The computerised picture of the new block of flats, to be known as ‘Gannett’s Park’ (see Advertiser page 23 Corben & Son) are quite striking in their design, being totally different from any of the surrounding properties, yet in a very conspicuous location.
Which begs the question, why there has been such bias against the designs put forward for the Pierhead, a much less prominent location, but agreeably more important ? Gannetts Park will be completed during the time the planners are nit picking over what most thought to be an excellent design for the Pierhead.
RobO
--
Posted by Anonymous to swanage view at 11/03/2006 02:00:43 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
I read the planning officer's report on the last proposal for the Pierhead and suggest than anyone else wanting to discuss this topic does so as well so they know the real reasons it was turned down. There is nothing in it saying it should be turned down because of its style. This is a myth. There was no "nit picking." It was turned down because of its huge size relative to the old building. The site is not zoned for having a building on it at all but the planners stated unequivacally that they will allow a new building but only one that has about the same footprint as the old one. Supporters of the development chose to ignore this and seem to think that if they have a sufficiently fashionable piece of architecture covering the whole site the rules will be quietly forgotten.
The new flats in Gannetts Park (not called Gannetts Park) replace a large detached house. They face De Moulham Road and are situated between a block of over 60 flats and one of the largest houses in Swanage. The other houses in the vicinity have no particular style in common. When they were built the planners insisted that every house was different from others in the road so there is no question of the new flats clashing with surrounding buildings.
The planning officer commented that the other buildings close by are indistinguished, which I suggest is an understatement. In contrast they pointed out that the Pierhead is seen in the context of a number of Georgian and Victorian buildings of some significance.
This is all spelt out in documents on the PDC web site which are worth taking the trouble to read.
I, generally, supported the Pier Head devlopment.
As pointed out above these are 2 differnt situations.
If anyone thinks the pierhead or any other site is
incorrectly "zoned" now would be a good time to comment in the cor stategy consultation.
The planning officers' comments made regarding the pierhead scheme were written by a senior planning officer and conservation officer both of whom have since moved on in “unusual” circumstances. Please don’t stick up for a planning authority which allowed Quayside Court to be built in front of the Royal Victoria Hotel; a third of a marina development without any marina; refuses to bring Seacourt within the conservation area; and covered the middle of the Downs in tarmac to make a car park.
yes its great days now the conservation officer has moved on I do beleive he has gone to hampshire.
Dear 9.26,
Are you saying "anything goes"? Theres no doubt some developments were approved when they should not have been but I don't see why that means abuse of the planning system should be institutionalised. Many years ago there wasa pleasant garden opposite the Royal Victoria Hotel, but not I understand, in the ownership of the hotel. In retrospect a properly advised local authority would have bought this for the town and kept it as a garden. Instead we have an ugly block of flats and an even uglier sprawl of welk stall, tables, benches, and general clutter. Its impossible to condemn Quayside Court without including this in the critique.
The officer's comments on the last application for the Pierhead say that the applicant had taken absolutely no notice of the reasons for the previous application being turned down and had made an application with exactly the same deficencies.
It is my belief that what the applicant has succeeded in doing is spreading a smokescreen so as to blame the planners for the fact that he perseveres in putting in plans that will be thrown out because the proposed building is too large.
As regards changing the zoning, why should it be altered just so one person can make a lot of money? Every owner of a green belt field abutting a town would then demand the same favour.
Its an unfortunate fact that pig headed perseverance can work. We saw this with St Aldhems court where a number of sets of plans were rejected only for members of the planning board to strike their colours and approve a plan that had all the defects possesed by the first one they had considered. The result was the threat of legal action and PDC ignominiously coughing up tens of thousands in compensation to the developer for wasting his time. PDC have this fiasco hanging over their heads so they are likely to be cautious about doing a U turn in the future.
Whats wrong with St Aldhems Court?
The architect for the developer of pier head is quite within his rights to take a contrary view to that of the planning officer. If you had read the design statement for the site the reasons for the differences in approach would be clear. The proposed development looks far from mercenary to me, and if the local authorities opinion is so valid, why do they loose planning appeal after appeal?
I can see your thinking, but there is already a smaller building there and nobody wants to maintain or use it.
i may read through the design statement later, but just glancing at the plans they only fill about a third of the site with buidings.
The plan view from above does not make it look too big but when you look at the elevations its a lot bigger than the existing building. Thats why the design brief tries to ameliorate the bulk by saying a lot of glass would be used. Saying that you will be able to see through this building is an admission that its too big for its position.
An imaginative post modern building that does not overpower the site could look fantastic. Freed from the constraints of following the outline of the plot it could be something that makes the last proposal look quite conventional.
Keith I think you are missing something. Swanage folk want to see the Pier Head redeveloped with something substantial enough to make an impact on the length of the shoulder season and general prosperity of the Town, even if you don't.
I think Keith has made a very good point.
I come from the:
I hate the Pier Head and it NEEDS to be redeveloped.
Anything would be better than what we've got.
However, I think Keith maybe right.
Damn.
Keith, you mean in the way one restaurant did nothing for Padstow, a few book shops don't help Hay-on-Wye, and tourists don't go just to enjoy the new buildings on Poole Quay? Tate Swanage -bring it on- Sandpit field would be perfect.
Thinking about it, Sandpit Field would be much better. The land could be donated. Thousands of tourists would not have to proceed along Institute Road to a car park already full in the summer. A huge underground car park could be excavated, beneath hotel, restaurant, galleries and maybe even a new theatre or concert hall. AND it would cover up St Aldhems Court.
“Tate Swanage” is never going to happen. There is not the tourism infrastructure to support it anyway. Can we have some pragmatism here? You can’t hold up the development of a site with all the consequences to individuals concerned, on the basis of one day fulfilling a fantasy. I’m sure Chococo would love to have the international confectionary museum on the site and the Parade the fish and chip frying institute too!
Some of the people who post to this thread seem to be under the missaprehension that the planning process is either a head counting exercise or some sort of beauty contest for bricks and mortar. Saying that lots of people don't mind the size of the building that goes on the Pierhead site is completely irrelevant just as is thinking that a design of mind blowing beauty will be allowed to ignore the rules.
why not make a buliding that combines a jurrasic coast museum, perhaps a quality visitor centre a quaility returant and other subtle things, major art galleries will not work here we have natyural beauty lets focus on that and yes something needs to be done urgently that site is an embarrasment to the town.
Keith and all, I would be happy to accommodate a Tate Swanage thing on the Pier Head site. It has never been my desire to sell off any part of the proposed development, so receiving similar rent from a gallery would be just as acceptable as from residential tenants and shops. I’d probably want to retain the catering concession in or around the building. Is this seriously a runner?
tate swanage is a myth why not do some thats at practical nick museum etc.
If it is to work it must be a museum or gallery of national standing. A Tate would suit Swanage very well.
This has become a really exciting thread.
The idea of something of national importance in Swanage, maybe linked to the Jurrassic Coast and with the Olympics round the corner.
How do we get it done?
we'll probably get the Edin Blyton museum :-(
Post a Comment