Post by Bartonite on Apr 23, 2015 9:12:42 GMT
Despite being 'Twitlongered' about this nearly two months ago, the Citizen won't confirm or deny if this letter was published. The quotes at the end are from the planning application. There should be no better time to prompt a public response from candidates, for council seats as well as parliament.
Edit: the correct email address of 'Madame', and the one I sent the letter below to, is jenny.eastwood@glosmedia.co.uk.
@gloscitizen If I missed you publishing this letter, can you tell me which issue it was in?
Sent on March 7th.
Madame,
As you can see, I originally sent this to the address below. I think this may have been the wrong one to use, so I am sending it again.
Sincerely, Joe Kilker
-----Original Message-----
From: StarredArk <StarredArk@aol.com>
To: citizen.editor <citizen.editor@glosmedia.co.uk>
Cc: barry_phoenix <barry_phoenix@msn.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 9:51 am
Subject: Disabled ccess ramp at Lloyds TSB - over a year and no change?
Madame,
Two days ago, on Thursday, I was in the city centre, on Northgate Street, buying football boots for my son. As I was in no great rush, I decided to walk back along New Inn Lane, and through the back entrance of Lloyds TSB, to see if the bank's disabled access had been improved, following recommendations from all quarters, including the Gloucester City Centre Community Partnership, in the course of a failed application to build an access ramp at the front of the building. I had barely entered the lane when an elderly lady, bent practically double behind a wheeled Zimmer frame, asked for my assistance, saying that she found the path leading to the bank impossible to navigate without aid.
I was happy to help, but then discovered, to my surprise that, well over a year since the application's refusal, in January of 2014, there was no sign of any of the recommended improvements to the road leading to the rear doors, or the uneven pavement. Even with my help, the approach to the doors for this lady was tortuous, and I promised her that I would chase the matter up.
I attach a link to the application, with relevant comments and other details below, as well as a current photo. I hope you will publish my letter above, so that we the public may get an explanation for what seems to be to be an inexcusable lack of progress.
Sincerely,
Joe Kilker,
Barton,
Gloucester,
GL1 4DJ
glcstrplnng12.co.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MU51UIHMC0000
11/12/13
I would support this as the carer of a spouse with disabilities, because when we have had to use
the rear entrance, which I believe the Civic Trust describes as 'satisfactory', the state of the
pavement leading to the ramp (and there is no 'drop' kerb which would allow a motorised
scooter to use the road to approach the ramp instead) is very poor. (2nd para) If the approach to
the rear entrance could be improved, I would be more sympathetic to the trust's concerns.
Joe Kilker
16/12/13
From: On Behalf Of Barry Leach
Sent: 14 December 2013 07:02
To: Emma Blackwood
Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION 13/01039/FUL
Emma - as is our usual practice the above application was circulated to our members for
comment.
Of the 52 members who made observations:-
- 25 supported the application - however 15 of these members made comment regarding
the current rear disabled access to Lloyds. See below.
- 27 were opposed as it would in their view have a detrimental effect on the frontage of a
listed building. Whilst being opposed to the application 25 of these members expressed
concern about the current rear disabled access to Lloyds. See below.
As can be seen from the above that whilst not part of the planning application the rear
disabled access to Lloyds bank was mentioned in 40 of the members responses.
The general view was that whilst the actual rear access point to Lloyds is fine is was felt that
the public realm around the Lloyds doorway was so poor that it made it difficult and for
some impossible to use the rear access. It is our intention to raise the matter with the
appropriate authority seeking improvements to the public realm in New Inn Lane.
This appears to be a forgotten area of Gloucester and as a result the public realm has
deteriorated to the point where in parts it is unsafe and is certainly not as accessible as it
should be for those needing to use the rear access points to Eastgate Street buildings.
Thank you
Barry
Barry Leach, Chair, Gloucester City Centre Community Partnership
GLOSCCCP, P.O. BOX 3155, GLOUCESTER, GL1 9AA
Registered Charity: 1152239 Registered Company Limited by guarantee: 8293654
17/12/13
Also, the document concerning rear access -
planningdocs.gloucester.gov.uk/webcache/1D061F/1D061F374C5711E3A9AA00188B130
647.pdf - seems incongruous, because it's nothing more than a picture of the front of the
alleyway that leads to the rear access. Perhaps the point is to illustrate how far out of their way
people have to go to reach the rear access, but a more useful photograph would be one of the
road and pavement immediately outside the rear access. As I and other members of the City
Centre Community Partnership have been saying, this area simply isn't fit for the purpose of
disabled people getting to the perfectly usable ramp in the first place. (New para, which it won't
be, sadly, even though I left two spaces) I chose 'Quedgeley Parish Council' for commenter type,
because it makes as much sense as 'Neighbour' or 'Other objectors'. These curious choices
should have been addressed when the website was altered recently, instead of which the
documents page was made worse, by not allowing multiple tabs to be used, to display several
documents simultaneously.
Mr Joe Kilker
18/12/13
I use a wheelchair to get around town, and after one mishap, I dare not try again as it is not
really possible to access the disabled ramp at the back of Lloyds bank. If the pavement were
better, then OK.
Mrs Rachel Kilker
07/01/14
Reasons for Refusal
The applicant is advised that alterations and improvements to the existing rear access of 19
Eastgate Street to/from New Inn Lane, through the provision of a DDA compliant access, may
be considered more favourably.
Date: 7th January 2014
08/01/14
It is not possible to copy and paste the 'delegated report' at the end of the documents page, but it also contains various references regarding the need to improve the disabled access at the rear of the building. Well over a year since this application was refused, nothing, if anything, has been done to address these concerns
Edit: the correct email address of 'Madame', and the one I sent the letter below to, is jenny.eastwood@glosmedia.co.uk.
@gloscitizen If I missed you publishing this letter, can you tell me which issue it was in?
Sent on March 7th.
Madame,
As you can see, I originally sent this to the address below. I think this may have been the wrong one to use, so I am sending it again.
Sincerely, Joe Kilker
-----Original Message-----
From: StarredArk <StarredArk@aol.com>
To: citizen.editor <citizen.editor@glosmedia.co.uk>
Cc: barry_phoenix <barry_phoenix@msn.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 9:51 am
Subject: Disabled ccess ramp at Lloyds TSB - over a year and no change?
Madame,
Two days ago, on Thursday, I was in the city centre, on Northgate Street, buying football boots for my son. As I was in no great rush, I decided to walk back along New Inn Lane, and through the back entrance of Lloyds TSB, to see if the bank's disabled access had been improved, following recommendations from all quarters, including the Gloucester City Centre Community Partnership, in the course of a failed application to build an access ramp at the front of the building. I had barely entered the lane when an elderly lady, bent practically double behind a wheeled Zimmer frame, asked for my assistance, saying that she found the path leading to the bank impossible to navigate without aid.
I was happy to help, but then discovered, to my surprise that, well over a year since the application's refusal, in January of 2014, there was no sign of any of the recommended improvements to the road leading to the rear doors, or the uneven pavement. Even with my help, the approach to the doors for this lady was tortuous, and I promised her that I would chase the matter up.
I attach a link to the application, with relevant comments and other details below, as well as a current photo. I hope you will publish my letter above, so that we the public may get an explanation for what seems to be to be an inexcusable lack of progress.
Sincerely,
Joe Kilker,
Barton,
Gloucester,
GL1 4DJ
glcstrplnng12.co.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MU51UIHMC0000
11/12/13
I would support this as the carer of a spouse with disabilities, because when we have had to use
the rear entrance, which I believe the Civic Trust describes as 'satisfactory', the state of the
pavement leading to the ramp (and there is no 'drop' kerb which would allow a motorised
scooter to use the road to approach the ramp instead) is very poor. (2nd para) If the approach to
the rear entrance could be improved, I would be more sympathetic to the trust's concerns.
Joe Kilker
16/12/13
From: On Behalf Of Barry Leach
Sent: 14 December 2013 07:02
To: Emma Blackwood
Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION 13/01039/FUL
Emma - as is our usual practice the above application was circulated to our members for
comment.
Of the 52 members who made observations:-
- 25 supported the application - however 15 of these members made comment regarding
the current rear disabled access to Lloyds. See below.
- 27 were opposed as it would in their view have a detrimental effect on the frontage of a
listed building. Whilst being opposed to the application 25 of these members expressed
concern about the current rear disabled access to Lloyds. See below.
As can be seen from the above that whilst not part of the planning application the rear
disabled access to Lloyds bank was mentioned in 40 of the members responses.
The general view was that whilst the actual rear access point to Lloyds is fine is was felt that
the public realm around the Lloyds doorway was so poor that it made it difficult and for
some impossible to use the rear access. It is our intention to raise the matter with the
appropriate authority seeking improvements to the public realm in New Inn Lane.
This appears to be a forgotten area of Gloucester and as a result the public realm has
deteriorated to the point where in parts it is unsafe and is certainly not as accessible as it
should be for those needing to use the rear access points to Eastgate Street buildings.
Thank you
Barry
Barry Leach, Chair, Gloucester City Centre Community Partnership
GLOSCCCP, P.O. BOX 3155, GLOUCESTER, GL1 9AA
Registered Charity: 1152239 Registered Company Limited by guarantee: 8293654
17/12/13
Also, the document concerning rear access -
planningdocs.gloucester.gov.uk/webcache/1D061F/1D061F374C5711E3A9AA00188B130
647.pdf - seems incongruous, because it's nothing more than a picture of the front of the
alleyway that leads to the rear access. Perhaps the point is to illustrate how far out of their way
people have to go to reach the rear access, but a more useful photograph would be one of the
road and pavement immediately outside the rear access. As I and other members of the City
Centre Community Partnership have been saying, this area simply isn't fit for the purpose of
disabled people getting to the perfectly usable ramp in the first place. (New para, which it won't
be, sadly, even though I left two spaces) I chose 'Quedgeley Parish Council' for commenter type,
because it makes as much sense as 'Neighbour' or 'Other objectors'. These curious choices
should have been addressed when the website was altered recently, instead of which the
documents page was made worse, by not allowing multiple tabs to be used, to display several
documents simultaneously.
Mr Joe Kilker
18/12/13
I use a wheelchair to get around town, and after one mishap, I dare not try again as it is not
really possible to access the disabled ramp at the back of Lloyds bank. If the pavement were
better, then OK.
Mrs Rachel Kilker
07/01/14
Reasons for Refusal
The applicant is advised that alterations and improvements to the existing rear access of 19
Eastgate Street to/from New Inn Lane, through the provision of a DDA compliant access, may
be considered more favourably.
Date: 7th January 2014
08/01/14
It is not possible to copy and paste the 'delegated report' at the end of the documents page, but it also contains various references regarding the need to improve the disabled access at the rear of the building. Well over a year since this application was refused, nothing, if anything, has been done to address these concerns
