SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
I did not know we were doing separate threads/posts for every different development and i guess that's why the main thread is dead then?

Its gone from 17 to 19 storeys now wonder if it will get the go ahead. Still waiting on the demolition of the old Debenhams, church and shops on Victoria st. The thing i don't get is why dont they just demolish the lot i.e. old Pennine hotel Laurie house car park?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Just been checking on the planning application - loads more letters of support from businesses and organisations, also a few more objections, but the level of support is unprecedented.

The developers have slightly amended the proposal in light of some of the comments, nothing much but changes to the crown of the building and the ‘shadow gap’ between the tower and the adjacent building. Improvements in my opinion.

I also read through Historic England’s consultation response which is isn’t actually that critical. They don’t want the tower and ask for reduction in height which is to be expected from them, but they only classify the development as having ‘some harm’ but that the harm would not be ‘substantial’.
In planning law this distinction is key as it allows the decision makers to more easily offset the ‘harm’ against the benefits of the scheme, of which there are many.

The covering letter from the developer also says they are pushing for a decision at the January 2020 planning committee .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Thanks for the update Jellydoz, sounds promising. The phase 1 building looks great.
It's a real pity they couldn't come up with something more substantial where the strange circular jet engine type construction is and the building behind it, (i.e. the building behind Wardwick). It could really do with something bigger similar to Phase 1 but maybe asking too much at this stage and can be redesigned later. Is the planning decision you are referring to for the whole development or just phase 1?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
The jet engine building is just an idea at this stage and not part of the detailed plan (phase 1). The building behind is the BT/telephone exchange building which isn’t part of any of the plans at all. It is a shame but I think there are other buildings that need to be tackled first, the colyear Street offices and the penine hotel, to start with.

The planning application is a hybrid application, outline app for the whole area and detailed for phase 1. The thinking behind it is if they can get the main residential built there will be a catalyst for the rest of the phases, which could be for more resi or offices or both, depending what investment comes forward. The outline bit is for overall site layout, massing etc, not the detailed designs of any buildings. I think it would be too ambitious to go for detailed for the whole site and this reflects that it is a difficult site, and the levels of investment confidence that are around at the moment .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Yes good news - shows developer is serious about the scheme.

Also The Derwent Valley Heritage Site has amended their comments following the revised application and now they have no objections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Update from Marketing Derby and video from St James's Securities

https://www.marketingderby.co.uk/ne...855415f0f8f129aa2&utm_source=Campaign Monitor


Still looks good Markie but i don't like the idea of only one building getting built first not even the one shaped like Debenhams will be built, it will be the 11 storey(originally 17 storeys one) will get built first instead of trying to get most of it built?

I would also say the demolishing of just one building should not just be the old Debenhams but get it all flatten so we know they are sincere and mean business? I.E. Old penning hotel, Hughie house i think its called where the old casino and pink coconut was and the now boots and church beside it.

What's the point in just demolishing debenhams and just building the one building when the other one(shaped like old debenhams) is attached to the taller one i don't get this but i'm not an engineer or architect although i married one?

Hopefully will get the official go ahead this month at planning at DCC?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
I don’t like the idea of splitting the Debenhams replacement building and just building one first but I think it must be due to funding. I think the funding they have is for a smaller residential element hence the reduction in height etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
I don’t like the idea of splitting the Debenhams replacement building and just building one first but I think it must be due to funding. I think the funding they have is for a smaller residential element hence the reduction in height etc



Cheers for that JellDoz explains why they are doing it that way i guess?
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top