I’m creating a new thread for all discussions about sites that are important and/or lenghty enough to feature on the forum and benefit from the search function.
I’ll be moving a couple of posts that pre-date this one.
2 Likes
Hi @reef-building !
I did a little enquiry about UCC-02 to figure out if more than 1 villa can be built.
There is a priori nothing against it ( the permit will probably have to derogate from the Reglement Regional d’Urbanisme, but it’s doable)
Nevertheless, there is a developer trying to destroy the existing villa on the site and build 14 apartments (since 2016) but its permits keep on failing (1 refused, 1 in appeal, 1 still in instruction since 2021). So we should wonder why it is so complex to build On that site.
In my opinion, it might come from the Comité de Quartier de Uccle or neighbors in general, those seem quite powerful there (it would explain the appealed permit) and I assume they invoked:
- the damage in Uccle’s heritage (the 1900’s villa)
And/or - the density/n° of housing units
And/or - poor quality or integration of the architecture
Sssso, if we keep on with that site and aim to develop a 20 to 30 units building, it might be a very chaotic process. BUT also, there is no certainty about what happened with the previous permits, we could investigate deeper on this. …Site to put on hold maybe ?
Find the detail of my reasonning on the fiche UCC-02
5 Likes
Thanks for the info!
Maybe asking the architects whether that is a route worth pursuing and if not put in on hold?
I have a question concerning a site in Anderlecht: AND-35.
I have been trying to get the contact for the landlord. This site belongs to a promoteur who has been trying to do something with this “difficult” plot for a while.
It does have a bit of a weird shape, and I’m not even sure if it is suitable.
So instead of spending a lot of time keeping trying to find the owner, I would like to ask the architects to have a very quick look at it and tell us if it’s worth pursuing or not.
Does somebody object to that?
I’ve updated the name of the post for Mol-26, otherwise it creates an habituation to “CONSENT or OBJECT” and it won’t jump to people’s eyes when it needs to (at least for me that’s what it tends to do!)
Unless there are objections, can we agree to doing that?
1 Like
@Sarah I don’t think now is the time to ask the architects for extra work if we want to have 2 FS by 04/02. Maybe postpone it?
1 Like
Yes, it’s not necessarily super urgent, it can probably wait until next week.
The idea wouldn’t be to ask for a full PF, just that they take a quick look at the shape of of the plot and tell us if it’s a definite no-go…
2 Likes
Hi team!
-
BER-09 is put as “to be discussed in TB meeting”, and I’m not clear what that’s about. If you know, can you add the question in the “sites to be discussed” document (internal link) with your name?
-
Does somebody remember why Vinçotte (SCH-02) was excluded by the architects? I can’t find it in the emails…
-
For info, concerning the zone along the quai de l’industrie, the landlord confirmed that the commune wants them out eventually, probably within the next 3-4 years, but that they will stay as long as possible.
2 Likes
- Does somebody remember why Vinçotte (SCH-02) was excluded by the architects? I can’t find it in the emails…
Neither do i, strange. Just remember it was too small at the end. - For info, concerning the zone along the quai de l’industrie, the landlord confirmed that the commune wants them out eventually, probably within the next 3-4 years, but that they will stay as long as possible.
Which site pleae ? Thanks
2 Likes
@reef-building
I did a second review of JET-15 who has a move forward ‘Y’, it’s for sale on structura.biz so we have a price and contact details => can this one be added in the next mail to the architects (demand for PF)?
3 Likes
Seems ok for me.
I will propose to send it next week after we get the 2 FS back ?
2 Likes
And-29 and And-30.
Agree. I’ll create a list in our usual “communication with the architects” doc
1 Like
There are actually 2 other sites scouted online that are ready to be sent to the architects, so I added them to the list… Yay!
2 Likes
@reef-building : there are some “sreening”, “2nd screening” and “owners to contact” needed (see the tab “1. Overview” in the column “next action”; you will see there is also a ? highlighted in yellow for the corresponding cell in column “Who?”).
Can everybody check the table and take care of what they can? And can you put your name down in the column “who?” if you are taking care of something?
As said above, fried brain, so don’t hesitate to contact me on signal if things don"t make sense!
2 Likes
@Sophie_B : for AND-41: your name is mentioned as second reviewer in the scoring tab, but in the fiche, there is no trace of your second review (@Sebas : you filled in your name in the overview tab for a second review, but maybe wait for sophies answer)
@Sarah : i don’t know if i missed it, but can you tell me when to move a fiche from the ‘new fiches’ to the ‘discarded’ or ‘Sites still in’ folder? I thought it was after the 2nd review?
2 Likes
I must have checked it but indeed, I never add anything to the fiche if I agree with the first review - should I?
2 Likes
Hi all, and-41 and and-42 was on my to do list (contact owner) on the former excel. Something new with ?
2 Likes
changed status of AND-41 to ‘contact owner’ (instead of second review)
3 Likes
I don’t know, it cannot harm, doesn’t take much time and in case of contradictory info in the Sites overview excell, it’s easy to double check what happened, so i would do it
1 Like