Thatch Restaurant on the Quay.
I cannot believe the planning authority. They have been harassing the owners of this site for what? three years now to take down the thatch because they don’t like it, so now I hear they passed an application for a modern canopy even bigger than the existing thatch WITH A FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION! Hope it doesn’t turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the applicant. I’d like to know the reaction of other caterers in the Town if they were obliged to knock down their existing premises and rebuild with a fancy roof terrace for the use of the few old people who still bother to come to the seaside.
The person who posts regularly on here saying individuals should all be in awe of planning officers, do exactly what they say, and roll over and be quiet if applications are initially refused -please take note.
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 24/2/11 3:23 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
I agree with you entirely. The Planning Officers must have some other agenda than common sense.
Can't say I understand the first posting. Mr Storer applied to have a building with a roof terrace. It was not imposed on him. Other restauranteurs, if they have built or altered premises since the planning system came in 60 odd years ago went to the trouble of getting pp. It is a mystery to me that someone who tries to get a commercial advantage by not bothering and trading from substandard gimcrack premises is turned into some sort of a hero.
Why this application has succeeded is a little mysterious, perhaps there were no planning grounds for turning it down.
I find the posters who think Swanage is on its last legs quite amusing. It is one of the best regarded small resorts in the country. Just go and have a look at the declining ones of you do not believe me. There is a good deal of documentation about this and it is worth taking the trouble to read it before running our town down.
Great news, at last Mr Storer can move forward with his project and it will benefit the town too.
9.50 i agree with you that Swanage does so well. But why didn't PDC say to him years ago just put in an application for the fantastic thatch and we will pass it . After all we will list it in a few years time!
If you really want to know the answer to that read the planning documents relating to it at www.dorsetforyou.com or is it in the nature of a rhetorical question in which case you do not want an answer.
After the fun and nonsense of being told to take the shantytown thatch down Mr Storer's architects sat down and talked to the planners who in turn drew up a brief outlining what would be acceptable for this site. The architects produced a proposal taking account of this, no doubt modified it as a result of further discussions with the planning officer and it has not been accepted. Why on earth did Mr Storer not do this years ago and why did the other Mr Storer not follow this course in relation to the Pierhead Cafe site? If common sense had prevailed with the pair of them that area would have been transformed years ago.
Basically then: conservation officer and a few NIMBY second home owners virus hundreds of local folk and holiday makers with some common sense.
Conservation officer wins by insisting the architect produce a gold plated building which no-one in their right mind would ever invest in building.
Oops. I typed "and it has not been accepted" when I meant "now been accepted" of course.
I seems a tad contradictory to say how important the oyster bar is to the economy and to maintain that it cannot generate the revenue to cover the cost of a decent building. If the "common sense" view of locals and holiday makers is that any old cut price tat is good enough for Swanage it is just as well we have planning and conservation officers to protect us from ignorance and golly.
9.54
Sir you have obviously never had the misfortune to deal with the ever changing, contrary, petty officials some of whom work in the planning office. They can be economical with the truth, choose to use or ignore their own policy at will, and are experts at procrastination.
I would guess if Mr Storer had put in an application for what has just been passed five years ago they would have laughed in his face. The fact is that by putting up a shack to prove a need, and waging a war of attrition he has finally got permission for a building twice the size of the original which reflects the level of demand for his products.
Such is the process of planning in Swanage.
However I feel sure he is reluctant about spending I suppose £500,000 replacing his perfectly good premises in return for a marginal increase in trade.
Lets just think the last time there was a new hotel, catering or other tourist related building built in Swanage, without flats above to pay for it?
Unless the PDC planning department is uniquely incompetent every business in the country has to cope with a similar situation. The fact that the Audit Commission has not drawn such a conclusion, although they have been damning about other aspects of PDC, suggests the planners here are not uniquely awful.
Were they to draw up detailed guidance and briefing documents for the conservation area and other sites regarded as sensitive there would be a lot less aggravation. North Dorset, for example has a detailed document available on line setting out their thinking on developments in historical settings. PDC should be a good deal more proactive in this respect. However frustrating the planning process is the fact remains that it is not about to vanish so ranting about how terrible it is is a complete waste of time.
I have an interest to declare. I have a business in the town and the higher the standard of the town centre the better for me. Improvised tat is bad for business. Buildings that are allowed to decay are bad for business. People who are so visually illiterate that they cannot understand the importance of this are bad for business.
I don't understand the point about hotels and restaurants being built with flats over. Which ones did you have in mind. The only restaurant to have been built here since 1950 is in the Mowlem. The only post-war hotels were built to replace bomb damage although a number have been extended at different times without flats over them. Perhaps you could tell us which you were referring to.
Chilled red springs to mind.
but the point is nobody would build a stand alone catering business in Swanage (anymore)
maybe on Poole Quay
Yes, quite possibly, but we all know where you are going with that one. The fact that the construction of a restaurant would not be attractive without a few million quids worth of flats over it does not mean that other considerations should be brushed aside. Just about every detached house in Swanage could be profitably redeveloped if a block of flats twice the height and size of the existing house was approved. If planning applications should be judged on whether the proposer will turn a profit on the enterprise presumably you would back anyone wanting to tear down a house and put up a dozen flats. Can I therefore rely on you writing to the planners to support such a proposal? I am anticipating problems with the nimbys.
I find the posters who think Swanage is on its last legs quite amusing. It is one of the best regarded small resorts in the country. Just go and have a look at the declining ones of you do not believe me. There is a good deal of documentation about this and it is worth taking the trouble to read it before running our town down.
Should we be comparing ourselves to the declining, already 'ghost' holiday resorts elsewhere? There is plenty of room for improvement in Swanage. We should be learning from the declining resorts elsewhere in eg. Cornwall that have already lost too much to be saved.
Who decides whether thatch/glass/metal/wood/plastic is in keeping with the surrounding landscape ?
Its no good being redirected to the PDC planning site re planning policies, its all empty and meaningless twaddle.
If the "common sense" view of locals and holiday makers is that any old cut price tat is good enough for Swanage it is just as well we have planning and conservation officers to protect us from ignorance and golly.
So-thatch has now been degraded to old cut price tat! Some thatch is worthy of listing, apparently by the sea it is considered tat. Its all truly bemusing and entertaining.
The are a few businesses in Town who achieve an all year round trade, perhaps jewelers, solicitors, undertakers, charity shops and the like. However many caterers will explain they take as much as 50% of their turnover during the kids'summer vacation. In turn this indicates that their premises sit little used for 46 weeks a year; and yet must be up for the hay making for the other six. Hardly a basis for massive investment in fixed assets.
In the good old days of the 60's and 70's making a living in Swanage was like throwing buns to an elephant. Sadly no more, and Swanage will loose its charm along with its economic base.
eg Mowlem restaurant and bar closed, Purbeck Hotel shutdown, toilets shut and Harrison fenced at Herston, New Years Eve about as busy as a good Saturday night in the Summer, all the chips shut by 10pm, empty club, building sites for sale.
"So-thatch has now been degraded to old cut price tat! Some thatch is worthy of listing, apparently by the sea it is considered tat. Its all truly bemusing and entertaining."
Comments like this make you realise what Bill Webb, the conservation officer is up against. It completely misses the point of the objections. Not surprising the poster feels bemused. Thatch varies a good deal in style and material round the country. The pretend Hawaii type is nothing like what you see in Dorset. Those who have posted in favour of what appeared in Swanage choose to ignore this and no doubt will dismiss it as irrelevant.
It is certainly true a lot of businesses are trapped in a '60s mind set. You need only look at the sad gift shops. It is not just businesses. I cringe when councilors go on about this being a family resort as if there was some special virtue in this. The whole pattern has altered since the 1960s. We no longer have huge factories round the country closing for two weeks each year in a planned series running from June to the end of September. Its all concentrated into 6 weeks and you cant design a business round that. Time to look for a new model and new customers I am afraid. The hospitality association is making some effort but if businesses want customers they need to do more.
The thatch is a poor attempt to give the seafront a Caribbean feel. As such, it is laughable and out of keeping with Swanage. If the effect desired is to replicate a Tiki Bar, I could do it better for less money.
Be that as it may, I continue to be bemused by business people who are not fools to do things like this without getting permission first. Life is full of battles; successful people learn to choose their battles wisely.
Then again, things happen in Swanage that do not very often fit inside the box.
Call it 'local colour' and 'character'.
All this is reminiscent of what happened to the Sea Rowing Club. Planners were against any building on Prince Albert Gardens; but under pressure from councillors and wishing to appear public spirited they negotiated with the club’s architect to try to find a solution. To punish the club they passed a masterpiece of a gig hut which, despite being given the land, they can never hope to raise the funds to build.
I am relieved and encouraged to read the last posters comments.
With so many different views on what looks good/is acceptable/ is affordable how can anyone (those in planning) interpret policies with any consistency.
No one has explained satisfactorily why eg. A Huff glass house is acceptable and 'apparently' in keeping, whilst a straw roofed business is not. Surely its all a matter of 'opinion'. So how can anyone be right or wrong, its all down to individual interpretation. Eg. Art..what is a beautiful painting?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ! For some a Huff house is ugly whilst for others its an example of beauty.
How does an officer or a planner decide.
Possibly because planning is not a beauty contest. If people think it is then it is hardly surprising they express bewilderment. Similarly if you think all thatch is the same this whole discussion must be beyond you.
Of course its not a beauty contest, thats why a bit of ruffled thatch (whatever you want to call it) why is it such a big deal. I cannot imagine why there has been such a huge fuss about all of this.
Yes its totally beyond me why some people can get so het up about something so unimportant.
For the simple reason that if we loose even one percent of the value of the conservation area a year there is not going to be much of it left in a few decades time. A lot of small changes, each of which appears to be utterly trivial in itself, eventually add up to major change.
so why don't hey enforce it? why has the East Bar still got a plastic fascia where the balcony used to be? why has Jenkins and the Cauldron got plastic windows? why are the stone kerbs tarmacked over, why indeed is the thatch still there?
So far as I can make out the policy is to ignore planning infringements by householders so although some of the plastic window frames in the conservation area have been reported the response is that no action will be taken. My questions about the stuff at the east Bar have never been answered.
PDC says it relies on town and parish councils to be its "eyes and ears" in this matter. As the motto of ours appears to be "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil" they are totally useless in this role.
Other places have active civic societies so the community can get together and protect its assets. We seem to rally over particular buildings but there is no ongoing voice. Perhaps the Purbeck Society should do this but their track record does no suggest this is likely.
Discouragingly what comes over from this thread and others like it is that there is no general feeling that we have a common interest which is threatened by businesses wanting to do what is in their own immediate interest and individuals trying to save money on building maintenance. Cue "big society" perhaps?
and the Purbeck Society web site is where? so we can all become foot soldiers?
I can't help thinking they are a lost cause.
You could of course phone the chairman or write to him but it is no longer psooible to take an organisation without a web presence seriously.
The Purbeck Society.
What are the aims of this group.
Perhaps you could ask them as we would all like to know, then post the information on here.
I wonder if enforcement action will proceed against the thatch awning? Presumably the applicant has up to three seasons trading before having to start work on building from these newly passed plans.
Interesting question. The degree of tolerance they have shown has been questionable to put it mildly. It does however seem that we have people keen to critisise PDC for not letting land owners erect anything they want and also people who complain that PDC have turned a blind eye to planning infringements. I cannot help suspecting it is sometimes the same people who say the two opposite things. Perhaps a want of consistency at Westport House is to blame.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8895491.Seafront_bar_gets_backing_for_state_of_the_art_glass_canopy/
A history of planners thwating the local economy Im afraid. It makes no commercial sense at all. Well done to Gee Whites for providing a service and making a living despite the official knockers.
Post a Comment