Call for enforcement action regarding development at 1 Quarry High Street
127 Comments
A
Anonymous
6 years ago
The building seems out of character and higher than planned.
S
Stephanie Jenkins
6 years ago
What has been put up is an even larger monstrosity than what was proposed in the original approved plans. It makes a mockery of the planning process if developers can do what they like with impunity
J
Jeff McIlhinney
6 years ago
This building is a carbuncle and ruins the entrance to Quarry conservation area.
T
Tania Young
6 years ago
The building is an eyesore that is clearly too large for the space it occupies. It looms over the new sports pavilion and is a depressingly dominating feature when travelling down Margaret Road or Quarry Road towards the Quarry. If it doesn't fit the specifications which were originally approved then it needs to be altered to do so, even if this means rebuilding. Otherwise why bother with planning permission at all? Allowing a 'retrospective application' makes a travesty of the whole process, surely.
J
Jenifer Carpenter
6 years ago
This development is totally inappropriate sited at the entrance to a conservation area and always was. The original plans showed a development the foot print of which did not fit onto the site and should have been turned down on those grounds. Now extra height has been added which has the effect of dwarfing the adjacent building. I can only suppose that a conservation officer has not visited the site. I am particularly concerned that the developer is being allowed to depart so far from the original plans without sanctions being imposed. Is this how local planning control works or rather doesn't work.
J
Jennifer Bird
6 years ago
Featured
I wish the council to recognise the difference between the plans and actual build, also the importance of the Steinberg principle. I hope the council does the hard thing, makes the good decision to protect the character of Headington quarry.
C
Chris Miller
6 years ago
It's clearly out of scale; it all but intrudes onto the pavement; it very much overlooks the house opposite; if it is in breach of its original application, then action should be taken.
The building seems out of character and higher than planned.
What has been put up is an even larger monstrosity than what was proposed in the original approved plans. It makes a mockery of the planning process if developers can do what they like with impunity
This building is a carbuncle and ruins the entrance to Quarry conservation area.
The building is an eyesore that is clearly too large for the space it occupies. It looms over the new sports pavilion and is a depressingly dominating feature when travelling down Margaret Road or Quarry Road towards the Quarry. If it doesn't fit the specifications which were originally approved then it needs to be altered to do so, even if this means rebuilding. Otherwise why bother with planning permission at all? Allowing a 'retrospective application' makes a travesty of the whole process, surely.
This development is totally inappropriate sited at the entrance to a conservation area and always was. The original plans showed a development the foot print of which did not fit onto the site and should have been turned down on those grounds. Now extra height has been added which has the effect of dwarfing the adjacent building. I can only suppose that a conservation officer has not visited the site. I am particularly concerned that the developer is being allowed to depart so far from the original plans without sanctions being imposed. Is this how local planning control works or rather doesn't work.
I wish the council to recognise the difference between the plans and actual build, also the importance of the Steinberg principle. I hope the council does the hard thing, makes the good decision to protect the character of Headington quarry.
It's clearly out of scale; it all but intrudes onto the pavement; it very much overlooks the house opposite; if it is in breach of its original application, then action should be taken.