Pro­posed surgery would be dis­as­ter

Buckinghamshire Advertiser - - OPINION -

In re­sponse to the Bea­cons­field Ad­ver­tiser front page story ‘Surgery fears over Hall Barn pro­posal’, Jan­uary 8 edi­tion. WELL done with your ar­ti­cle on this in this week’s Ad­ver­tiser.

This is prob­a­bly the most ma­jor de­vel­op­ment in the heart of Bea­cons­field Old Town for 20 years and it should be of a stan­dard to en­hance the ar­chi­tec­tural her­itage of this con­ser­va­tion area rather than cause detri­ment to it as, un­for­tu­nately, this ap­pli­ca­tion does.

I strongly ob­ject to this poor qual­ity ap­pli­ca­tion. The de­sign is out of keep­ing with the lo­cal­ity, harms res­i­dents and pub­lic ameni­ties and changes the na­ture, detri­men­tally, of this neigh­bour­hood, which is in a con­ser­va­tion area.

The ap­pli­ca­tion also de­mol­ishes parts of grade II listed build­ings, and ur­banises a green and quiet space.

As a Bea­cons­field res­i­dent, my en­joy­ment of the lo­cal­ity will be se­verely im­paired, as will those of neigh­bour­ing res­i­dents, the pub­lic and tourists, es­pe­cially those in Malt­house Square and those us­ing the pub­lic lane to the east which has been in pub­lic use for many decades.

The pro­posed de­vel­op­ment is clearly out of keep­ing with the lo­cal­ity, and will greatly ex­ac­er­bate the cur­rent, no­to­ri­ous, park­ing prob­lems and will cre­ate a traf­fic haz­ard for users of Hall Barn Med­i­cal Cen­tre, es­pe­cially the dis­abled, aged and mums with chil­dren.

It is clear the ap­pli­ca­tion pro­poses a de­sign and form com­pletely out of keep­ing with the lo­cal­ity in a con­ser­va­tion area and the de­sign, lay­out and pro­posed us­age will cause ma­jor loss of ameni­ties to the res­i­dents, neigh­bour­hood, street scene and pub­lic, in­clud­ing that of a pub­lic lane to the east.

It also ex­ac­er­bates a no­to­ri­ous lo­cal park­ing and traf­fic prob­lem sig­nif­i­cantly.

There is com­plete un­cer­tainty around pol­lu­tion of the site, which is not ex­plained and is po­ten­tially an ex­ist­ing haz­ard to the res­i­dents and pub­lic, in­clud­ing any chil­dren that may en­ter the site now and also the work­ers and res­i­dents of the pro­posed de­vel­op­ment.

The fail­ure to pro­vide an Ac­cess State­ment ex­plain­ing th­ese crit­i­cal is­sues in straight­for­ward terms ex­ac­er­bates the un­cer­tainty, avoids pub­lic scru­tiny, and pre­cludes ap­proval.

For th­ese rea­sons the ap­pli­ca­tion should be re­fused.

DEN­NIS ELSEY Ad­dress sup­plied


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.