(B) AGAINST
(a)
(b)
(c)
Arguments presented
Preservation of the Synagogue in- situ will be the ideal approach.
4
Facts and observations
In-situ preservation will render the re-development. proposal commercially unviable. Developer also likely to withdraw, and have indicated so, if this is insisted. This, in turn, will result in abortive cost for planning work undertaken and the community will not be provided with the necessary enhanced religious and recreational facilities. From all the evidence available and the negotiations with the Trustees so far the reconstruction of Synagogue the most prag- matic solution after taking into account all circumstances and factors.
Development to full potential can be realised on the remainder of site without demolition of existing Synagogue.
A hypothetical assumption. No detailed plans have been produced to show that this will be feasible. A notional plan prepared by Developers shows that preservation of Synagogue in-situ
will result in significantly reduced standard of facilities and accommodation.
Existing synagogue is structurally safe.
Yes, but see also comments in A(9) above.
(d)
No or little compensation is involved if building is declared.
This is an opinion based on uncorroborated assumptions and would be risky when tested in court.