HTAG Guildford - HTAG Letter re The Founders Studio

Front Page >> Features >> HTAG Letter re The Founders Studio

HTAG Letter re The Founders Studio

HOLY TRINITY AMENITY GROUP

8, Pewley Bank,
Guildford,
Surrey, GUI 3PU.
Tel. 01483 505960.
e-mail: bob@bhbromham.free-online.co.uk
18th May, 2006.

Carol Humphrey,
Head of Development,
Dept. of Environmental and Planning Services,
Guildford Borough Council,
Millmead House,
Millmead,
Guildford,
Surrey, GU2 4BB.

Dear Ms Humphrey,

Planning Application 06/P/00911.
The Founders Studios, Guildford School of Acting, Millbrook, Guildford, GU1. Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing Founders Studio and erection of retail units with flats over and
06/P/00914 Erection of three storey building with rooms in the roof comprising retail unit on ground floor with 6 flats over following demolition of existing Founders Studio.

We object to this application.
This is an extremely exposed and prominent site. The present building and its two neighbours are the only buildings on this side of the main stretch of Millbrook. They are already over prominent. The site is within a particularly important part of the Town Centre Conservation Area and adjacent to the River Wey Corridor. Many nearby buildings are of great historic interest and most are listed - including the Town Mill, St. Mary's church and the Quarry Street houses. The area is always busy with pedestrians as well as road traffic and is consequently much viewed by the public. We recognise that attempts have been made to deal with the problems of a development of this size in such a sensitive position. However the problems could only be truly mitigated by a much smaller development. We consider the scheme to be gross overdevelopment.

Our particular concerns are:
1. Excessive bulk and Height.
The floor space and bulk of the proposed building would be greater than that of the existing building by a factor of 3.4. At the frontage to the pavement it would be twice as high.
The proposed building would result in the loss of the view of many of the historic "backs" of Quarry Street, and also of St. Mary's church. For years our Group and the Guildford Society have campaigned to preserve the view of these old buildings - especially during the 70s when there were many large buildings proposed along Millbrook. Conservation of such precious assets is now taken for granted, and it would be disappointing if the opportunity was not taken to improve the setting of some of Guildford's most important historic buildings. To achieve this, a building of not more than two storeys is needed. This would not only preserve the view of the Quarry Street buildings and St. Marys church; it would also prevent the building being overdominant in the Street scene, and would provide a proper step down in height from the roof heights of the row of buildings to the ancient wall of the Church.

We do not accept that the extant planning permission for a building to provide new GSA studios can be used as a precedent for the scale of the building. This building was to be for a completely different function which would have made a special contribution to the vitality of the town centre and which had to be of adequate size to be viable and was therefore a special case. The use now proposed is not special and the application must be considered on its merits. A fair approach would be to allow rebuilding within the envelope of the existing building.
The proposal is contrary to Plan policies G5(1,2,4, and 6), G11(3), HE4, HE7.

2. Excessive dwelling density.
The dwelling density would be 240dph, compared to the government target of 30-50. Although higher density can be allowed in some instances in the town centre this super high density is at odds with emerging policies of density constraint. Problems arising from the density are aggravated by the inclusion of a retail element in the scheme.
Contrary to policy H10.

3. Lack of residents parking and drop off area.
It is noted that four flats are 2-bedroom and two are single bed. It is likely that all flats will be occupied by couples, and that at least eight cars could be in use. Street parking is already inadequate in the area, and problems would be aggravated by the development. Spaces in public car parks are only available out of working hours. The frontage is adjacent to the approach section to the pedestrian crossing where parking is strictly prohibited. However it is inevitable that illegal parking would occur in front of the building for unloading and loading heavy items, with serious safety consequences.
Contrary to policy G1(2).

4. Lack of amenity space.
No amenity space would be provided except for a tiny courtyard for one flat.
Contrary to policy R3.

5. Unsuitable site for retail provision.
This part of the road is not designated in the Borough plan as a retail area of any sort. The pavement is narrow, particularly at the south end adjacent the pedestrian crossing, where it can become very congested. It is alongside a very busy primary traffic route. Creating further pedestrian activity in the area would be dangerous. A major problem would arise in providing for deliveries and pick up from the shop. We consider the change of use to retail to be unacceptable.

6. Adverse affect on Rosemary Alley.
Although stepped down somewhat on the S. elevation the building would still increase the extent of enclosure on the much used passageway. The ventilation grill from the refuse area opens onto the passage at ground level and would be particularly unsatisfactory.

7. Threat to adjacent Chestnut Tree.
This tree is an important feature in the streetscene. The development would inevitably threaten its survival.

Yours sincerely,

R.J. Bromham.
(Secretary, HTAG Planning Group)
Copies to: Councillors Gordon Bridger, Sarah Creedy. Margaret Wailen (Guildford Society).