Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Pier Head


A planning application has been submitted for this site.

http://planning-purbeck.dorsetforyou.com/planning/PlanAppDisp.asp?RecNum=38171

Click the title link above (where it says "Pier Head") to go to direct to the design and access statement.

142 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's an 'icecream palour'?

Nickthefish said...

Thanks for helping with the proof reading.
This version I think reads better:
http://www.pierheadswanage.co.uk/applicationDec2011/Pier%20Head_Design%20and%20Access_A3%20Double%20Side%20Format.pdf

Virtual Swanage said...

Looks very good and would be an asset to the town and look a lot better than the current buildings.

Anonymous said...

To whom it may concern: please approve and build this.

David Furmage said...

This is a must have , jobs , shops , a lovely restaurant and definatley not an awfull eyesore of the building that is there now. If this was turned down it would be another sad day in Swanage history. Coming off the pier and seeing this would be a great first impression to our town if you were visiting. I wish the owners the best of luck in getting this and looking toward to the future when I can sit outside on a warm summer evening and enjoy the hussle and bussle of Swanage :)

Anonymous said...

I hope that the architect's attention to detail is better than the spelling in this document! Truely, limstone, see defences, orignal. A pity, because this detracts from, and distracts from, the aim of the application.

The furnishing and state of the balconies when in use will have a major impact on the eventual appearance of the development.

The important thing is the overall scheme itself, which is imaginative and looks pretty good. I hope it is approved.

Steve Darrington said...

Wonderful!

Baggy said...

David Furmage said:
Coming off the pier and seeing this would be a great first impression to our town if you were visiting

Most visitors would already have passed the site when they reached the pier, surely?

I do hope the improvements are made - the seafront is the town's main selling point.

The Postman said...

As far as I recall, all recent planning applications have concluded with PDC asking the developers to discuss proposed plans with them before submitting an application. Did that happen this time?

Nickthefish said...

Very much so. Almost three years of consultation.

Anonymous said...

'What is an ice cream palour?'

A palour selling ice ceam.

Anonymous said...

Looks fine.

Build it.

Houseofmowlem said...

As a neighbour it gets my support

Good Luck

Anonymous said...

'What is an ice cream palour?'


Its like a parlour, but without the "r". But is a Roockery like a Rookery, but with a "c"?

Nickthefish said...

Thanks for all the typographical errors. Please keep them coming! I'll endeavor to get them corrected and a more recent version of the Design and Access Statement posted on PDC website when the offices reopen in January.

Anonymous said...

We ‘L I V E’ at Peveril Heights, closest neighbours of the proposed redevelopment and consider the new design/concept to be perfect and in keeping with the area and a long term asset for the locality.

RobO

Anonymous said...

In hindsight I’m pleased Nick didn’t take up my suggestion that the site be offered as a Traveller Site, (to prompt some sense from the Planners).

Anonymous said...

It looks gross.

The last time Swanage got a high profile, iconic landmark building it was the Mowlem Theatre and I suspect the design initially received the unthinking whoops of delight this one is attracting. By all means lets have the restaurants but the eight flats that are intended to pay for them are an eysore in the making.

Anonymous said...

Does not sit comfortably in the street and background scene - I think it will be an eyesore, (although the present building is also an eyesore).
Page 21 - Materials Pallette [sic].
"Building façade. Dry stacked effect Purbeck stone with no visible mortar." - Unusual for exterior walls.
"Roof. Faceted surface with Purbeck stone setts." Who thought that one up?

Anonymous said...

I don't remember the mowlem receiving whoops of delight. There was the usual Swanage opposition and more (quite rightly).
This is completely different - a building for the 21st century fitting snugly into the existing buildings and landscape. Also an attraction that will bring much needed revenue to local businesses.How much better for example than the flats across the road from the Victoria.

Anonymous said...

An attraction? Come off it. People flocking from far and wide to gawp at a block of flats? The notion is preposterous.

"Fitting snugly"? Squeezed in with scarcely a millimetre to spare is a more accurate description.

David Furmage said...

Nick , i reckon putting some flower beds all the way round it might please the doubters , I mean can't be with out more flower beds in Swanage. Seems they please everyone;)

David Vincent said...

I think it looks great, and as others have posted it will create new jobs :-)

Anonymous said...

It's the swoopy roofs and dreadful 'texture' on the exterior walls that look terribily out of place in the townscape of Swanage and date faster than you can shake a stick at it.
What's wrong with traditional building? Better brick than fake stone particularly here.
What's wrong with being more in keeping with the rest of the town? You can still have a modern design. Why does it have to be Sandbanks comes to Swanage? Particularly in an iconic site like this

Anonymous said...

"out of place in the townscape of Swanage"
If you cast your eye up Seymer Road you will see dry stone purbeck walls in plenty, except where folk were too tight to employ the necessary labour and morter was used. Else the stone (cut stone in some places) has been rendered over.

Anonymous said...

"Why does it have to be Sandbanks comes to Swanage?"
Well Sandbanks is hardly going to want Swanage to come to it!
Just look at those dire flats above Café Shore on the Banks Road in Sandbanks.
And they are being recreated next to JJ Moore the butcher, pebble dash and all! Here! Now! Criminal!

Anonymous said...

There is nothing in principle wrong with a "modern" style building. Modern has been around for close to 100 years. Fashion statemnts on the other hand look stupid rather quickly. The problem with this design, and the previous ones put forward for this site, is that of scale. It would completely dominate its surrounding. No matter how many weasel words are used to justify the design the fact remainns that it is simply too large.

I fear this could become another case of planning panel members seeing the thing when it is built and muttering something along the lines of "we did not realise it would be that large when we looked at the plans."

By the way, Mr Furmage aYA HW likes it but in another thread he has also said he likes the appearance of steel shutters on shops. One could perhaps question his taste in buildings, or is he just trying to wind us up?

Anonymous said...

"we did not realise it would be that large when we looked at the plans."
well presumably this is why there are trained planning officers to advise, many images, a model, scaled plans and cross sections. A degree of vision and daring will be required perhaps.

Dave Morton said...

I think it looks great and will add not take away from the town - can't believe some of the negative comments....

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, all the usual tired objections to change.... I suspect the Planners wont like it either and those who are content with the current decay will be happy. Where else but Swanage does this happen?

Sorry David, its gonna take more than a few flower beds to keep the locals happy!

The Postman said...

If it's true that the developers have only put forward a proposal following outlne endorsement from PDC, then it should go through.

The Postman said...

Of course, that does rather leave it in the hands of PDC councillors, though. But they should take advice from the planning officers.

Anonymous said...

well we shall have to wait for the planning officers' reports
it's exactly the same as the surrounding buildings. cellar/garage +3 storeys

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the advocates of "modern" buildings could tell us which ones in Swanage they think enhance the townscape or if they can't perhaps they can explain why this one would be different.

Robin from Swanage said...

It is always difficult to make a new building fit in with a 200 year old town. I like the building. It is pleasant to have a restaurant with a sea view. It also looks good from the sea and the pier.

Anonymous said...

The last few applications were refused because of the size of what was asked for. This one is just as bulky. You may not agree with the planners reasoning but it is there for you to read. Mr Storer was told that something with a similar footprint to the existing building would be acceptable and asked to discuss this with the planning officers. Clearly this was a forlorn hope. In fact he was told this several applications ago but chose to stick with site filling horrors. Now we have a block of flats with a hole in the middle.

Anonymous said...

"acceptable" health care, schooling, transport? or something better?

Anonymous said...

Could the poster of the last comment please tell us what it means or what it has to do with this thread. In the context of the Pierhead acceptable means capable of being accepted. I.e. site filling plans are unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

Argue, bicker, squabble, name call...OK, I will say it: bitch!

Somebody wants to invest in a part of town that is begging for investment.

Swanage is unique; you can see a fantastic building, and next door will be one less in keeping built out of expediency according to needs.

Sometimes the NEED for building trumps the aesthetic virtues. That IS how Swanage was developed.

WE need to get off the pot and develop that embarrassment of a site.

We need that site developed. We need the business; we need new residents; we need the rates.

If it were a 'Hoff House' like those execrable structures in Studland, we would have a case against this...

...but this is quite respectable; is shows respect for the town...a lot of effort has been made.....

so...

build it.

Anonymous said...

Eight flats, that will in all probability be second homes, are not going to make an ounce of difference to the housing situation in Swanage. Comparable properties start at close to £400,000 and the larger ones will be a good bit more than this. A two bedder in Oceana is currently on sale for £415,000 for example.

The site is an embarresment because the owner keeps it that way. It is pathetically naive to think otherwise. Standard practice is to let old buildings fall apart to justify redevelopment and that is what he is doing.

Anonymous said...

So..we have a classic stand off.

You know...ultimately the proposing side always wins, unless they lose interest. Mr Storer won't. He can play the game. He will prevail. You do know that, don't you?

Anonymous said...

For how many years has he been pursuing this hobby of asking for planning permission? He is entitled to entertain himself in this way I know but the rest of us have to put up with the condition in which he keeps the old building in order to keep the pressure on public opinion up.

David Furmage said...

How can it be out of place with swanage , stand on the sandpit field and look at the prison block of flats where the corrie hotel used to be , next to that a flats that look like there should be from Monaco. Then stand on the Rec , there's flats there that should be in the costa brava. The eldorada flats near the lifeboat. Everything in swanage in my opinion is a mish mash of everything . The only Victorian building you can from the seafront is the Victoria Hotel. Let's get a grip here people , this is what Swanage needs to kick start other ideas. Let's not live in the past like half the population of this town do with their blinkers attached firmly to their heads. Open your minds to new things. And if this building gives jobs to some of the youngsters in town then I say this is a good thing:)

Anonymous said...

According to the planning application there would be a net increase of 16 jobs. Handy but not wonderful In the absence of an economic impact study we can only speculate about how much of the trade in the new restaurants would be at the expense of existing establishments with consequent loss of jobs in these. Half perhaps. Most of the jobs are going to be low skilled, poorly paid and seasonal. Half a dozen waitresses on the niggardly national minimum rate paid to young workers is not regeneration.

The planning application is the strangest I have ever seen. It reads like an advert and we have been shown absolutely no evidence that the anticipated uses of the 599 square metres of new catering space will be as described. Given that Swanage's version of a seafeed restaurant is a chippie with tables there is no reason to suppose that the new place will be anything different from what we already have. A pizza parlour is a pizza parlour regardless of whether wood or gas fuels the coooking.

There is no sign of anyone wanting to run a high quality restaurant buying any of the existing establishments that are for sale and there is no shortage of them ranging from Ocean Bay, reduced to £1.2 million, (http://www.estatesgazette.com/propertylink/advert/ulwell_road_swanage_dorset-swanage_dorset-3271042.htm)down to rather more affordable businesses.

Anonymous said...

599 square metres...just about right for a McDonalds!

David Furmage said...

Use the Mowlem as a Mcdonalds , got a cinema next to it ;)

Anonymous said...

Noooo, but the Mowlem could regenerate Swanage single handed given a suitably philanthrophic buyer of the lease - unlikely......all those restaurants chasing yet more undiscriminating diners.....bring on Rick Steinishness

Anonymous said...

As I have said before, the Rick Steins and Jamie Olivers of this world will not create a restaurant where its punters have to leave by 10.30 pm to catch the last ferry to Sandbanks.

It won't happen.

Anonymous said...

Why would they want to go and visit Sandbanks at that time of night? More likely to totter off to their second homes.

Anonymous said...

Look into my eye.

Look.

You are under my control.

Build it.

Build it.

Now.

When you wake up, Swanage will be a better place.

Anonymous said...

'Why would they want to go and visit Sandbanks at that time of night? More likely to totter off to their second homes.'

Those who can afford such a place will not stay at one of Swanage's hostelries.

Anonymous said...

True, they will be in their second homes, holiday apartments and quaint country cottages.

David Furmage said...

Getting back on track anyway , this for some funny reason reminds me of a quote from a film , not sure some of you might of heard it .

" Build it and they will come ".

Anonymous said...

Here you go, Dave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU3a1PDtTYk

Swanage needs a few more optimists. There seem to be too many nay-sayers who only see 'No' when 'Yes' is right before their eyes.

I might remind the nay-sayers of Paul Nash's book 'Swanage or Seaside Surrealism' (1934).

Or Nikolaus Pevsner's article 'Why not Harmonise the Old and the New' (1961).

Both refer to Swanage; both would applaud this building plan.

Anonymous said...

The plan seems fine it's the look of the place that is the problem....

Anonymous said...

The plan does not differ a great deal from at least the previous two submissions and probably all ten, in terms of the scale of the proposal. Since this was the reason for their rejection it would be open to Mr Storer, if this one is accepted, to demand considerable compensation from PDC for the costs he has incurred inthe intervening years. This happened a few years ago when the McCarthy and Stone flats in De Moulham Road were built after several refusals for similarly sized blocks. Last time we went through this ritual he denied that he would do this but perhaps the town would be better served if he demanded compensation and donated the money to a housing association to provide some affordable housing which his scheme will most certainly not do.

Anonymous said...

Why is it assumed that a private developer must always provide affordable housing in order to get planning permission? That seems wrong.

He will provide jobs for construction, equipment, materials, surveys, and indeed for planning permission. All on his risk in making an investment.

He will pay tax on any profit his development incurs.

The development will provide rates to the council which in turn will provide the precept to the town council.

The people who buy the accommodation will frequent and support local trade, as well as pay rates.

The shops or restaurants the site will provide will create jobs, trade and further rates.

Why, after being prepared to take a risk in this perilous economic environment, must the developer also provide what is in effect subsidized housing for no other reason than his arm is being twisted in order ti be granted permission from the planners?

I understand the moral argument but I do not understand the economic one, except one of pure envy.

For the record, I am not a Conservative; just a businessman trying to stay afloat and do as well by by clients and my employees as possible in these difficult times. I cannot afford to run my businesses as a charity, though I am very generous when I can be in giving to charities.

Go on...attack....I know I have been provocative...so bring it on.

But before you accuse me of not caring (which I do) let me ask you : what have you done for providing affordable homes besides watch yours go up and up in value, and feel content about this?

Anonymous said...

"Why, after being prepared to take a risk in this perilous economic environment, must the developer also provide what is in effect subsidized housing for no other reason than his arm is being twisted in order to be granted permission from the planners?"

Having a proportion of affordable housing within new developments has been standard practice for some years. It is not hard to see why. All you have to look at is the "uplift" in site value created by the granting of planning permission. In the case of this site we are looking at a difference between the value of amenity land and of development land of a million or two so something for the public who are being asked via their elected representatives to issue this particular licence to print money does not seem unduly harsh.

I will say that again. It is a decision by a public body which creates a huge increase in value. No planning permission and you ahve a field to graze sheep. It is like a huge, very nearly free, gift to the owner.

Whether the owner of the site wishes to cash in his chips when he has planning permission or carry out the development is not relevant. The risk is in doing the development not in getting the planning permission. The developers margin on something of this size is a million or a million and a quarter. The risk is mainly in the cost of borrowing and the length of time selling the flats will take.

Anonymous said...

Purbeck District Council Page 6 September 2008
1
IAH1 - INTERIM AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY
(Replaces Policy MN4 of the Final Edition Local Plan 2004)
Purbeck District Council will apply the following policy in relation to affordable housing
provision when determining planning applications for all new residential development,
including residential elements of mixed use schemes:
1. The Council will require the following proportions of affordable housing
provision on new market housing developments of 3 or more dwellings, or a site
area of 0.1 or more hectares:
(i) at least 50% in the Swanage and Coast sub-market areas
(ii) at least

David Furmage said...

By the way, Mr Furmage aYA HW likes it but in another thread he has also said he likes the appearance of steel shutters on shops. One could perhaps question his taste in buildings, or is he just trying to wind us up?

29/12/11 3:04 PM

For security like I said in the other thread. Certain shops have had windows smashed in. It's common sense that you would want to look after your business. And that kind of sums it up thou from whoever you are. Bring a subject from another thread into this one. round of a applause to you:)

SillyWhim said...

David is right. 3.04 p.m. is not.

It is nay-saying doubters like 3.04 who want Swanage to remain a quaint backwater. If 3.04 has a positive suggestion to make, it would be welcome.

Anonymous said...

What ever is wrong with Swanage being a quaint backwater? Sounds idyllic and a thousand times to be preferred to being a second class Canford Cliffs or some sort of Milton Keynes on sea. None of the supporters of this proposal have made any attempt to discuss the merits of the design, all they do is endlessly repeat the message that they are in favour of it.

In one of my other comments I asked the supporters of the proposal to name the modern buildings in Swanage which they think enhance the town. Silence has reigned for the simple reason that they can't think of any. There is even a school of thought that says because we have permitted so many bad building we should permit lots more starting with this one. None of the supporters have said what it is about this one that makes it any better than any other modern building. All they have done is echo Mr Storer's attempts to talk it up. What is remarkable is that the absurd claim that something resembling a multi-storey car park is going to attract people to Swanage is not laughed at. Of course he is going to say how wonderful it is, but when you look beyond the fine words there is no substance to the claim.

I can really see nothing positive in this scheme. It will create a pair of oversized lumps of buildings overshadowing their surroundings. The flats will in all probability be empty for most of the year, the businesses will be very quiet out of season in that location, if they remain open at all. Ask your self how many year round well paid jobs will be created. Not a lot. Any of us can use the rhetoric of regeneration easily enough, as we see in the planning application, but this makes a negligible contribution.

Anonymous said...

5.49

Then quaint backwater it is!

Anonymous said...

Every time someone is promoting their pet money making project they tell us, with a straight face, that without it Swanage will fall into ruin, nobody will ever some here again and sea monsters will come ashore and devour us all.

From the Mowlem onwards every major development here has been worse than what it replaced but the developers always insist their project will be different.

Investment in the built environment. both through restoration of existing buildings and the construction of new ones can be a benefit, however, it does not follow that each and every proposal has to be welcomed with open arms the way some posters seem to think. This one does not do anything to address the issue of scale which defeated the last few plans for this site. Mr Storer has maintained in the past that only the maximum of development was viable but he needs to some up with some properly costed alternatives as evidence of this assertion rather than ask us to take his word for it. It may well be that something, for example, a third smaller, could cover its costs and allow some profit.

Anonymous said...

10.21

So it is personal, eh? You repeated mention Mr Storer by name, yet you hide behind anonymity.

Frankly, if I were Mr Storer, my patience would be running out with Swanage. I would let the site fall into the most unsightly pile of decay imaginable, and write it off against taxes as a capital depreciation. And I would write on the decaying heap the words of Sir Christopher Wren:

'Si monumentum requiris? Circumspice'.

And ensure in the press that Swanage is, indeed, a backwater. A story that would eclipspe Paul Heine's Oxford shark. It would go down in folklore.

(However, the Latin would defeat the locals. Funny, as the town once had more prep schools than any town in the UK.)

Scale? As long as the Mowlem stands, there is no case for 'scale'.

Anonymous said...

Mr Storer's name is on the planning application, therefore I refer to it as his application. It is his application we are discusssing in this thread, not development in general so it would be rather rude to refer to him other than by his name. Had the appkication been made by a company I would have used the name of the company.

You are repeating the absurd argument which holds that because some regrettable architectural mistakes were made in the past we should give all the other property owners carte blanche to put up whatever they like. The reverse applies. The existence of these monstrosities is a warning that we should look very carefully at new proposals and not blindly accept whatever is claimed for them.

Swanage is not in a state of decline. It is one of the most highly regarded small resorts in the UK, along with Tenby and Whitby. Compare it with the state of places like Hastings, Great Yarmouth or Margate which are in decline. Property here is vastly overpriced because of the number of people who want homes and second homes here, not exactly a symptom of decline.

The old Pier Head building has cracks and rats painted on it to make it look run down. Mr Storer proposes to rescue the area from the appearance of decay he has imposed on it himself. If he tidied up the surroundings and gave it a coat of paint his justification would largely evaporate. All you have to do is go down there and look at it and ask yourself whether a tidy up would be unduly difficult for someone who was concerned for visitor's perception of the town. How else can I describe it?

Anonymous said...

Ill will ask this question:

How would you develop it?

Anonymous said...

My preference would be for the restoration of the existing building. I think the design has merit and a historical context worth preserving. The engineers report, some years ago, advocating demolition, was not very convincing and many of the problems are cosmetic and certainly minor compared with what has been done with Durlston Castle.

Failing that I go along with the planning officer's view that a building of about the same size as the existing one would be acceptable. I also agree with his view that a visual stepping down in height as the sea is approached is better than a high building here.

I would go for a modern, or rather, post modern, design, probably something a lot more radical than that proposed which is very much along the lines of many contemporary flat blocks and which will look dated and bland very quickly.

The East Beach Cafe, Littlehampton is an amusing example of what can be done but I am not suggesting a copy, although if it was up to me I would certainly talk to the architects of that building, Heatherwick Studio, who have done some interesting stuff. Something from them would be a sufficiently strong design to attract people here, even of they do look a bit like scifi movie sets.

A smaller building would free up more outside space for tables and chairs and outside eating is very much what the public demands these days.

Lastly as an alternative if the old building cannot be saved, I would suggest demolition, and the construction of a small cooking and food preparation building, with toilets, to service outdoor eating on a larger scale.

I appreciate that none of these would yield anything like the same return as eight luxury flats and a couple of restaurants but I think any of them would be a better outcome for the town as a whole.

Anonymous said...

Sound like the present building's footprint would suit a Harry Ramsden, then.

Or maybe a Wetherspoons.

The question is: How many pubs and restaurants can Swanage accommodate?

Year round?

What other options, besides accommodating Mr Storer, does the town or district have? Condemn the building? Force his to repair it? Declare it blighted and take it through eminent domain?

Anonymous said...

The difficulties facing anyone wanting to develop this site have increased a good deal over the years. As you can see from the artist's impression the whole thing has to be raised because of anticipated rising sea levels and this increases its visual intrusiveness and adds a good deal of cost.

The affordable housing requirements get steadily more draconian because of the increasing skill of developers in getting round them. Bournemouth had a threshold of 15 units but the figure is now 3. Evidently there were rather a lot of blocks of 14 flats going up.

This application cannot be treated in isolation, as if it had nothing to do with planning in the rest of the town. If a plot filling development on this site, which it outside the settlement area in any case, is permitted, does that mean that any of us will be able to do the same and tear down small bungalows and build blocks of flats on the grounds that this increases the economic vitality of the town? It would only be fair to extend the principle to the rest of us. At the moment if you keep to the existing footprint you can get three or four flats but if you could cover the whole garden you could get eight or ten and a lot of projects would become viable. The case being made for Pier Head is that a smaller development vould not be financialy viable, but the same applies to literally hundreds of other properties in Swanage.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we should put the begging bowl round the great and famous to buy the place, flatten it and creat some Jubilee Gardens there, that being the theme of the year.

Anonymous said...

'Perhaps we should put the begging bowl round the great and famous to buy the place, flatten it and creat some Jubilee Gardens there, that being the theme of the year.'

Not a bad idea.

I understand that Swanage Town Council came into quite a little windfall a few years back when it sold off a town asset.

Perhaps it can make the first donation? It has an interest.

Perhaps it could be the site for a new Town Hall and Tourist Information Centre, with a Jubilee Garden around it?

Maybe - just maybe - whatever the Town Council saves by not maintaining the costs of both the present unsuitable buildings (the town Hall up the High and the White House along the main beach) would equate whatever interest it is making on the money invested from that windfall. It seems to me to be a better way of investing the money that is just there, sitting earning interest (at historic low rates).

Maybe not....but is it worth a second's thought?

Anonymous said...

Not sure about that idea. The tourist information needs to be where tourists arrive and the main car park would be better. The town council certainly do not need their castle in the High Street. Perhaps the industrial estate would be appropriate. Unfortunately when the modern planning system came in in the '40s not only was the pier head cast into oblivion beyond the settlement boundary but no provision was made for office space.

Osis Admin said...

Well done Nick this looks like a superb effort and if they don't grant it we may as well assume Swanage is being earmarked as a 'sink town'. I honestly can't think of any Swanage developments of the last 15 years that show this much care and thought into visual and communal impact. 2012 FTW!

Anonymous said...

Nick - would you be open to allowing the TIC a presence at the Pier Head?

Contrary to 4.33, I think it is ideally placed, right smack next to the year round centre of the town (the Shore Rd site is not well placed out of season).

I am sure there is some scope here for creativity over its use. Think outside the box and offer a win-win for everyone.

David Furmage said...

Well as it seems to be more about the flats in this thread. Could I maybe make a suggestion here:) how about if the flats were turned into a state of the art cinema or a nice conference room. That might employ more people all year round. Just a thought! Though please no more bloody flower beds , this is one thing swanage has enough off.

David Furmage said...

As for the council having a short windfall , I think that went back into all the debts we are in and some lost in the Icelandic banks. So I reckon we can rule that one out. And if there is any talk of demolition going to happen could we please first start with the banjo jetty followed by the Mowlem , thank you ;)

SillyWhim said...

Dave-

The Council's accounts are available on line. The last time I checked the majority of this windfall is invested and provides an interest income for the town.

I believe it was PDC and DCC that suffered from the Icelandic bank collapse. I believe Swanage had little or no direct exposure.

David Furmage said...

Thank you silly whim :)

Anonymous said...

I do wish Mr Furmage would get some facts before his nimble fingers hit the keyboard. It was the county council that had money in an Icelandic bank. The Town council's debts had been reduced to a fraction of their former extent by the time they sold the caravan site. The money from that is invested to give the town some income to pay for things like tending the flower beds.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, SillyWhim beat me to it.

SillyWhim said...

Indeed I did, Mr 9.11.

I like the fact the David Furmage gets involved in local debate; I never have disrespect for anyone who wishes to express his or her view, as long as it is not harmful to others.

That is what democracy is all about.

Happy New Year to you.

David Furmage said...

And a happy new year too you :)

Anonymous said...

I like the fact the David Furmage gets involved in local debate;

Trouble is Mr Furmage gets involved in everyones debates!

David Furmage said...

Certainly do and like Silly Whim says


" That is what democracy is all about. "

SillyWhim said...

Keep speaking, David Furman!

We don't have to always agree on a point, but we can always agree to have a pint!

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Postman

I'd like to complain in the strongest manner possible about those last two posts.

People being nice to each other is simply not permissible. I demand that you erase them immediately.

TIA

Mr A Numpty

Admin Overlord said...

NOTICE TO DAVID FURMAGE... ACCOUNT SUSPENSION
You have exceeded your posting quota for 2012, yes 2012. You have showed a blatant interest in local issues, and therefore your quota will be reduced to 100 posting per day.
It’s utterly unreasonable of you to post good honest views on a public forum, and then you just add to the problem by using your own name. If we find you “caring” about the community again, we will banish you to Wareham.
In future please post anonymously with sweeping vague moans, hide behind the anonymity, irritate people, and generally behave like a whinging old cockbag.

sansom62 said...

When are we going to get like & not like buttons Mike ?

Anonymous said...

" That is what democracy is all about

Ah democracy, Mr Furmage do you fully understand that word? in a democracy people have opposing views a subject that you seem not to grasp.

Ps may I add to the forum owner the words SH*T and C)^KBAG have been used in recent posts/subjects not deleted, again do you favour some posters?.

PPS the proposed building at the pier head looks terrible, like the thunderbird house.

David Furmage said...

Democracy is the system that allows people to put forward their opinions in a general discussion - a system where we have our rights protected. Why I can't have a view is beyond me , maybe if you put your name to things instead of hiding behind the anonymous function. That would be a good place to start a reasonable discussion wouldn't it?

Anonymous said...

David F's views on democracy and other related wibble-wabble are strikingly similar to those of the Ancient Greeks, who thought that dedication to the polis is the highest goal of man. They believed politics was everything and that nothing was outside the scope of political debate. The Platonic view was carried by Hegel, and is in full force here. Throw your arms in! Strike at the heart of discussion by voicing your Freudian inner consciousness, your id, the bastion of the ego! Ram your nose into the lives of others and expect this Athenian tragedy in return. Say bah-poo to me, because I'm not interested!

David Furmage said...

Oh great contribution to the thread by the way. Round of applause to the none interested fool:)

Anonymous said...

Cockbag is not swearing, it's someone simply using their free speech to ridicule the view that Davd Furmage gets too involved.

Also it's how I transport some of my chickens. Not the hens, just the chap chickens .

Furmage for mayor.

And the post above this.... I have little idea what you are so eloquently saying. If I open the paper tomorrow and find out Stephen Fry has been abducted, the police will be heading straight to your basement.

David Furmage said...

Mayor , hehe please do say silly things like this. Never heard that saying " don't put ideas into peoples heads"

I like to get involved with things to do with Swanage , it's something that gets into my biking , kiting and cooking. It's called passion. I like , no I love swanage , don't get me wrong it's not perfect though it's a lovely place to live and to bring up my family here is nice. Plenty to do for everyone. That's why I like to express my views on a site that called Swanageview. It's cos we have views on Swanage or am I the only one who reads that wrong.

Anyway enough waffling on , back to the thread in hand.

So Nick , what about the idea of a cinema or conference room instead of flats. Might be more financially better off than empty flats;)

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we can have a Dave furmage thread, or better still have his views pushed through our letter boxes each week/month in the local press, Im sure David Holister will share the stage?

Funny that The Dave & Dave show.

Hey mr Storer D.Furmage wants a house perhaps you can get his blessing and support if you give him a 5 bed place. £380 pcm 100yr tenancy and you got your money back :)

SillyWhim said...

As someone who is ridiculously traditional:

I say that I envy Dave Furmage. I reckon he lives a life of passion and fun.

I am too restrained. I am 'English'.

Good on yer, Dave. Life is not a dress rehearsal!!!!

David Furmage said...

Sorry for one moment folk!

Nick , Nick are you still here ? , I am trying to get back onto the subject though certain folk seem to have other ideas , I think they could be pirates hijacking the site lol;)

Silly Whim , I called it traditional with a twist ;)

And the Dave and Dave show idea , haha you make me laugh my ribs are hurting think about it silly it's not joined up writing Trust me I have thought about , though that idea has already been marketed , it's called the " Dave " channel on your tv.Though could I suggest you look up on YouTube " The Church Of Dave " now that is funny and awesome at the same time. David Furmage this , Dave Furmage that , yawn , yawn , yawn .

Nick , please reel the net back in and bring these people
back to the subject in hand. It's our only hope < tune the stars wars theme;)

David Furmage said...

Oh here's a great marketing idea , you might like this , the person who posts the 100th post in this thread should get a free bottle of wine at this wonderful planning application when it's built, which I hope goes through and becomes a building that inspires more good things to come into our town :)

Now that is rocket science;)

Nickthefish said...

Wow do I get the bottle of wine?
There is now a cleaner version of the Design and Access Statement available by clicking "Pier Head" or pasting the following into your browser:
http://www.seafoodcafeswanage.co.uk/applicationDec2011/Pier%20Head_Design%20and%20Access_A3%20Double%20Side%20Format_Rev%20A.pdf

SillyWhim (Prez; Dave's Fan Club) said...

NicktheFish:

Ding Ding! You win the prize!

You can collect the bottle of wine down at the Co-op. A fine vintage bottle of Hirondelle that has been on the back shelf for thirty five years.

Unless the Co-Op ran out...........

JD said...

David Furmage's views on democracy are definitely nothing to do with the kind of Plato-style fascism that the anonymous, proto-Karl Popper above suggests. David is just trying to raise objections to things in the community that he sees as wrong. That is his prerogative.

Anonymous said...

Mr Storer's grandiose schemes have become something of a feature of Swanage life these many years. We await each with a mixture of dread and anticipation and he does not dissapoint us. Is this the tenth or the eleventh? It is almost as good as time travel. We have gone from a design for a Regency terrace, through Victorian to the age of the concrete slab and glass wall from 80 odd years ago. There is life beyond the modern movement though and these rehashes of 1920s glass and concrete. Stick a curved roof on a Le Corbusier design of that time and you will have something remarkably similar to this one. I'd be tempted to sue the architect for passing off an old design approach as something up to date.

Is Canford Cliffs kitsch the end of the trail? I hope not. As an example of how things have moved on type "British Pavilion" into Google image search.

I wonder if the gushing praises heaped on this scheme by some bloggers would have been as fullsome if it had originated from a company outside Swanage or whether they would have been denounced them for wanting to impose a monstrosity on the town to make money from the flats in it.

Anonymous said...

David is just trying to raise objections to things in the community that he sees as wrong. That is his prerogative.

Dave just argues against what ever is on here. I'm sure if he could not argue he would have some sort of breakdown.

He covers all subjects from housing to planning to cctv, police, youth employment it goes on and on.

I think the old adage applies jack of all trades master of none!

Anonymous said...

Nietzsche spoke about the necessity of man's will to power versus his will to be held in a slave morality. David F and the rest of his rag-tag groupies might have the will to speak of others, but do they have the will to act upon it? Will David take on the powers that be, instead of rehashing the Straussian inner-dialogue of contra-Machiavellian goodness? Thus spake Zarathustra! Hereby we no longer are bound at thine altar of altruistic slavery! Free thyself, or entrust a hearty gatekeeper of thine freedoms! Call on man to shine a light on what Jung would call the heart of your imposed servitude - imposed by thine own self, no less a thief than a Dickensian antagonist! Alas, alack, this man does hereby resign from this cat-and-mouse game of Swanagerian Indian Summers, heating our collective giblets.

To live in an inspired Swanage, to know the truth, to be free, to love one another, to consumate existence, to abide with death in clarity of consciousness is no longer a rarefied project. Annihilation is no longer a metaphor. Good and Evil are real. 'Hark' the Purbeck Council sing, glory to the Furmage king! Chin-chin, Je te lave le dos, Mon Mo-so! Rip the heart from the materialist, analytical-versus-synthetic, humanistically dichotomising machine of oppression!   

SillyWhim (Oxford MA, by the way) said...

9.55

I don't know about Nietzsche, but I think I would enjoy a pint in Dave's company before yours.

No doubt your enjoy your own company more than the company of others.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Good luck Nick.

Judging by some of the comments on here, the righteous folk of Swanage dont deserve any new developments. Just look at the mess of architecture in the town, look at the state of the Mowlem, look at the shops changing hands every 10 minutes, etc.

Compaints about looking like Sandbanks and Canford Cliffs; well I for one would welcome the redevelopment if it brought the income that those boroughs enjoy.

Anonymous said...

Another contribution to the "if this is not built Swanage will fall into the sea" genre.

One does not notice hordes of tourists looking at the many equally striking blocks of flats that have gone up in Canford Cliffs and Sandbanks but we are supposed to swallow the line that they would come here to look at a block of flats. I suppose some people will believe anything. In any case my objection to the proposed design stylistically is that it is too conventional to achieve that objective. A multi-storey car park with bling, or as someone pointed out Tracey Island' Thunderbird base.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, it's the location, the views and fine dining which will attract people. Like Watergate Bay, Padstow and Dartmouth. Hardly anyone would not have visited any of those places if it was not for Rich Stein, Jamie and Mitch Tonks / Joyce Molyneux. The surrounding local shops, pubs, cafes, hotels and B&b's etc don't complain. The architecture presumably merely pays for the ground floor space, but may still excite some people.

SillyWhim said...

Hordes of tourists visit Swanage to look at the beach. The hills. The Downs and white cliffs. The sea, boats and pier. The distant Isle of Wight.

They do not - I repeat, not - come to gaze in rapture at Swanage architecture which can be best described as 'eclectic'.

Build this development. Or raze the site and make a garden for picnickers and fish and chips fanciers. Tourists will love it either way.

SillyWhim said...

'....to impose a monstrosity on the town to make money from the flats in it.' (8.13 p.m.)

So...the truth is out.

Here is a simple fact: every economic enterprise in Swanage is out to make money. That is, after all, following the examples set by Messrs Burt and Mowlem. Men who had a greater impact on the appearance of Swanage that Mr Storer will ever have. Profit? Nout wrong with that.

Build it. If you want architectural 'purity', Poundbury is just up the road. Real communities evolve. They are not planned.

The Postman said...

Of course, if you want your comments to be considered by the Planning Committee, you'll have to make them to PDC, at http://tinyurl.com/6lkfazu . They won't pay any (official) heed to comments made here.

Anonymous said...

" '....to impose a monstrosity on the town to make money from the flats in it.' (8.13 p.m.)

So...the truth is out."

My point, which I cannot have made bluntly enough, is that what gets up my nose is the way the design statement, aka prospectus, tries to give the inpression that Mr Storer's main aim to do us all a great favour by removing the mess he has created over the years and putting up a block of flats and a couple of eateries in its place.

Have you even taken the trouble to read the statement? I doubt it, or you would have seen how laughably implausible the claims made for this building are.

David Furmage said...

I wish Nick all the best with this planning.

To mr Nietzsche man , thank you for your comedy though I am sure the mothership will come back to pick you up one day:)

Anonymous said...

It looks like my proto-Meno has gone down rather like a bout of paralogic in a Wittgenstein Fan Club. Subjective monstrosities must be overcome by dilatheistic Aristotelian deontology, not a rejection of Fukuyama's end times projectories! Bah humbug to all of you, and to all of you, humbug bah!

David Furmage said...

We are calling the mothership now , though if you don't make it this time , please lay off the crack for a while;)

Anonymous said...

"if you want your comments to be considered by the Planning Committee, you'll have to make them to PDC"
Well yes & no Mr Postman, making a comment to PDC will probably only be read by a planning officer(s) and only by a committee member if they can really be bothered.

The Postman said...

I can understand your cynicism, but can only add two thoughts. One,whether you like it or not, there a formal, legal, planning process. Two, I can assure you that planning officers will review and consider ALL comments (and will summarise and submit all arguments), and councillors also do their best to try to read all comments. It may not be a perfect system, but it's the one we've got, and you have to work with it.

David Furmage said...

Thank you Mr Postman for the link;)

Robin from Swanage said...

It is possible to design a modern building to fit in with the town. Swanage, Harman's Cross and Corfe Castle signal boxes are prime examples. A Pier Head building with turrets, battlements and balconies would fit in very well.

The comments that if you let a site get run down and pursue a development long enough you will get planning permission are valid. I think the public have been manipulated by Nina's artwork on the existing building.

My view is that the Pier Head is an imaginative project that looks better than the Mowlem and some of the existing blocks of flats.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, it's presumably always possible that the council could compulsorily purchase the property if it continues to be a blot on the landscape

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, it's presumably always possible that the council could have compulsorily purchased the property 25 years ago when it was already run down and saved a fortune on todays price.

Anonymous said...

"I think the public have been manipulated by Nina's artwork".
So lower back pain finally eradicated in Swanage then?

Anonymous said...

I believe if the Council were to compulsory purchase the Pier Head site then they would be open to criminal or civil charges of Conspiracy to defraud.
Furthermore they would be open to the European Human Rights Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of Property, which states;
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions… However, if the interference is very severe and has a significant detrimental effect on the value of the property, the interference may amount to a partial deprivation of that property for which compensation should be paid (Rayner v UK 1986).

Anonymous said...

This is getting deeper and deeper into fantasy land. PDC does not have any money to fund a compulsory purchase. The parish council does not have a power of compulsory purchase. Even if it were purchased what would they do with it and where would the money come from?

None of the people who have posted in favour of the proposed design have said what they like about it. To me it is a pretty standard issue flashy design so perhaps one of them could explain what sets it apart. In an earlier posting I compared it with some of the recent developments in Canford Cliffs. This has been read by at least one person as meaning I do not want Swanage to come to resemble that delightful and tasteful suburb. This is not the point I was trying to make, which is that the proposed design is not distict from what can be seen a few miles away and hence is incapable of achieving the stated aim of creating something that would be an attraction in its own right. If Mr Storer wants to do that he will need something a good bit more radical.

Anonymous said...

"something a good bit more radical" would perhaps meet with the distain of the planning committee. You can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

I don't think so. In their remarks about either the last application or the one before that they said that there was no problem in principle with a modern design. What they could not accept was the size of the buildings proposed. Mr Storer has said that he thinks that a sufficiently eyecatching proposal would overcome the objection to the size of what he wants to build. You could be forgiven for thinking this is wishful thinking but it is worth a shot. However, I think it needs to be a lot more radical than the latest one which is very derivative of 1920s thinking.

SillyWhim said...

Look. Bottom line time. Let's think like Burt and Mowlen, and stop pussyfooting around:

The Council won't develop it

The Town won;t develop it.

No developer has come forward to buy it.

Mr Storer has produced plans that some like, some don;t Such is life. Life is a set of compromises. Based on reality.

No one likes the blighted site as it is.

So, ask any outsider, Martian or even a PDC Planning permission officer: what is the sensible decision??

Build the flipping thing.

Anonymous said...

"Life is a set of compromises. Based on reality."

Except it would seem for Mr Storer who is regularly asked by the planners to come back with a proposal for something with about the same footprint as the existing building and then brings along a plan for another monster building. This site is outside the settlement area. The compromise is replacing the old building with one the same size.

Anonymous said...

and do what with this new building to justify the cost of the rebuild?

Anonymous said...

I can't help thinking that you are implying that the planning system should have a loophole so that he can get pp because a smaller development would not pay for itself/generate enough profit. On that basis anyone with a large garden is entitled to be allowed to build a block of a dozen flats if they let their house fall into disrepair for long enough.

Anonymous said...

I will no doubt promptly corrected if my understanding is incorrect that the Pier Head building was constructed during the Second World War by Canadian Forces stationed in Swanage for the provisioning of landing craft etc for the Normandy Landings. As such I doubt it ever had ‘Planning Permission’, neither did the now, 'Ballard Estate' which was also built by the Canadians as their 'camp'.
However, look at the radical redevelopment/re-structuring of wooden bungalows on the Ballard Estate/Camp. Goose and Gander spring to mind.

RobO

Anonymous said...

I understand that the modern planning system came in in about 1947 and placed the Pier Head building outside the settlement boundary. It is entirely possible that at that time it was assumed it was a temporary structure and the site would revert to being empty. Exactly when it was built is uncertain, the story I had heard was that it was put up after the end of hostilities as a canteen/mess/naffi while the Canadians were awaiting repatriation.

The replacement buildings on the Ballard Estate have been bungalows. As you are aware, there are no blocks of flats taking the place of modest wooden structures up there. In some cases a single large bungalow has taken the place of two small wooden ones. I don't think you point is right at all.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to have more information on the Royal Canadian Engineers. It seems they built Fort Henry in Studland which boasted the world's longest observation slit. I wonder what became of the architect of that and of the Pier Head,

Anonymous said...

The basic point here is that it is outside the settlement boundary, and if given permission would create a precedent for lots of applications for questionable developements - the fact that it looks nasty is probably beside the point........

David Furmage said...

Stick a wind turbine on top of it Nick, no one will bat an eye lid then :)

Robin from Swanage said...

Has anyone thought of using part of the Pier Head development to run an NHS dental surgery? If this idea was put forward it might get things moving and win the support of the community.

Anonymous said...

Robin what are you on? It is nowhere near a bus route, surrounded by double yellows and the car park above is extortionate. Apart from that what a waste of a prime site for such a utilitarian use. The new practice should obviously go on the Pier.

David Furmage said...

Robin , what about using the Mowlem for it? Both bars anit getting used , transform them in dentists. Right in town centre easy to get too. Parking out side:)

Anonymous said...

Dental Surgery for the Pier Head says Robin, a prime site. is he mad? Half a catchment area, (180') unless you treat fish and divers. Its the same at Poole Hospital, except they also have boaties and yachties (thanks to their numerous marinas). Both sites should be state of the art leisure complex's with their views and location. Hospital and Dentists should be away from the coast where there is a 360' catchment area for patients.

RobO

Anonymous said...

I don't know what's wrong with you all. Yes, in theory something productive should be done with the site. But for God's sake make it inkeeping. This proposal is an indulgent, modernistic nightmare. It's downright ugly, no local will be able to afford to live there and the blatant greed involved in this build disgusts me. You should be ashamed of yourself. You want modern monstrosities like this in your life? Leave Swanage.

ostrich said...

Is this exciting development ever going to get built?