Little Clarendon Street plan set to be refused (From Oxford Mail)
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
Little Clarendon Street plan set to be refused
6:27pm Wednesday 3rd February 2010 in Oxford
The planned scheme
A £15m regeneration scheme aiming to revitalise Oxford’s Little Clarendon Street looks set to be rejected by city councillors tomorrow.
Officers have recommended that the council’s north area committee refuses permission to demolish a landmark property on the corner of Walton Street and Little Clarendon Street.
Residents and conservationists objected to the demolition of the building, which has been boarded up in recent months.
The developers, Shirehall Properties, want to build six new shops with 36 student rooms above.
The company said the scheme would help restore the street — once known as “Little Trendy Street” because of its boutiques and restaurants — to its former glory.
But the officers’ report to the committee says demolition of the existing buildings is not justified because of the contribution they make to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Comments(12)
EB
says...
9:45am Thu 4 Feb 10
It does need to be used however. But who owns it?
Joe Cooke
says...
12:36pm Thu 4 Feb 10
wallingford1
says...
1:32pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Funny how the other buildings on that road got planning, huge great concrete monstrosity!
sparky123456
says...
3:06pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Petre Mcvey wrote:i think you're wrong. have you seen the University Admissions building next door to G&D's? or the building above Barclays/Central both are perfect examples of thoughtless 70s concrete design and are disgusting to look at, funnily enough they got permission, wonder who at which college paid who off in the council for that? it's about time Oxford got a more moedrn and practical makeover. If they don't want new buildings then the landlords/owenrs of existing ones should be forced to sell up if they don't put a site to use - see also Foxes pub/Tesco on the Abingdon Road, the blind shop on London Road, countless former Threshers sites throughout the city. Oxford is fast becoming a retail ghost town with more and more people using White city, bullring, Readings Oracle and the new High Wycombe centre, it's sad that Oxford is no longer benefitting from these possible revenues and independant shops are now suffering. Change has to be embraced though there's no future in looking back through rose tinted glasses at former glory days.
The company said the scheme would help restore the street — once known as “Little Trendy Street” because of its boutiques and restaurants — to its former glory. No it wouldn't, it would put a glass and concrete monstrosity right in the middle of a conservation area. But it contains student flats so it will probably be passsed.
Sophia
says...
4:28pm Thu 4 Feb 10
What Oxford needs is the archictectural equivalent of a 5000lb bomb, something that doesnt try to echo or mimic Georgian or Victorian gothic like the ghastly new estates by the canal, which just look like prison blocks with faux gothic roofs, and isnt designed by a committee or the accountants but which is wholly, exuberantly, eccentrically NEW and beautiful with it.
In order to stay the same, it is necessary to change as the Prince put it.
I dont want to live in a musuem
Any One
says...
8:14pm Thu 4 Feb 10
The existing buildings should have been maintained by their owners. Instead they deliberately levae them to rot so they can argue demolition is necessary along with complete renovation.
Those who oppose the plans, do so for very justifiable reasons.
It is not about wanting to live in a museum, it about much more; including simply looking after and preserving existing buildings.
We live in a far too throwaway disposable society as it is. Those of us who live here have done so for years with the existing shops as they are.
If you want to live in a glass and concrete block then do so, but why should older, individual buildings that are attractive and individual be torn down to create them.
Aside from the issue of the buildings, another 36 students in this already overpopulated area of transient residents is absurd to say the least.
Joe Cooke
says...
3:33pm Fri 5 Feb 10
Isisbridge
says...
11:05pm Fri 5 Feb 10
The person who thinks it is "dull" has obviously never seen it with the afternoon sun lighting up the red brickwork against a blue sky. (Or perhaps has no appreciation of such things.)
And why should a property be deemed an "eyesore" simply because it is empty? It is a beautiful old building (even when empty) and should be preserved and restored to its former use.
There is nothing "glorious" about the proposed new building, which is just a very boring block that does nothing to enhance the area.
Wake up Oxford! So much of the old city has already been destroyed. (Remember St Ebbes?) Please preserve what little we have left.
Joe Cooke
says...
1:28pm Sat 6 Feb 10
Isisbridge
says...
2:22pm Sat 6 Feb 10
preserving the original frontage.
Joe Cooke
says...
12:22pm Mon 8 Feb 10
Petre Mcvey says...
3:49am Thu 4 Feb 10
No it wouldn't, it would put a glass and concrete monstrosity right in the middle of a conservation area. But it contains student flats so it will probably be passsed.