Figure 16: Existing building heights
Object
Mill Road Depot Draft Planning and Development Brief SPD
Representation ID: 31068
Received: 19/07/2016
Respondent: Historic England
Figure 16 Why is the library shown as four storey when, according to paragraph 2.2.20 and also the photograph at figure 6, it should be shown as tall single storey?
Figure 16 Why is the library shown as 'four storey' when, according to paragraph 2.2.20 and also the photograph at figure 6, it should be shown as 'tall single storey'?
Support
Mill Road Depot Draft Planning and Development Brief SPD
Representation ID: 31097
Received: 22/07/2016
Respondent: Ms Vera Schuster Beesley
No taller development please than 2-3 storeys and 3-4 storeys.
Fig 42 on Page 54.
No taller development please than 2-3 storeys and 3-4 storeys.
Object
Mill Road Depot Draft Planning and Development Brief SPD
Representation ID: 31199
Received: 22/07/2016
Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network
The draft SPD's assessment of context is flawed, and so wrong in very significant respects that it invalidates the whole draft SPD in its present form:
Building heights (fig 16 and 2.2.20-21): the assessment is completely wrong and completely misrepresentative:
(i) The text fails to mention that almost all buildings in the area are of traditional form with pitched roof construction. What is key to the character of the area is not just total building height (i.e. to the ridge), but the height to the eaves. In the street scene, attic storeys (dormers and gables) within traditional pitched roofs are subsidiary to eaves heights (as is demonstrated by the photos in fig 21). Yet the text in 2.2.20-21 overlooks this.
(ii) Fig 16 compounds this problem by falsely claiming that the context includes a significant number of 3 and 4 storey buildings.
See attachment