| Topic: | 89-91 Shakespeare Rd w3 6sb | Forum Home |
| Posted by: | David Buckingham | |
| Date/Time: | 22/04/12 17:23:00 |
| DEVELOPMENT OF 89-91 SHAKESPEARE RD W3 6SB PLANNING APPEAL ~ LAST CHANCE SALOON? APPEALING AGAINST AN APPEAL AGAINST THE APPEAL 1 0 a m T u e s d a y 2 4 t h A p r i l T o w n H a l l E a l i n g C o m m i t t e e R o o m 2 Please get there if at all possible Weight of numbers will make a big difference FOR THE UNINITIATED THE ATTEMPT TO DEMOLISH AND REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF AND LARGELY BECAUSE OF LOCAL RESISTANCE IT HAS BEEN STALLED ~ SO FAR! The proposed replacement scheme is ersatz miniaturised Victoriana ~ and squeezing four house widths into a 3-width site, compared to the scale of neighbouring properties in Poets Corner. Over the last hundred years or so Acton did not need a blitz to attack its character, it has had an overdose of architectural and developmental self-harming. Rather than adapting them, a huge number of distinctive buildings and urban spaces in the borough have been demolished and replaced with bland anonymity and tarmac desert. Unsurprisingly this is not a requirement for progress - many boroughs have retained their history and thrived all the more for it, retaining and adapting their idiosyncratic, colourful, historically exciting buildings and streets, mixing the old and new, nurturing an enriching urban experience. The aim is not to preserve the old regardless of quality or practicality but historical photos reveal a remarkable facility for picking out and demolishing the most characterful buildings in Acton ~ the vandalism has been breathtaking. This approach could be reversed. At the last appeal objections on the grounds of aesthetics, density and the council's own guidelines were dismissed and the scheme was rejected only on minor technicalities affecting pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety and amenities to one flat. The developers are resubmitting the same scheme that has already been rejected for reappraisal ~ with undetectable alteration. Logically this exposes it to the opportunity for a fresh judgment on all counts, and it should be rejected again, this time with grounds for refusal being the requirement to retain and adapt the main existing building on the street, restricting demolition & development to the workshops behind. |