Courier 08 June 2001 - LETTERS section Page 26
I have just returned home to find your article of May 18.
So far nobody has pointed out that when the house on the site of Hanover Place was demolished, the owners were obliged to replace it by a building of domestic scale in keeping with the character of Church Road - a fact well illustrated in your 'after' photograph.
Later, in the face of furious opposition, the council presumably gave itself approval to permit the erection of two deplorable monstrosities which have ruined the view from Mount Ephraim for over 30 years and clearly went against the declared policy for the development of that area.
There can be no possible excuse (apart from greed, which should play no part in the planning of our environment) for this situation to continue.
Whatever takes the place of Telephone House must only be of a type and scale to match the adjoining buildings.
There are plenty of examples in which quite high density domestic development of no more than three stories, together with planted courts and pedestrian walks, can enhance an area. And do the houses all need parking?
Many people like myself, do not keep a car, which is not needed so close to the station and all amenities.
A. du Gard Paisley
Corseley Road, Groombridge
14.02.2003 - Views from Mount Ephraim, Tunbridge Wells and
DENSITY - cramming ? - lifestyle ?
|A guide through Tunbridge Wells Local Press since August 2000 - "The Telephone House Debacle"|