***Planning Officer savages new plans
(see page 16) at:
http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/pdf/RECS%20JUNE06.pdf
***Swanage Town Council have recommended approval: On June 9th the Parish Council discussed the proposals, and without a single vote against, recommended PDC should pass the plans.
***South West Design review Panel: Purbeck District Council referred the application to the prestigious South West Design Rewiew Panel. You can read their report at:www.pierhead.plus.com/SWAP.htm
Posts
37 comments:
Well it just shows that this is Toy Town. How can Swanage Town Council back this grotesque development. It is truly awfull. I totally agree with what the PDC planning officer says. He spells out all the relevant considerations. How can the town Council be so blinkered? They are obviously so ignorant of the history and culture of the town. Is it just him and me who have any vision for Swanage? I suppose this report is something else that will be buried so far as the newspapers are concerned. Will Nick get his propaganda in the papers and the report be buried?
Please tell me what is this vision you have for Swanage? Perhaps you will post up your thoughts here, and write to the paper to get a little propaganda of your own.
In light of the high profile nature of this planning application for the Pier Head in Swanage, the Planning Officers referred the drawings to the South West Design Review Panel for guidance. It is a little surprising that they have ignored the panel’s positive comments. It is almost as if a contrary view has been put forward simple to justify the officers’ existence. It seems absurd that the views of the Town Council, the Residents Association and this prestigious Review Panel should all be ignored. The Planning Officer has issued no guidance as to what form of building would be acceptable on the site. Should it be a Victorian, Georgian or Regency pastiche? Perhaps it should mirror the block of flats “Quayside Court”, or the Spanish style houses at Peveril Point, the brick block next to Osborne House or even the sewage pumping station?
The Planning Officer requested virtual images and visualisations of the proposals and then does not facilitate access to these by the decision making Councillors. The Officer states there have been 28 letters of objection and yet there are only 15 letters in total posted up on the District Council web site for people to read. Where are the rest? Why are they so adamant they don’t want this site built upon?
We passionately believe in this design for an entirely new style of building which will make a very positive contribution to the seafront area.
When the Mowlem was built I should think they had similar vision -somethink modern - its the sixties !! our designs are the best way to fill the site etc. If your vision goes through it will be like two over sized hideous book ends defining the town center with a complete disregard for the town. You know what everyone thinks of the Mowlem as a design concept.
Other examples of "modern" architecture in Swanage are equally awful. The dreadful red brick flats in Seymer Road and the ugly Quay Court ought to be warning enough not to go down this road. Think of the Post Office, the Haven and indeed almost every new "modern" building in the town. How many of them are of any merit? Why should yours be any different. Once the novelty wears off it will be just another cabuncle to match the Mowlem - bookends.
I also agree with what the PDC planning officer has to say & you anonymous.
I have read the PDC document and I have to say the planning officer is absolutely right. The proposed building does not enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the area and its form, bulk, height, scale and massing are all wrong for this position.
Have you a detailed critique of what he says or will you merely pick at fragments? It seems to me he makes an irrefutable case for rejecting the plans but it would be interesting to hear how you justify things like the scale of the proposal and its visual impact.
The see-through nature of the appartments could be quite entertaining. If we are to be able to see the downs through them will they be constructed of the same materials as the emporer's well known new clothes. Will the inhabitans be forbidden curtains and have to undress in the dark? I thought the building regulations now limited dwelling walls to 20% windows. Have you found a way round this?
I don't know anything about the 20% limit, but perhaps I should explain the living area, kitchen and dining room are on the top floor with all the glass, the first floor below with relatively small windows contains the bedrooms.
I would justify "things like the scale of the proposal and its visual impact" by pointing out it is a low building compared to its neighbours, and that it is incredibly beautiful. Think about it. Why keep building pastiche? Remember how many famous pieces of music were booed at their first performance…
The only thing wrong with the Mowlem was that it wasn't modern enough. Someone decided it should have a square look with lots of purbeck stone. It would look great all in glass, with curved modern elevations, and outdoor public areas. Also a lift that stopped at the same floor as the loos would be good.
I'm saddened, but not surprised that your latest proposals have been rejected Nick. PDC really seems to want a pastiche a la Richmond Terrace (London) on this site. Either that or they want the place for themselves. Try a brick built fish and chip shop with public toilets attached. Bet that would work. Duncan
Duncan, they are not rejected yet. The meeting is Thursday 29th for a decission at Purbeck. Previous architects have tried in the past with regency terraces and the like, and still there was no support from planning officers. I'm not sure they know what they want.
What they want is spelt out by the planning officer. Any proposal should have a footprint no bigger than the original building and be no higher.
Its pretty clear that he inclines to the view that the existing building is best described as an illegitimate intrusion beyond the built up part of town and that if it is to be replaced the new building should not be any bigger. Thats why I asked how you justify the size etc of the proposal. Saying its a beautiful building does not say why it has to be large. A small building could be as beautiful. Saying it is lower than some other buildings is not very helpful either.
Knock the old building down Nick, put a garden shed in its place then put all those Tools in it that have such DARK GLASSES.
C Sansom
ahhhh the toy town man strikes again, whats wrong with the councill having one view and the planning officer another, after all dear friend thats what we call democracy, I have been to a few planing meetings and I know that the planning officer and planning board do clash, other than the height its great work lets get something nice in there unless toytown man you would like it to remain like it is. a bad impression of the town, new mixed with old is good (90% of the time) Nick I expect you know this but theres a lot of people in swange that stir the pot and dont/won/cant have any ideas of their own, but the make every other bugg**s life hell I know this from experience.. good luck
"Any proposal should have a footprint no bigger than the original building and be no higher."
Its OK as is then is it?
Just a coat of paint perhaps?
Nothing you would be proud to show your grandchildren?
Nothing that foreign visitors would love to see in their home town?
Nothing to make Swanage folk proud or inspire our youth?
Some contributors to this thread appear to have difficulty with reading or understanding. The planning office is not saying the existing building should be kept. He is saying the new one should not be bigger. So far nobody has come up with a good reason for a new building having to be bigger.
Also the planning officer has not ventured a view on whether a new building should be modern in design.
Nobody can quarrel with the cliches about wanting something to be proud of, however, how could anyone be proud of an oversized 1970s railway station to which this proposal bears an uncanny resemblence. Perhaps the architect had a spare one on file.
I do think it is bigger than surporting Nick because he is a nice chap, which I believe he is, but it is more important to the town to consider the proposed plan criticaly. We need something to enhance the town that compliments the suroundings not stands apart. I can not see that the new plan will give any thing to the surrounding buildings. It will jar and destroy all the work that has been done so far. You can not just blinker your appinions because he is a good fellow to be in the company of.
Sorry, I seem to have developed echolia!
"how could anyone be proud of an oversized 1970s railway station" Wow! That’s like walking past the local art shop and just because everything doesn't look like it was painted by Thomas Gainsborough you offer the opinion that they all look like they were painted by lunatics or 4 year olds.
Because the planning officer has not ventured a view then I guess people will test the limits. However, this application is nowhere near the limits of the sites capacity. Whoever said the building should be the same foot print and height, what purpose would it have? If your great Aunt left you the place in her will, what would you do with it? How could it exist economically? If the Council want the area landscaped why not buy the land and put some descent public toilets there?
However, the Aritectural Review Board state: "We have no objection to the massing and site coverage of the scheme.
The site and setting can take a building of this size and it might be thought to add interest and incident to the seafront. The outcome could be light, cool and suitably nautical. We were glad to see a mixed-use scheme proposed and particularly welcomed the idea of live/work units" Is it the planning Officer or an independant review panel which has an axe to grind?
Chris Sansom's sugggestion of a garden shed is very Turner Prize. I was wondering where we had heard it before. It could start off as a boat, be sailed here, dragged ashore and rebuilt as a shed. Almost cutting edge conceptual stuff.
But why stop at one exhibit? Finding finance to make the site a sculpture garden would be an even better idea.
Sir Anthony Caro could be commissioned to make an observation platform like the one on Poole Quay and Swanage would then have something by an internationaly famous artist which would be a major attraction to art lovers. With any luck the Study Gallery could be persuaded to lend some of Poole and Bournemouth Colleges excellent collection which includes work by many internationally know sculptors
Chris, you deserve a medal for this!
Great, but why not use Prince Albert Gardens? Then you will have a restaurant and terrace cafe overlooking the sculpture garden, the Pier etc so that when it is freezing cold and raining people will still be attracted to the area. The artists could also be working in the proposed ground floor units.
Sounds interesting. What will the rent be?
Presumably the commercial market rent of the day when the units become available, what else?
Well I didn't win the Lottery tonight so I cant buy Nick out and do something wearthwhile for Swanage. Did anyone else and feel like making a difference? I do like the Sculpture Garden idea maybe with an Art Gallery as well as long as it did not over develop the site. It sounds just what a Gateway to the Jurrasic Coast town should have. A Sculpture Garden /Art Gallery is something we have not got. We have restaurants, holiday appartments and shops already. Anyone willing to try and fund it? I believe this is how they got the Tate in Cornwall. Local people wanting to make a difference.
How many artists generate the turnover to pay market rents? Zero, nought, none, zilch.
Dancing Ledge says: This bloody awful mess down on the quay has been there for far too many years..It is an eysore.
It is about time someone kicked backsides, and made it an attractive waterside area, with all the facilities that one would expect in this position. A top class restaurant is a must....
At present it looks like a rubbish dump!
Yes Dancing Ledge of course. All any developer needs to do is make a mess of his land and we are supposed to rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. Never mind boring things like the planning system, just make enough of a mess and you can do what you like! How dare anyone stand in the way of tidyness, its the only thing that matters.
If you sift through the comments on this proposal received by PDC and available on their website you will find a letter from English Heritage advising the council to "adopt a robust approach", in other words throw it out.
If Nick thought the existing building was such an eyesore and so detrimental to the town then presumably he would have had it demolished long ago. There is nothing stopping him from doing this. He does not need to have plans for a new building approved before demolition. Why is it still there? Nobody has suggested it should be restored, perhaps he should get rid of it before they do.
Planning permission is required to change the conservation area in any way, including demolition.
I'm not sure, but it seems as if people are fogetting that Nick owns the land and has a right to make money out of it.
He could do far worse things there. I agree that it's not my idea of perefction, but it could be so much worse and that part of town desparately needs something.
I,ve just shown this to a friend who teaches 'The Built Environment'.
His basic response was - 'that could be a helluva lot worse. Think your self lucky'
When he does visit Swanage it's go to the Country Park, or he comes over on his boat. Parks up, then goes home. He said that if it was a good restaurant he'd probably eat there and go home the next day.
Not perfect mebbie, but it could just be a step in the right direction.
The planners have been asked the question "can I have a large building here?" for 20 years and the answer has always been the same. Maybe its time to change the question.
Nick has a perfectly good right to make money from his property but he does not have a right to maximise his profit regardless of the planning system. He can't buy a farming field and demand to build houses there for example.
If PDC turned down numerous applications for this site on the grounds that they were too large and then accept one which is not significantly different then he can demand compensation for being messed around with. McCarthy and Stone did this with their development in De Moulham Road and took a bundle of money off PDC. They might be cautious about repeating the experience.
Yes! I shall not be seeking compensation (but the architect may possibly try because he has put so much effort into this over so many years). If I owned the Downs I would not wish to build on it. It is sacrosanct. Neither would I put a car park on it as DCC have done. Who is the wrongdoer here?
Wasn't the Broad Road car park put there by the old urban district council? Its owned and operated by the town council which inherited their car parks. The cavalier way the town's natural assets were treated by the council a few decades ago does nothing for ones faith in their successors judgement in these matters.
It's 29th June and PDC have, despite the balance of local opinion, again voted for refusal of the latest plans for the Pier Head. The vote was 7 to 3. One or two members sat on the fence with their comments, unsure of the design vision. Three were very positive. Some were very reactionary. Both Swanage councillors voted against, despite the approval of the Town council on which they both sit. Letters for and against were completely even (ten for and ten against). The only positive outcome was that the Chairman directed the planning officers to try to negotiate suitable modifications to bring this long standing application to a conclusion. John Wootton spoke on behalf of the Swanage Building Preservation Society, and pointed out that the planning officers' appraisal of the proposals differed considerably from those of the Town Council, the Southwest Architectural Review Panel, the Residents Association and his own organisation.
Afterwards the architect Mr Barry Chapman, obviously shaken by the decision, said: "Purbeck has declined the opportunity for Swanage to move forward, create employment, and get the 21 century sustainable building it deserves". Nick said: "Although very disappointed, having listened to Councillors opinions, I believe that with only relatively modest design adjustments, this redevelopment proposal can go forward and obtain approval. I only hope the District Council allow us another chance." We shall see...
Nick,
You should go for a Casino, you'd at least get John Prescotts backing.
RobO
Post a Comment