Discover Hertford Online Forum

Archived Topic

Topic ID 215

25/06/2004 by Frenchie

New Flates/Council Depot

Is there any more artist impressions available such as the one used on this website ?


0 replies

Archived Replies

Reply ID 1114

25/06/2004 by newgirl

Looks perfectly hideous to me - I shouldn't think the poor artist could bear to draw any others


Reply ID 1117

25/06/2004 by Frenchie

I notice it already has parking problems, with cars parked up on the Kerb....


Reply ID 1118

25/06/2004 by newgirl

Well spotted Frenchie -you are right! I take it this is one of those developments where parking space is not deemed to be necessary because of the proximity of public transport? Yeah, right..... It looks like a cross between a student Hall of Residence and a telephone exchange to me. Totally lacking in character when compared with the station opposite and the pub building next door.


Reply ID 1119

25/06/2004 by Frenchie

I agree, it will look trendy for 1 year then as it gets grubby it will look like a terrible mistake. Like so many of the other 'modern style' developments that are approved. As for the parking at the station, you see you cant buy a parking ticket for any less than 1 week now, despite it being half empty every day. Day trippers have park on the surronding residential roads. In 10 years there will be a major parking problem there with all the commuters that are moving to these parts..


Reply ID 1120

25/06/2004 by Steve

The development features underground parking. And yes, it looks dreadful. Having looked at the Higgins Homes website, they have a number of very similar developments elsewhere, which suggests it's an off-the-shelf design. They had a planning brief from the council but I'm not sure they read it very closely.


Reply ID 1378

21/08/2004 by Steve

At the Planning Committee meeting of Wednesday 18th August, councillors unanimously rejected the planning application by Higgins Homes for 112 flats on the Mill Road site.


Reply ID 1381

23/08/2004 by newcomer

I think the local paper said something like it wasn't the fact of the the development that was objected to but the horrid design of it. I take it, this means that if the developers come back with a better design it will be approved, or is the opposition to this deeper?


7 replies