5.2.2
Comment
The New Museums Site Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Representation ID: 30642
Received: 12/08/2015
Respondent: Historic England
Agent: Historic England
Creating the third court would require the loss of the Mond Annexe, a building of local interest but, on balance, the benefits to enhancing the setting of both the Mond Building and the Cavendish Laboratory (and thereby better revealing the significance of these two listed buildings) would more than outweigh the harm of the loss of this BLI.'
For the sake of clarity it would be helpful if the references of A, B and C for the new primary open spaces are added to Plan 15 and to each of the bullets in this paragraph. The third bullet (Courtyard C) needs to acknowledge that this requires the loss of the Mond Annexe, a building of local interest, but that its loss would be outweighed by the wider benefits. A suggested wording is: Creating this third court would require the loss of the Mond Annexe, a building of local interest but, on balance, the benefits to enhancing the setting of both the Mond Building and the Cavendish Laboratory (and thereby better revealing the significance of these two listed buildings) would more than outweigh the harm of the loss of this BLI.'
Object
The New Museums Site Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Representation ID: 30701
Received: 01/09/2015
Respondent: Charlotte Schoonman
I oppose the destruction of these historic parts of the Old Cavendish laboratory and the Mond Laboratory for the sake of 'the public realm' for the following reasons:
1) While I am unsure that the lack of "clarity, cohesion, and spatial identity" is a bad thing, I believe that a tasteful, spacious solution to the cluttered feel of the NMS can be found without demolishing the spaces where such incredible discoveries and scientific advances were made.
2) The conservation of these precious, culturally significant laboratories is more important to the public than the 'realm' their destruction might create.
I oppose the destruction of these historic parts of the Old Cavendish laboratory and the Mond Laboratory for the sake of 'the public realm' for the following reasons:
1) While I am unsure that the lack of "clarity, cohesion, and spatial identity" is a bad thing, I believe that a tasteful, spacious solution to the cluttered feel of the NMS can be found without demolishing the spaces where such incredible discoveries and scientific advances were made.
2) The conservation of these precious, culturally significant laboratories is more important to the public than the 'realm' their destruction might create.
Object
The New Museums Site Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Representation ID: 30704
Received: 03/09/2015
Respondent: Dr Boris Jardine
The Mond annexe was designed and built to be part of a suite which includes the Mond Laboratory. As such it cannot be considered as a separate and subordinate building. Photographs in the architectural press dating from the opening of the Mond Lab give just as much prominence to the annexe as to the tower and crocodile. There is no evidence that the architect H.C. Hughes or his contemporaries thought of the annexe as anything other than *part* of the suite of Mond buildings. It must be kept for the same reasons that the Mond Lab is being preserved.
The Mond annexe was designed and built to be part of a suite which includes the Mond Laboratory. As such it cannot be considered as a separate and subordinate building. Photographs in the architectural press dating from the opening of the Mond Lab give just as much prominence to the annexe as to the tower and crocodile. There is no evidence that the architect H.C. Hughes or his contemporaries thought of the annexe as anything other than *part* of the suite of Mond buildings. It must be kept for the same reasons that the Mond Lab is being preserved.
Object
The New Museums Site Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Representation ID: 30727
Received: 07/09/2015
Respondent: Prof. Hasok Chang
It is not clear from this description what exactly will be done to the Mond Building, but it is an important historical site, both in its own right as a pioneering laboratory and as part of the Cavendish Laboratory complex.
It is not clear from this description what exactly will be done to the Mond Building, but it is an important historical site, both in its own right as a pioneering laboratory and as part of the Cavendish Laboratory complex.
Comment
The New Museums Site Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Representation ID: 30735
Received: 23/09/2015
Respondent: Dr Shane Lawrence
v) The adequate space provided within the central area (between the Austin Building and the Attenborough Building) wil not require any demolition or removal of any part of the Austin Building.
vi) The retained Mond Building fits with the increased pedestrianised space although the purpose of the reduced Mond Building is not indicated.
vii) To the south of the area it is envisaged demolishing the Shell Building and the Goldsmiths Laboratory to enable 'greening of the area around a new entranceway from Pembroke Street. Again this would contribute to the increased space between the Attenborough Building and the Old Metallugy Building which it is intended to retain.
viii) The necessity of demolishing both the Shell Building and Goldsmsiths Laboratory to attain such a space is not clear. lf the size of the Attenborough Building annexe is only as is almost completed at the moment then adequate pedestrian space by the removal of the Goldsmiths Laboratory only and not the Shell Building as well would be a better and more realistic plan.
ix) The making of a new entrance through the Heycock Wing into the central area should be very carefully
considered as this frontage onto Pembroke Street is also of listed nature and the engineering difficult. Could not the existing entrance from Pembroke Street be slightly altered to serve as the entrance?
Please see attached document