100 signatures reached
To: Portsmouth City Council
Ensure the ARTches project is implemented in accordance with the approved Planning Application
In 2013 a planning application to re-purpose the vacant arches of Point Battery in Old Portsmouth was submitted to Portsmouth City Council and subsequently approved.
It has now been discovered that this design may be under threat, possibly as part of a cost-cutting exercise by Portsmouth City Council. Implementing a design that contravenes the approved documents would bypass the democratic principles of the planning process and would be in breach of planning control. The primary features we believe to be threatened are:
1. Re-opening of the seaward-facing gun ports as windows
2. Narrow-framed glazed frontage to each arch with integrated security shutter and lights.
3. Resurfacing and tree planting to the open space
4. Electrical and water services routed beneath a raised floor.
As Portsmouth residents, the approved design of the ARTches is WHAT WE WANT TO SEE, and so we hereby petition PCC to ensure that THIS IS WHAT IS BUILT.
It has now been discovered that this design may be under threat, possibly as part of a cost-cutting exercise by Portsmouth City Council. Implementing a design that contravenes the approved documents would bypass the democratic principles of the planning process and would be in breach of planning control. The primary features we believe to be threatened are:
1. Re-opening of the seaward-facing gun ports as windows
2. Narrow-framed glazed frontage to each arch with integrated security shutter and lights.
3. Resurfacing and tree planting to the open space
4. Electrical and water services routed beneath a raised floor.
As Portsmouth residents, the approved design of the ARTches is WHAT WE WANT TO SEE, and so we hereby petition PCC to ensure that THIS IS WHAT IS BUILT.
Why is this important?
The financial success of such an endeavour depends on delivering a quality design that can attract users and provide real, long-term benefits to the city. To eat away at the key features in order to preserve a budget is a false economy which will result in a cheap-looking, lacklustre development that will absolutely NOT befit a much-loved and historically significant structure, and would offer little to attract tenants or visitors.
The proposals include a creative quarter for artists, and refreshment and leisure facilities for visitors, with the intention of generating income to support the continual preservation of the Grade I listed monument. This generated much local interest and debate between both supporters and detractors, and following public consultations, the Planning Committee approved the scheme.
The features noted above were APPROVED, not only by the Council Planning Department and Conservation Officer, but also by English Heritage and the vast majority of Portsmouth residents who responded to the consultation.
As a Grade I listed monument, Point Battery shares the same designated status as Porchester Castle, York Minster and the Palace of Westminster as a building of exceptional interest. It is therefore sensible to assume that Planning Permission granted on such a building would require an intense level of scrutiny to ensure that the submitted design is appropriate and sympathetic to the structure, and that only work essential to the realisation of the proposal is carried out.
Deviating from the approved documents would be considered a breach of planning control under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/171A, which can result in enforcement action being taken against the property owners. This is ESPECIALLY critical when those unauthorised changes are carried out on a nationally important historic structure such as Point Battery.
As an example, the opening of the gun ports are clearly an integral part of the design, allowing essential light and warmth into the interior of the spaces and providing a more authentic historic appearance from the outside. Failure to implement this and other design elements would be hugely detrimental to the overall scheme, and could very possibly harm its economic prospects in the future. This would be an insult, not only to the many people who supported this project and the aims expressed through its design, but also to the objectors, who may now be faced with the failed development they always feared. Both these groups are taxpayers who put their faith in the democratic principles that underpin the planning process.
Enforcement action would be an appropriate measure when dealing with breaches of planning control concerning a Grade I listed monument, as expressed in paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework:
"Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control."
If the Council wish to "maintain public confidence in the planning system", then we suggest they implement the scheme they agreed to in the first place, the approved documents can be found here: http://publicaccess.portsmouth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MTA36TMO5G000
Portsmouth City Council: please don't let this unique opportunity end up a victim of penny-pinching bureaucracy.
The proposals include a creative quarter for artists, and refreshment and leisure facilities for visitors, with the intention of generating income to support the continual preservation of the Grade I listed monument. This generated much local interest and debate between both supporters and detractors, and following public consultations, the Planning Committee approved the scheme.
The features noted above were APPROVED, not only by the Council Planning Department and Conservation Officer, but also by English Heritage and the vast majority of Portsmouth residents who responded to the consultation.
As a Grade I listed monument, Point Battery shares the same designated status as Porchester Castle, York Minster and the Palace of Westminster as a building of exceptional interest. It is therefore sensible to assume that Planning Permission granted on such a building would require an intense level of scrutiny to ensure that the submitted design is appropriate and sympathetic to the structure, and that only work essential to the realisation of the proposal is carried out.
Deviating from the approved documents would be considered a breach of planning control under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/171A, which can result in enforcement action being taken against the property owners. This is ESPECIALLY critical when those unauthorised changes are carried out on a nationally important historic structure such as Point Battery.
As an example, the opening of the gun ports are clearly an integral part of the design, allowing essential light and warmth into the interior of the spaces and providing a more authentic historic appearance from the outside. Failure to implement this and other design elements would be hugely detrimental to the overall scheme, and could very possibly harm its economic prospects in the future. This would be an insult, not only to the many people who supported this project and the aims expressed through its design, but also to the objectors, who may now be faced with the failed development they always feared. Both these groups are taxpayers who put their faith in the democratic principles that underpin the planning process.
Enforcement action would be an appropriate measure when dealing with breaches of planning control concerning a Grade I listed monument, as expressed in paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework:
"Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control."
If the Council wish to "maintain public confidence in the planning system", then we suggest they implement the scheme they agreed to in the first place, the approved documents can be found here: http://publicaccess.portsmouth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MTA36TMO5G000
Portsmouth City Council: please don't let this unique opportunity end up a victim of penny-pinching bureaucracy.
