Figure 34 Access and servicing

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31963

Received: 14/10/2017

Respondent: Bev Nicolson

Representation Summary:

Enhanced public space. There is potential for conflict in a shared space environment as this would turn out to be. Fig 34 strongly suggests there would be.

Full text:

2.7.2
Second point. As this document has been written so that members of the public can have their say on the
council's vision for this area, use of planning jargon is unhelpful.
3.2.3 The area should be primarily for pedestrians and those on bikes. We need far fewer cars.
3.2.7 I would argue for future proofing not just in terms of building use, but in transport terms too. We must
be aiming for far fewer cars and delivery lorries and therefore lower pollution levels.
4.2.4 Again, let's not think car here. Walking and cycling must come first.
Fig. 33 It's not entirely clear to me if the yellow shading is an indication that you wish to see junction
improvement here. (This is a problem with several plans. The key doesn't always match the drawing.)
Fitzroy Lane needs a pavement.
Enhanced public space. There is potential for conflict in a shared space environment as this would turn out to
be. Fig 34 strongly suggests there would be.
4.2.18 I object to on-street servicing. It causes conflict with pedestrians and bike users.
4.2.30 Suggest sites for cycle parking. Although if Grafton East went underground, could the overground part
become a cycle park?
Fig 35 I am uneasy about suggesting no. 17 Fitzroy Street could turn into an hotel. I envisage conflict with
pedestrians and bikes because of the servicing needed and the guests arriving.
4.3.9 I am uneasy about more central hotels. What about some affordable flats instead?
4.4.14 Let us hold to this. When you say exceptional, let us mean exceptional, not a 5 storey building that
could be anywhere in the country. Maybe they could echo no 17?
4.4.24. I strongly object to the space being used by pedestrians, bikes with taxis and servicing vehicles. This
is not a recipe for a pleasant, attractive boulevard, but a stressful, noisy, mall. There would also be damage
to any surfacing used.
Yes to 24/7 use by bikes.
4.4.26 Reduce carriageway for motor traffic and add a cycle route for the whole length.
Improve Norfolk St end with a clearer cycling and walking routes to follow.
This plan must integrate with the Eastern Gate SPD. It must be a goal that it does, not a vague desire. There
is no point in having a piecemeal approach to the area.
Fig 42. Shows limited space for pedestrians, trees removed, bike racks gone, seating gone. It looks a lot like
shared space and I strongly object to that.
4.4.28. Jargon. (See first point.) Contraflow bike lane, yes. Servicing too? No, no, no.
4.5.3 Either this is to be a 'c' road, or it is a pedestrianised shopping centre. It can't be both.
Fig 45 No guard rail at all, thank you. Crossings can be effectively designed for busy roads without them.
Fig 47. A bus lane shared with bikes? No. Not on East Road, thanks.

Support

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31981

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Valarie Mahy

Representation Summary:

- Remove the bollards along City Rd to allow service vehicles access to the shops along Fitzroy Street/Burleigh Street to avoid them having to use Paradise Street and other local roads.
- Access to Paradise Street should only be used for residential uses and not for either deliveries accessing shops along Fitzroy Street/Burleigh Street or for construction purposes.
- Current and future servicing of any new or existing retail uses should avoid residential streets, e.g. Paradise Street. The streets are often blocked by retail service vehicles and construction vehicles having to turnaround to leave the area. These activities block access for local people and create a considerable amount of noise throughout both the day and night.

Full text:

Method: Telephone discussion with Bruce Waller (Senior Planning Policy Officer) regarding the following issues raised:
- Access to Paradise Street should only be used for residential uses and not for either deliveries accessing shops along Fitzroy Street/Burleigh Street or for construction purposes.
- Current and future servicing of any new or existing retail uses should avoid residential streets, e.g. Paradise Street. The streets are often blocked by retail service vehicles and construction vehicles having to turnaround to leave the area. These activities block access for local people and create a considerable amount of noise throughout both the day and night.
- Please remove the bollards along City Rd to allow service vehicles access to the shops along Fitzroy Street/Burleigh Street to avoid them having to use Paradise Street and other local roads.

Object

Grafton Area of Major Change SPD 2017

Representation ID: 31984

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Donald Fung

Representation Summary:

Building on the Grafton car park will cast a shadow over the properties at the rear of Maids Causeway that sit on Salmon Lane, these buildings are the annexes of the properties on Maids Causeway. Flats or houses built on the car park would cut off natural light to the annexes which are used as living accommodation, offices and workshops.
To build residential units over an existing car park will be costly and not in the interest of the tax payer, the land where the car park is located has a history of subsidence.

Full text:

A neighbour has bought to my attention that the Council has a Proposal to redevelop the Grafton Area and this will include the Grafton car park overlooking Salmon Lane. The plan/proposal I have been told will include building either flats or houses on the upper level of the Grafton car park whilst maintaining the lower level car park for shoppers etc.

My concerns are as follows:
* Such development will cause a great deal of disturbance to residents of Maids Causeway and surrounding roads as the building works will be extensive.
* Building on the Grafton car park will cast a shadow over the properties at the rear of Maids Causeway that sit on Salmon Lane, these buildings are the annexes of the properties on Maids Causeway. Flats or houses built on the car park would cut off natural light to the annexes which are used as living accommodation, offices and workshops.
* Furthermore the privacy of the annexes on Salmon lane will be removed as the proposed development will overlook them
* There will inevitably be an increase in noise pollution from any addition of residential units
* To build residential units over an existing car park will be costly and not in the interest of the tax payer, the land where the car park is located has a history of subsidence.
* The properties on Maids Causeway are made up of listed buildings which National Heritage consider to be buildings of historic value/beauty, any development on the car park would significantly impact on these listed buildings as the setting will be ruined by surrounding buildings of beauty by modern monstrosities
I strongly object to the councils proposals and want my comments noted. I will follow this proposal closely and take all action necessary to protect my property and neighbourhood.

Yours sincerely
Mr Donald Fung