|
DETAIL
The committee have considered
this application, in the light of the previous application
numbers
07/02601/1 and 07/02603/1CAC and would like to make the
following points to you.
1. We do not object to redevelopment of the yard, just some
aspects of this proposal.
2. The entry point from Whitehorse Street seems very restricted
and "Highways" should be consulted on it's suitability. The
emergency services should also be consulted over the access from
the Whitehorse Street to the site. This should also be viewed in
the context of the "pedestrianisation" of parts of the town
centre under the Enhancement Schemes. Careful consideration
should also be given to the signage on Whitehorse Street (if
any) indicating the location of the dwellings.
2. The proposals are, in our opinion, still very tall and will
dominate the surrounding buildings. The scale and massing of
this proposal is reduced from the previous application. We think
that although the height is now restricted to two storey, it
would be interesting to see some sections as it is difficult to
relate the front and rear windows of the taller section to the
elevations, it is very tall and yet the windows at the rear are
in the roof profile and the windows at the front are in the
vertical plane. This would suggest that loft conversion is not
possible, but we would like to see a caveat placed on the
development to prevent this in the future. The Yard is, by
comparison, narrow for the proposed height and will give an
unsuitable balance of space and building in the restricted area
of the Yard. However, we think this current design is a
significant improvement on the previous application.
3. The committee still object to the loss of the Barn, this is a
long standing feature of Tranters Yard and the demolition will
degrade the historic context of the Yard and surrounding area,
as well as changing the mixed nature of building types to the
detriment of the balance in design and materials. We do not
agree with the statement in paragraph 4.4 of the design
statement, we think the barn is typical of small "normal" barns
common to market towns which have seen significant reduction in
numbers over the years and therefore does have "architectural
merit" and must be retained and if necessary converted. It is
easy to remove every day heritage, once gone, it has gone
forever. We feel this is simply a cost issue, it is cheaper to
demolish than to convert, therefore, it should be retained. If
the Almshouses can be saved, anything can, it is a matter of
will. Architectural merit can apply to the simplest of
buildings, it is a matter of context, not just design. How many
other barns are there like this still remaining in Baldock?
5. The design has improved, but could include some features to
enhance the street scene and add to the town's richness in
historical buildings. This is an important Yard and as such
should be developed in a way that is sympathetic to the history
of the area and the existing buildings in the area. On a
positive note, the use of materials does seemed to have
improved. However, we feel it is important that recycled
materials and building techniques (in particular, brick, slate
and tiles) should be use to ensure that the maximum potential is
gained. It must speak the "language" of the surrounding
buildings. The finishes to the space between the buildings is
also of paramount importance and should be considered carefully
in the use of materials and colours. Tarmac should not be
permitted, we could not find any reference to the ground
finishes in the design statement. There is a danger that this
development could be seen as an attempt to replicate a converted
industrial yard and miss the point completely and end up as a
"bright shiny token gesture" to the past. We acknowledge that
the NHDC specialist is very aware of the importance of this
yard, it's history and context to the town, and therefore would
be satisfied with their final decision on the context, materials
and design.
6. Parking still seems inadequate throughout the site for the
number of dwellings being proposed. Ignoring the Barn, there are
14 double bedrooms, potentially 28 people, only 8 car parking
spaces! With the added bedrooms from the Barn, this is even
worse. While we acknowledge that government policy is probably
being met, the reality is that this level of development will
generate a significant number of vehicles and these will be
displaced around the surrounding area and add to the general
parking problems that exist within the town already. This also
conflicts with the proposals set by the Town Centre Enhancement
Scheme which is looking very closely at the parking provision in
the town, this will not help .
7. A full Archaeological excavation should be carried out due to
the extensive richness of Baldock's past, prior to any
construction work being undertaken.
Thank you for considering the Baldock Society Committee views on
this matter.
Many thanks,
Chairman
Baldock Society
|
