Posted: Attached I am sending you the text that Mrs. Mantjes, on behalf of 68 local residents involved, left at the committee meeting on Wednesday, December 21st. It concerns the agenda item Determination of Lot Ambition Diaconessenhuis. The picture, which shows two Diaconessen houses on top of each other, gave the committee members a good idea of the planned building mass at Vliet.
As close neighbors and very involved in the development of the former Diaconessenhuis site, we actively participated in a participatory process. It is all the more disappointing that we do not see the points we make in Lot Ambition, at most a single point as a wish. The question arises to what extent the municipality takes citizen involvement seriously.
We draw attention to the attached participation. It’s not too late yet!! The Lot ambition will be discussed with the council on 17 January 2023.
Didn’t the citizens of Voorburg collect money for the arrival of the Diaconessenhuis at that time? Wasn’t the land then handed over to the Reinier de Graaf group for symbolic value? And then get a big profit in one of the most beautiful places along the Vliet, part of the Landgoederenroute, located next to / on top of our cultural Roman heritage? We expect more attention from the municipal council for building mass and height, parking above ground and traffic safety.
On behalf of the affected residents
Dear chairman, councillor, councilors and others present,
On behalf of the involved residents of Buitenplaats Hadriani, I exercise our right to participate with regard to the agenda item Establishment of Kavelambitie Diaconessenhuis. As close neighbors and very involved in the development of the former Diaconessenhuis site, we actively participated in a participatory process. It is all the more disappointing that we do not see the points we make in Lot Ambition, at most a single point as a wish. The question arises to what extent the municipality takes citizen involvement seriously.
We therefore ask you to pay attention to the following points.
First, we wonder what the legal status of this so-called Lot Ambition is. This consists of an analysis of the area translated into prerequisites, ambitions and wishes for the redevelopment.
The document includes all points in the municipality as prerequisites and input from local residents as possible. ambition or desire to choose. This gives the buyer a lot of freedom. Can this Lot ambition form the basis for further elaborations?
Second, we wonder why a picture quality plan isn’t included. Especially considering the extraordinary height and massiveness of the proposed reconstruction, as can be clearly seen in the picture. In a response, the municipality states that the building height is partly determined by what is constructively possible, and that the height has not yet been determined. Is it naivety on the part of the municipality? To what extent is it correct that the municipality makes Fonteinkerk’s building height the guideline for the current development?
Because how does this plan relate to what was stated in the report from the provincial council on the Vlietzone: “to include the attractiveness of the historic country properties in new developments”. In our opinion, the quality of the use of this site in the estate zone of the Vliet and the historical importance of the adjacent Forum Hadriani, in particular the Unesco World Heritage, is insufficiently ensured due to the lack of clear prerequisites, certainly in combination with unclear legal status. This gives the buyer plenty of room, which certainly can/will come at the expense of image quality in this unique location. It is important as a municipality to maintain control here.
Third, the amount of traffic is underestimated. Calculations are based on an average and ignore road safety. Just think of the flow of children to the newly built Child Center (school with preschool and after-school, etc.), the winding Fonteynenburghlaan with exits to the Diaconessenhuis, the medical center and the hospice, and the shortcut for contractors from the business park on the Westvlietweg. What we miss is the connection with the development at Binckhorst, including HOV and Rijswijk municipality’s plans to close Geestbrug. The plans for the expansion of the business park on Westvlietweg and its consequences for traffic development must also be considered in their entirety.
Fourth, there is a lot of above ground parking in Lot Ambition. This is contrary to the proposed policy of paying more attention to the green environment. It appears from the plan that, from an archaeological point of view, underground parking is not permitted. As far as we know, there is already a basement under the hospital, so the cars can be parked here without further disturbing the archaeological site and thus detracting from the Roman heritage. At that time, the municipality also focused on indoor parking when developing the Effatha plot. A mixture of indoor parking facilities and at ground level (regardless of whether it is hidden by a green roof) seems to us to be a very acceptable premise.
In conclusion, our urgent call to the committee members is to first process the above points and translate them into clear prerequisites with a clear legal status, before the Plot ambition can be determined.
This means that the buying and selling parties know where they stand in relation to building mass, building height, parking and traffic safety. This also removes the concern of the local residents that in the future it will only be possible to speak about subjects of minor importance.
There are other points to decide on, which are normally dealt with in a physical planning decision, but tonight, as mentioned, we will have to settle for the main points.
Finally, in the context of due diligence, it would only be reasonable to have a quality of life impact assessment (LER) carried out to determine the effects of this housing project.
Thank you for your attention!