Representations Recieved

I support the analysis that the proposals are for C3 use rather than C1.  I recognise the progress that has been made and see the proposal as a half-way house between what we have and want and what the applicant wants, which is better than nothing.  I remain uncomfortable about the lack of simultaneous completion and the possible/probable 2-year gap.  This is partly because I remain to be convinced that it will be completed but also, that the exception to policy approval for the existing permission was based heavily on the community benefit of the Rockmill community space and the Cupola building community provision.  The former has been reduced to 40% of previous provision; the latter will be delayed for at least 2 years following completion of the apartment block.  In addition, dining provision for the apartments is stated as being (para 54 of the report) available in the Cupola building or locally.  It certainly won't be available in the Cupola building for at least 2 years after completion of the apartments and the lack of local facilities - apart from the Indian, chippie and pub in Stoney - means people having to travel, adding to car-generated pollution etc.

I would strongly support the need to revert the rear elevation appearance - getting rid of the glazed balconies - to that currently permitted.  The whole point about the approved design was it mimicking a mill; they didn't have glazed balconies.  Just because it can't easily be seen doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done properly.  There's plenty of case law re Listed Buildings that requires proper treatment even if invisible from public view.  I acknowledge this isn't and won't be a LB but the principle remains the same in my view and would fulfill the requirements of DMC3.  In addition, I would like to see appropriate provision for electric vehicles in the car park not least because of the extra travelling people are likely to do when resident here.