|Lodge Lane Regeneration Group
|Former Baths site - planning application
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||ben.wykes [ Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:31 am ]|
|Post subject:||Former Baths site - planning application|
Planning Explorer Link
Been flagged up via email distribution list recently - with limited time for feedback (March 13th).
The application reads :
Planning Explorer wrote:
Application to replace extant planning permission 07F/3196 - To erect 3 storey block for office use; layout 49 space car park at rear (includes retention of library on junction of Beaumont Street/Lodge Lane) so as to extend the time limit for implementation.
There have been offered a couple of potential templates for raising objections :
Richie Loram wrote:
I am opposing the current application listed above on the following grounds;
There has been little to no public consultation concerning this application. What consultation there was was done over 2 years ago and received little support from the community
There is no proven demand or need for more offices in the area - the are already many which are empty and no demand for these
The plans I last viewed - which have not changed were poor in design and will do nothing to improve the area
there was also no clear plans to the re-development of the library
In an era where we are meant to be using less cars the thought of allowing permission for a car park of 49 should weigh heavily on the conscious of the council
Jan Clein wrote:
I wish to object to this application on the following grounds;-
Land that is owned by Liverpool City Council should have a development on it which would benefit the local community, this does not. Planning permission was originally given in 2007 (similar to this application) for this site yet nothing has been done, despite the report saying this land was an eyesore in the area & the development should be done within 3 years (a date which has long gone).
I was under the impression that RSLs are there to provide housing not office blocks. I don't consider building an office block is a good use of public money when so much office space in the City stands empty.
Would a Section 106 agreement be made to give something back to the community if this development goes ahead?
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC [ DST ]|
|Powered by phpBB © 2002, 2006 phpBB Group