Dear Amanda

I've had a thorough look at the proposed plans and have several concerns that I intend to raise as objections in my personal response to the Council.

1. Siting of the school building

The building has gradually migrated north over the past few months despite requests to ensure the impact of the new buildings are fairly shared across the site. I would favour the building being shifted south by 3-4 metres to reduce its proximity to the Mission Hall and Richmond Avenue houses. This seems a fairer course of action even if a tree needs to be replaced and the football pitch shortened slightly.

2. Height of the school building

Throughout the autumn, at every consultation meeting, the planners reassured us the building would, at most, be 0.5m taller than the existing building. They have reneged on that promise. In practice the top of the parapet is about 1.5 metres higher than the parapet on the main two storey existing building.

3. Roof skylights

In addition, there has previously been no mention of additional infrastructure on the roof beyond low lying skylights and photo-voltaic cells. In practice it is proposed to erect 9 skylights, each 1.8 metres in height. Together with the increase in height of the building, the proposed school building will be almost 3 metres (9 feet) taller than the existing building - an increase of 38% in the height. There is also proposed to be a handrail around the roof. No explanation is given for this addition, which no other flat roofs appear to need.

The proposed roof lights should be replaced with flat skylights.

4. Parking spaces

In contravention of Council policy to discourage car use in the borough, seven parking spaces have been included in the plans. Again, residents were reassured previously that no parking facilities would be provided. This suggests that there will be considerable traffic not only during the working day but also at weekends and at night as resident staff shifts begin and end.

5. Construction traffic

In addition to focusing all the new buildings towards the northern end of the site rather than try and spread the development fairly across the whole site, the planned logistics involve all the heavy traffic for demolition and construction will be at the Dowery Street entrance. Given the narrowness of Richmond Avenue, it is likely that parking in that road will have to be suspended for the duration of the building work (maybe 18 months) to allow access for large lorries.

This would not be a problem at the southern side of the site, where the existing fence is due for replacement anyway, as the road is wide and only a few parking places would need to be suspended.

6. Perimeter fencing

All sides of the site currently have chain link fencing above their garden wall. It is proposed to maintain that on all sides except Stonefield Street where it is proposed to replace it (or supplement it) with open mesh steel panelling. Such panelling will make residents feel they are in a detention facility and it obstructs light to the gardens. The reason given for this addition is for 'security' but no explanation of 'who's security' needs protecting - intruders to the School or school children intruding into the gardens? Also, it is implied that the only risk is for Stonefield Street, not for the other sides.

I can see no reason for such additional panelling, the exclusion of which will also help reduce costs.

Whilst these will form the basis of my response, I am happy for you to share my views with other members of the association.

Best wishes

Nick