Arundel is already turning into a retirement town, as a young family with a child under 2 im desperate to see more young families come to the area. We need affordable housing for families to attract them to the area, not more retirement homes bringing more old people to the area!
R
Roberta Considine
8 years ago
The building of starter homes is what is needed in Arundel not more homes for the elderly.
L
Linda Marchant
8 years ago
Totally the wrong development. Arundel does not need more of this type of property. It needs to attract young families and professionals and also provide affordable options. This current plan is also too big, too close to the road, too tall, not enough parking, too invasive for the other residents, no green space. It’s all wrong.
J
Justine Chubb
8 years ago
This an proposal s an insult to the town of Arundel and the people who reside there.
J
Justine Chubb
8 years ago
This proposal is an insult to the town of Arundel, and to the people who reside there.
I
Iain Stirling
8 years ago
Arundel doesn’t need further housing of this type, access to this location is already overused and parking is a major issue in the road and surrounding roads. Commercial vehicles already use this road extensively which it wasn’t designed for, as is clearly evident by the road design, tight corners and low bridge. These factors have resulted in several RTC’s in recent years, which is unacceptable to motorists and local residents.
A
Anne Reaveley
8 years ago
This is not in agreement with our neighbourhood plan. Arundel is our town, and as such our priorities must be respected.
J
Jon Thomson
8 years ago
Make Arundel better NOT bigger.
L
Lucie Stirling
8 years ago
Featured
I object to the proposed development due to (a) increased flood risk (b) increased traffic on already hazardous road (Queens Lane has had at least 4 RTCs in the past 3 years), and the fact that we don’t need more retirement housing but badly need affordable housing.
M
Margaret Deal
8 years ago
The number of dwellings on this space is totally unacceptable, there is insufficient parking which will cause issues for the surrounding area. There is also no need for more retirement homes in Arundel affordable homes for young people/ families are much more urgent.
B
Brian Parkinson
8 years ago
Outside local plans, not need for local people, domination of the are,no social housing,pollution additional pressure on facilities such as drainage, doctors, roads, parking.
C
Chris Deal
8 years ago
Featured
As a close resident to the site, whilst I accept some development is inevitable the scale of this proposal is wrong, from the traffic congestion it will bring to the inevitable pollution. What is the purpose of the neighbourhood plan if we ignore it?
J
June Barker
8 years ago
I agree with all the reasons why this application should not be allowed. In addition I would also add that emergency vehicles, in particular fire engines would only be able to access Fitzalan Road from The Causeway/Queen Street end, because of the low height of the flyover at the other end of Fitzalan Road. And this end of the road - the back of the Co-op facing Blastreet - is always congested with delivery vehicles to the Co-op. Lives could definitely be at risk because the emergency services would have difficulty accessing this area of land for the proposed new development.
A
Ann Sutton
8 years ago
I have lived in Arundel for 36 years, and have watched developers erode the old buildings and replace them with retirement flats. We just don't have the infrastructure to support more elderly people, and even more such flats, as proposed, will stifle the town. We need affordable housing for young local people, who will be the lifeblood of Arundel. Let's make it happen!
C
Colin Stepney
9 years ago
There are already too many retirement apartments in Arundel. This corner of Arundel is already in danger of becoming a Retirement Ghetto.
J
Jim Boulton
9 years ago
The proposed application is for 45 retirement flats with 37 car parking slots.
I’m all for development of the proposed site, but for the benefit of Arundel and the local population. Having more retirement flats/apartments in Arundel is turning the town into an old peoples town with currently five major old peoples blocks, with a noticeable number of flats currently empty. The Arundel Neighbourhood Plan for this area was to have mixed properties with a number of affordable houses/flats, so that the age proportion of Arundel can be more evenly balanced and fit in with the environment and services. The paring facilities are not proportional to the number of flats and no mention of electric vehicles which will be a norm when this block would be completed.
The proposed development is a massive carbuncle on the town, and does not consider the current environment, population and available services in the town, and is not part of Arundel’s Neighbourhood Plan. I object to it as it is currently proposed.
S
Shaun Hawker
9 years ago
No to building
C
Charlie Waring
9 years ago
This should never be allowed to happen. It's a monstrosity in a historic town. We need low cost housing for young people not another home for the elderly.
C
Chris Warren-Adamson
9 years ago
I object to this scheme on the basis that:
1. It contradict the neighbourhood plan
2 Its negative impact on neighbours
3. Impact on views
4 Light and noise pollution
5. Insufficient attention to car parking
6. Too many units on the flood plain
7. Demolition of Victorian buildings
8. Need for affordable housing for young people
J
Jules Rumbold
9 years ago
Arundel has retirement properties already. This site is also right on the border of the conservation area and its height would blot the landscape and add to an already high water table struggling to cope. What we need here is well thought out properties that serve their purpose and add to the landscape of Arundel. We need affordability for young people and families, proper consultation, diversity and forward thinking. 45 flats is plain crazy - 45 retirement flats will not add that diversity to a town already well served with retirement apartments. This should not be approved.
Arundel is already turning into a retirement town, as a young family with a child under 2 im desperate to see more young families come to the area. We need affordable housing for families to attract them to the area, not more retirement homes bringing more old people to the area!
The building of starter homes is what is needed in Arundel not more homes for the elderly.
Totally the wrong development. Arundel does not need more of this type of property. It needs to attract young families and professionals and also provide affordable options. This current plan is also too big, too close to the road, too tall, not enough parking, too invasive for the other residents, no green space. It’s all wrong.
This an proposal s an insult to the town of Arundel and the people who reside there.
This proposal is an insult to the town of Arundel, and to the people who reside there.
Arundel doesn’t need further housing of this type, access to this location is already overused and parking is a major issue in the road and surrounding roads. Commercial vehicles already use this road extensively which it wasn’t designed for, as is clearly evident by the road design, tight corners and low bridge. These factors have resulted in several RTC’s in recent years, which is unacceptable to motorists and local residents.
This is not in agreement with our neighbourhood plan. Arundel is our town, and as such our priorities must be respected.
Make Arundel better NOT bigger.
I object to the proposed development due to (a) increased flood risk (b) increased traffic on already hazardous road (Queens Lane has had at least 4 RTCs in the past 3 years), and the fact that we don’t need more retirement housing but badly need affordable housing.
The number of dwellings on this space is totally unacceptable, there is insufficient parking which will cause issues for the surrounding area. There is also no need for more retirement homes in Arundel affordable homes for young people/ families are much more urgent.
Outside local plans, not need for local people, domination of the are,no social housing,pollution additional pressure on facilities such as drainage, doctors, roads, parking.
As a close resident to the site, whilst I accept some development is inevitable the scale of this proposal is wrong, from the traffic congestion it will bring to the inevitable pollution. What is the purpose of the neighbourhood plan if we ignore it?
I agree with all the reasons why this application should not be allowed. In addition I would also add that emergency vehicles, in particular fire engines would only be able to access Fitzalan Road from The Causeway/Queen Street end, because of the low height of the flyover at the other end of Fitzalan Road. And this end of the road - the back of the Co-op facing Blastreet - is always congested with delivery vehicles to the Co-op. Lives could definitely be at risk because the emergency services would have difficulty accessing this area of land for the proposed new development.
I have lived in Arundel for 36 years, and have watched developers erode the old buildings and replace them with retirement flats. We just don't have the infrastructure to support more elderly people, and even more such flats, as proposed, will stifle the town. We need affordable housing for young local people, who will be the lifeblood of Arundel. Let's make it happen!
There are already too many retirement apartments in Arundel. This corner of Arundel is already in danger of becoming a Retirement Ghetto.
The proposed application is for 45 retirement flats with 37 car parking slots. I’m all for development of the proposed site, but for the benefit of Arundel and the local population. Having more retirement flats/apartments in Arundel is turning the town into an old peoples town with currently five major old peoples blocks, with a noticeable number of flats currently empty. The Arundel Neighbourhood Plan for this area was to have mixed properties with a number of affordable houses/flats, so that the age proportion of Arundel can be more evenly balanced and fit in with the environment and services. The paring facilities are not proportional to the number of flats and no mention of electric vehicles which will be a norm when this block would be completed. The proposed development is a massive carbuncle on the town, and does not consider the current environment, population and available services in the town, and is not part of Arundel’s Neighbourhood Plan. I object to it as it is currently proposed.
No to building
This should never be allowed to happen. It's a monstrosity in a historic town. We need low cost housing for young people not another home for the elderly.
I object to this scheme on the basis that: 1. It contradict the neighbourhood plan 2 Its negative impact on neighbours 3. Impact on views 4 Light and noise pollution 5. Insufficient attention to car parking 6. Too many units on the flood plain 7. Demolition of Victorian buildings 8. Need for affordable housing for young people
Arundel has retirement properties already. This site is also right on the border of the conservation area and its height would blot the landscape and add to an already high water table struggling to cope. What we need here is well thought out properties that serve their purpose and add to the landscape of Arundel. We need affordability for young people and families, proper consultation, diversity and forward thinking. 45 flats is plain crazy - 45 retirement flats will not add that diversity to a town already well served with retirement apartments. This should not be approved.