It's laughable, as the council were OK with mass-clearance of Georgian-era buildings to make way for Castle Street, but are defending a dilapidated old Georgian stable.
Exactly, this would bring jobs - what will the stables bring to the area? If there is something of historical significance worth keeping, yes, we should fight to keep it - but this doesn't seem to be. Not only would this bring jobs, but the knock-on effects for the area would be huge as well. This isn't a pie-in-the-sky development either - Wykeland are prepared to fund a large chunk of it apparently, so it is only a wedge needed from European Funding - not the full lot like Manor projects.
These areas are part of our City's history and heritage, I'm surprised some of you want to change that on the off chance it would improve the commercial prospects of our City. In non pisstake mode, it baffles me how these morons get to make these decisions, and why the hell do people keep them in power??
Most lunchtimes I walk round the pier area, it has so much potential and the pier/marina should be the focal point of the city , with great views. I would start by using disused land around myton bridge for free car parking to encourage people into the area and city centre. Put a costa/Starbucks or similar on the pier and encourage more cafes to open.
Queen St, looking towards Lowgate - Castle St smashed straight through the centre of these buildings - all cleared for the dual-carriageway (I imagine the stables would be to the back of one of the buildings on the right).
This is the Commercial Hotel, which was at 1 Castle Street, the narrow road between there and the FR Scott Ltd building was the original Castle Street please log in to view this image
I deal with Planners on a regular basis and they have no interest in whether or not a development gets built so long as they follow what they consider to be Planning Guidelines in accepting or objecting to a development. I would suggest its the Officers that are recommending this 'refusal' - its up to the Members to over rule them if they so wish.
Planners are a waste of space, it's not exclusive to Hull City Council either - look at some of the monstrosities that are built up and down the country. I live in a conservation area, we applied to extend about 4 years ago and the hoops we had to jump through to get the application passed were incredible. Yet you look at some of the complete carbuncles in the same village that have been given the green light - baffling. **cough** Willows **cough** Little Wold Lane. **cough ** Brough. Who would build a huge **** off housing estate with family homes with the provision of parking for one or two cars? Every property has at least 2 cars, the result is a horrible mess of streets strewn with a mass overspill of cars. Can they not factor in that the average family in a family home requires more than 1.5 parking spaces? Where's the economic and local protection to ensure good projects get approval and the ****e eyesore projects get rejected. It's a mystery.
They're a bunch of dimwits with a degree in geography or history that like to get stuck into issues such as this - and yet they allow the likes of Elloughton/Brough to be overrun with modern day shoe boxes.
I'd be happy to, if someone can tell me who they are? Or do you just have to use the generic stuff on the website? Planning policy: [email protected] Development control: [email protected] Building control: [email protected]
Eliza Mann is one of the good ones on the committee - she got Blaydes House on Castle Street saved and renovated, as well as getting the old, long building beside Oriel House carpark (near Lion & Key formerly Dirty Nellys) saved and restored too. She worked for ARC, so she usually knows when modern architecture should be favoured over something of no significance, despite being pro-renovation of old architecture.
I've emailed them all, just to make sure I've got all bases covered. I'm assuming several are on holiday at the moment, I've got three 'out of office' already.
