<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Planning application: fire station/chapel, Clifford St</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yorkstories.co.uk/planning-app-clifford-st-peckitt-st-former-chapel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yorkstories.co.uk/planning-app-clifford-st-peckitt-st-former-chapel/</link>
	<description>A resident&#039;s record of York and its changes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 17:45:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa @YorkStories</title>
		<link>http://yorkstories.co.uk/planning-app-clifford-st-peckitt-st-former-chapel/#comment-646050</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lisa @YorkStories]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:07:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yorkstories.co.uk/?p=9806#comment-646050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There have been some well-informed and thoughtful objections registered, I noticed, on the planning application (on &lt;a href=&quot;https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&amp;keyVal=NV0M7JSJJLH00&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;). 

But more noticeable is the number of comments supporting the application, there are far more of these at present. So readers of this page who feel they want to object and haven&#039;t done so already might want to register their views.
 
I&#039;d always be in favour of working with what&#039;s there, and am surprised that the proposed development on this site doesn&#039;t at least keep the Peckitt St chapel frontage. In contrast, in the plans for Groves Chapel (http://yorkstories.co.uk/groves-chapel-plans-21oct/) the developers scaled back their plans in order to protect and preserve part of the interior. But then Groves Chapel is listed, and this building isn&#039;t. Therefore I guess we can&#039;t blame the developers for thinking it has no value? 

I think the whole building is interesting, has an interesting story, with the fire station being driven through it as a form of reuse earlier. (As discussed previously on http://yorkstories.co.uk/former-trinity-chapel-fire-station/)

And on that note, I hope we&#039;ve all had a listen to the old fire station bell ... http://yorkstories.co.uk/york-fire-station-bell-t-morris-1938/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There have been some well-informed and thoughtful objections registered, I noticed, on the planning application (on <a href="https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&#038;keyVal=NV0M7JSJJLH00" rel="nofollow">this link</a>). </p>
<p>But more noticeable is the number of comments supporting the application, there are far more of these at present. So readers of this page who feel they want to object and haven&#8217;t done so already might want to register their views.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d always be in favour of working with what&#8217;s there, and am surprised that the proposed development on this site doesn&#8217;t at least keep the Peckitt St chapel frontage. In contrast, in the plans for Groves Chapel (<a href="http://yorkstories.co.uk/groves-chapel-plans-21oct/" rel="nofollow">http://yorkstories.co.uk/groves-chapel-plans-21oct/</a>) the developers scaled back their plans in order to protect and preserve part of the interior. But then Groves Chapel is listed, and this building isn&#8217;t. Therefore I guess we can&#8217;t blame the developers for thinking it has no value? </p>
<p>I think the whole building is interesting, has an interesting story, with the fire station being driven through it as a form of reuse earlier. (As discussed previously on <a href="http://yorkstories.co.uk/former-trinity-chapel-fire-station/" rel="nofollow">http://yorkstories.co.uk/former-trinity-chapel-fire-station/</a>)</p>
<p>And on that note, I hope we&#8217;ve all had a listen to the old fire station bell &#8230; <a href="http://yorkstories.co.uk/york-fire-station-bell-t-morris-1938/" rel="nofollow">http://yorkstories.co.uk/york-fire-station-bell-t-morris-1938/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily Greenaway</title>
		<link>http://yorkstories.co.uk/planning-app-clifford-st-peckitt-st-former-chapel/#comment-645644</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emily Greenaway]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:58:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yorkstories.co.uk/?p=9806#comment-645644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a lazy and ugly development for this site, removing interesting historic buildings which contribute to the conservation area, and replacing them with an out-of-scale and inappropriate new build.  Instead of encouraging owners to work with existing historic structures - which is not only a benefit to the historic environment, but also far more environmentally sound - this proposal rewards owners for poor maintenance and repair by allowing them to use this as justification for demolition and quick, easy money-making new build.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a lazy and ugly development for this site, removing interesting historic buildings which contribute to the conservation area, and replacing them with an out-of-scale and inappropriate new build.  Instead of encouraging owners to work with existing historic structures &#8211; which is not only a benefit to the historic environment, but also far more environmentally sound &#8211; this proposal rewards owners for poor maintenance and repair by allowing them to use this as justification for demolition and quick, easy money-making new build.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
