A pre-planning public consultation regarding new proposals for the redevelopment of this site will be held in The Mowlem Committee Room on Thursday 1 st July from 7pm- 9pm. There will be a display, and a short talk with questions by the architect at 7.30pm. The plans and impressions will move to the Art Hut opposite the Old Stone Quay for the weekend, open from 11am until 4 pm. Interested members of the public will have the opportunity to comment in writing at both venues, or by e-mailing:
haveyoursay@pierheadswanage.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
220 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 220 of 220'A lot of gold'....to support low income restaurant jobs? Is that the best reason to spend millions on a local rapid transit scheme? We need to travel from Swanage to find jobs that will allow us to buy homes here and raise our families. Not waiting on table!
Just read the DART proposal made in 2005.....when tghe economy was booming.....it went nowhere......so who thinks this boondoggle will get the huge investment it needs at this time?? Just to ship in a few golden oldies from Wareham for dinner??
Come on, people, let's get real. The only option is to for a transport company, link the railway at Worgret, get two dedicated commuter trains (the already bought the locos) and run a proper commuter rail link to join the main line services to Wevmouth, Poole, Bournemouth and points east to London. Then we might have something worthwhile. My biggest dread is something run by the worthy enthusiasts at Swanage Railway who should not pretend they can provide an efficient commuter line. Swanage Railway - you are great at entertaining tourists but leave the professional stuff to the professionals. Use the line useage tariff to maintain your tourist business.
I had the opportunity to see the model of the new building at the Mowlem on Thursday. Its huge. Looked at from over the road by the quay it will look higher than the Victoria flats and stretch all the way to Prince Albert gardens. Very nice in a city centre perhaps - but here?. Have any of the people who have posted comments saying it is not too big actually gone to the trouble if looking at it?
Could we be told the architects brief for the new design please. There has been a lot of discussion over the claim by the architect of the previous one that he was not briefed to either maximise the number of residential units or indeed have any particular number and he vehemently rejected the intention was to maximise income from the project. It would therefore make things a lot clearer if we knew what the architect of the new scheme has been asked to come up with.
They can put the plans back on the dusty shelves. The didn't fly back then when there money, and they certainly won't now.
I utterly disagree with the claim that the rail line won't reach areas where there is employment. Utter, utter tosh. I do it every day.
Dusted off?
Right.
Not a chance.
Where's the money? It wasn't there when D.A.R.T. was first mooted, and the economy was strong.
Dusted off?
I think not.
Perhaps if the government have to go "cap in hand" to the IMF they will then be forced to do what the IMF recommends and get on and spend. Be that as it may lets look at travel to places where they might still make things.
The pattern of settlement and employment has changed a good deal since the railway lines were built. Thats not tosh, its a simple matter of observation. For example which lines serve the various industrial estates around Wimborne, or or closer to home the Nuffield trading estate?
Answer: local bus service from a rail station where possible. Life is full of compromises. Sometimes there is no answer.
Now we have all had a good laugh how about some plans for something that can be built on this site.
I know - a 'new' aspirational sustainable secondary school for Swanage!! I am sure Mr. Storer will foot the bill fer that!
Don't you just get the feeling that nothing will happen - all over again? That's Swanage folks !
"Don't you just get the feeling that nothing will happen - all over again? That's Swanage folks !"
Is producing plans for something you know you won't be allowed to build a particularly Swanage thing? Are they more realistic in other places? Oh well.
Whaddya mean? Lots happens in Swanage....like....
....paint dries.
I have studied the pierhead plans, and have a good idea about them.
I was on a boat in Swanage Bay today, and I studied the site. I studied local building, the sweep along the quayside from the Mowlem, the buildings in Park Road, the park =, and I concluded:
These building will fit in very, very well! Pass the plans and let's get on with it.
Thats where I came in when I ruffled feathers by saying expect a rustic chorus chanting approval and heaping praise on the plans. The conductor is naturally enough too modest to take a bow.
So this relies on fools making a foolish decision if it is to go ahead. How interesting. But then thats the contemptuous attitude the proponents of this ghastly scheme have to both the planners and the people of Swanage who will have to go on looking at the mess that has been made of the old building when these plans are turned down. Contempt for the town, contempt for the council, contempt for anything except money making.
"Thats where I came in when I ruffled feathers by saying expect a rustic chorus chanting approval and heaping praise on the plans. The conductor is naturally enough too modest to take a bow."
Chorus? A chirp only! Soz but i think these plans are fantastic and consulting B4 putting in plans has to be good? Two letters of support in Advertiser one from ultra conservative Purbeck society!
Consultation or PR?
The Purbeck Society has adopted the illogical position of saying that something for which there are planning objections because of its size should go ahead as a smaller development would not be viable. Quite apart from the basic fact that we have not been shown any verifiable figures to prove this are they saying this as a general principle? If my neighour demolished his house to build 8 flats it would be "viable" but the 3 or 4 he could get PP for would not. If he was to apply to build 8 will the Purbeck Society support him? If not why should Mr Storer be given a privilege denied to others? The fact that this is a highly visible and important site is surely reason form resisting arguments based on financial expediency, not for accepting them.
fine so it stays as it is?
Reading and rereading these 221 posts, I am more or less certain that the opponent on this scheme is one person - the syntax and phraseology are such that they match many posts.
In contrast, using the same criteria, those supporting the plans appear to be several, or more, people.
The plans are good and really do deserve a clear examination (without prejudice or malice) by the planners. There has been too much 'history' over this site and it should be placed aside while this option is scrutinised. That anyone would want to go ahead and invest in Swanage, at this perilous (financial) time is, in itself, praiseworthy. I would also hope that, should there be an issue with the plans, Mr Storer and the planners would be able to work through them reasonably. This has gone on too long and no one is winning, least of all those of us who have to look at the dilapidation of the site.
My final point: Mr Storer has every right to make money from this, just as the planners have every duty to ensure it complies.
Post a Comment