imaginative urban development within the City. Support tall buildings at appropriate locations, of which this site is one. Previous scheme was of high quality design. Proposed scheme is of insufficient height and fails to respond to its setting. A tall building would provide balance and focus. Loss of public square included within previous scheme also regretted.

Did you guys right in objection to LMP's appeal? I forgot to do it...how long do we have to send them in again?

It seems like this is going to come to a stalemate (unless LMP win the appeal). The scheme LMP originally proposed was great... but with all the objections to the height its obviously not going to come back... i'm hoping... LMP will get so pissed of with this that they'll just give up and sell the land on to someone else who will come back and try and push the council for a tower again lol... this is unlikely though.

[danz013]

Heres what the EM Design Review (CABE) had to say about it.

East Midlands Design Review Panel: No issue with layout of scheme. However, design felt to have no overall coherence or strong enough integrity of its own. Stepping down in relation to differing heights on either side of site has rarely worked well in past and is not supported. East elevation considered as most successful. Greater clarity of design could begin to influence remainder more effectively. Architecture too complicated and slightly mundane. Cladding variation disappointing. Simple, modest block would be preferred design approach. Council has important role in determining final use of adjacent site. Concern that two sites had not been treated holistically.

[danz013]

I think the council are doing the right thing with this one... here's a response I got from Jim today.

Hi Daniel,

Brook Street is an appeal that will be heard at a public inquiry (early next year). The City's defence will be on two grounds:

1. The design and dominance of the building over St.Mary's Rest Gardens, and failure to maximise on the potential to create a high quality urban environment within the Eastside Regeneration Area.

2. The failure to provide an appropriate S106 planning obligation.

London Road was approved as recommended.

Regards,

Jim

[danz013]

I've just been told that is the appeal is dismissed... we're all back to a start and LMP will need to submit a new application.

[danz013]

Appeals to be made here.. i'm getting mine in now..

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk...036.300.2.2083