I further submit:
Objective No 1:
a) That the proposed linear park should be at least 30 meters in width.
b) That this objective should specifically include, in words, the retention of the wild habitat, extending the length of at least the line of the Poplar trees, and the bank from the river back up to the Poplar trees, and the trees themselves, as a protected wild habitat. Further that all parks within the site should incorporate large trees.
On Objective No 2: There should be a full archaeological excavation and survey of the entire site before the Masterplan is adopted or put out for adoption. That all proposed planning and development must be must generated by the results of a comprehensive and open archaeological on site excavation, that has not as yet not happened. I submit therefore that this objective is flawed and premature.
On Objective No 3: While I welcome the proposal of a Conservation Plan for the heritage structures onsite, however, in line with the public consultation, I submit that this plan ought to be expanded to incorporate the entire site if the excavation works on other parts of the site. I further submit here, that the choice of piled as opposed to traditional foundations for future buildings, be fully explained and justified. In the case of the Brewhouse, it is particularly important to determine, in advance of leasing or renting to a tenant, what use or uses that this building will or can be put to, as this is the critical to the conservation of this building. Again, I submit prematurity.
On objective No 4: While I welcome the change from mono block to mixed block design, it is crucial that there is a common genre in block design.
On Objective No 5: I submit that this objective is premature and at variance with the recommendations of the Council’s own planning department, as explained above.
On Objective No 6: While the focus here is good, up to a point, that south facing façade alignment should be the norm throughout.
On Objective No 7and 9: The HGV and traffic management plan for the city has not been completed as yet, therefore this objective is once again premature. We do not know what guidelines or parameters we are working within. Parking and types of vehicles allowed access to this Quarter access must be specified.
On Objective No 8: I am unconvinced that the area designated for housing, is appropriate. If housing is to go ahead here, I submit that it should be in two groups, each linked to existing local communities. One group, with access off Greensbridge should link to this community. The other linked to the existing Vicar St community with access from here. A single access point from the CAS bridge is extremely of homes, problematic, in the context, of social, health and environmental issues. I further submit the reintroduction of the skate park, which seems to have vanished, in spite of strong public support.
On Objective No 9: I submit that with the focus on pedestrian and cyclist priority that the road of the CAS bridge into the site, is unnecessary and contrary to the stated intention of this and other objectives in the variation. The considerable cost of this road could be best spent elsewhere, archaeology, for example. There are more than enough access points into the site without this. An additional road or urban street running north/ south through the site, is contrary to the stated recognition of following existing city laneways and burrage plots, as it bisects them. Further this road will only encourage traffic, and as such is contrary and at variance with other objectives even of this variation. The width of the proposed road of the CAS bridge is out of scale as the bridge within the site is only about 9 or 10 meters wide, and so effectively determines the maximum width of any road. See No 7 above also.