Many visitors to Swanage are amazed at how beautiful it is - can we really not do anything about the decrepit old restaurant near the pier?
The headline is not mine but can be seen at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theurbansnapper/4022175192/
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 8:32 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
Perhaps someone could persuade the owner to put in plans acceptable to the district council and stop holding the town to ransom.
If he is "holding the town to ransom" how cum the Town Council have voted in favour of all recent applications for the site?
I appreciate that is is the district council which decides not the town council. He knows that the worse the site looks the more pressure there is from the "anything is better than this" school of thought on their councillors on both town and district bodies to permit his development.
Who know why the town council are in favour. These pages abound with complaints about their secrecy and lack of accountability. Nine sets of plans have been judged on their merits and found wanting. The scale of development appropriate to this site has been spelt out many times but the owner has been deaf to this. He wants a very large building and thinks his views should over-ride those of elected district councillors. He will therefore allow the building to decay until he gets his way. This could be described as pure selfishness and greed but these terms seem to be reserved for out of town developers who generally show a greater ability to compromise when they need to.
"He" who is he? I thought a company owned the site?
Are this developer's plans any more 'wild' than John Mowlem's, or George Burt's, a century and a half ago? They seem novel and very much in the mold of Mssrs Mowlem and Burt.
Pass them, and see whether these plans are the future of Swanage!
If you can find yourself to PDC's facility for viewing planning applications online you will find that there have been eight applications to redevelop the site which have been refused or which were withdrawn and two which have been approved. All were made by Mr N Storer, the present owner.
The first approved application, made in 1994, was for "Alterations and extension to form cafe bar, brasserie, ice cream parlour and first floor restaurant."
The second, in 1996 was "Alterations and extensions to form cafe bar, ice cream parlour and two first floor flats, form new vehicular access."
Subsequent applications have added to the number of residential units which went up to four in the 1997 application, then six and eventually 12 in the 2004 and subsequent applications.
Why you may ask did Mr Storer not get on and build what he had approval for over a decade ago? We have had to put up with the mess he has made of the old building ever since as he tries to maximise his gain from the site. What else can anyone conclude except that he either does not care what it looks like or thinks that the worse it is the more pressure will be brought on PDC to approve a large building. When a supermarket company or a major developer does this sort of thing it is denounced as bullying and greed but when Mr Storer does it there is a chorus of voices supporting him. We already have one voice in this thread saying he should, in effect, be exempt from the planning system in the hope that a building so poor in design that it was turned down will be of benefit to the whole town! Kindly pull the other leg.
Spot on poster of 8.57pm.
"The second, in 1996 was Alterations and extensions to form cafe bar, ice cream parlour and two first floor flats, form new vehicular access."
So in effect you want to see another pub in Town on the site?
Look out of the window today, how busy would it be?
'Many visitors to Swanage are amazed at how beautiful it is'
Really? If you look at the sea, or cliffs, you are correct, but there is little in the buildings that is beautiful, by any standard.
Suggestions: harmonise all shop and street signs to one approved design and clear the pavements of the clutter of boards, signs and displays. This alone would transform the image without costing a lot, or harming tourism. How? If all shops tone down their signs, the need to compete is toned down. People will shop anyway, provided the shop offers what is desired.
It has worked elsewhere in Britain.
That's a great idea and we can all drive black cars slowly and walk around in dark suits with sullen expressions. Swanage can become just like eastern europe.
In fairness the Pier Head was closed and boarded up by the time the current owners took control. The first thing they did was to restore the dilapidated listed building and stop the water running through the Pier Head roof. Even the District Council agree there is no merit in retaining the existing waterfront structure. A modern iconic building along the lines of the De La Warr Pavilion would be great, even if just to help cover up the view of the Broad Road car park. I think perhaps most would agree that the town doesn’t deserve another Quayside Court, although I suppose that developer made a small fortune out of it. If there really have been 8 applications for the site and four flats was not acceptable then I think it to be time PDC came up with a design brief. Perhaps readers may like to contribute their ideas for the plot. Perhaps a meeting could be organised with the owner, but don't expect him/her to turn it into a park.
When I looked at the planning history and found the eight refusals I also found a refused demolition application so this is unlikely to happen. A brief from PDC would be a good idea, but it really needs to be part of an active management of the conservation area and planning brief for all of it. This would go some way to escaping from the guessing game we have at me moment. The planners have made it clear they have nothing against a modern design, both for this and the nearby seafood kiosk, also part of the Storer empire. The difference is about the size. If it is big enough to hide the car park it is big enough to block the view across the bay from the downs, regarded as an important feature by PDC.
All the landmark building uses that come to mind are public sector, eg a Tate Swanage, National Diving School, cost a great deal of money and while they are a good way of funneling public and private money into the town would not make much for Mr S compared with a block of flats with an uninterrupted sea view.
It sounds to me as though it is PDC holding Mr. S to ransom. Do they have some hidden agenda I wonder? Maybe a preferred developer waiting in the wings to pick up the site for a song?
Any developer would be getting a bit grey by now as this has gone on for 20 years!
I wondered when we would hear from the slightly paranoiac tendency. "Is it because I am from Coventry" has also been heard. If someone has an application turned down because it is too big it is hardly surprising when they apply for something as large or larger it andsuffers the same fate. If PDC were to accept a proposal that was as big as an earlier one that had been rejected on account of its size they could be sued by the developer for the amount the developer has lost through not getting approval in the first place. This has happened before when McCarthy and Stone developed the Corrie Hotal site after having had various plans turned down for the same reason. Perhaps Mr S thinks persistence is the answer.
"Do they (PDC) have some hidden agenda I wonder? Maybe a preferred developer waiting in the wings to pick up the site for a song?"
Apart from being potentially libellous this would require a conspiracy by the eleven member of the planning panel and also their officers. Other officers and councillors might be expected to notice and so you would expect pretty much the whole council and its staff to be in on it. This has the potential to involve almost as many people as the loopier Kennedy assassination theories. There is a much simpler explanation as already outlined.
Any one member or certainly any one officer could easily sway a vote simply by having a strong argument for or against. It happens all the time, whether for financial reward or otherwise. Thank goodness for appeal inspectors.
Could do, but that would mean a particular person has been on the panel for all the rejected applications for this site for 11 years and has persuaded the others against it without anyone smelling a rat. For 11 years? Why were the first two applications not rejected in that case? Lots of other developments have been approved and built in that time.
Why don't you read the documents on PDC's website which spell out the reasons. I really cannot understand why anybody constructs these fanciful conjectures rather than take the trouble to look at the facts.
If I was to lean towards conspiracy theory I would say it was part of Mr S's PR drive to get everyone to blame the council for depriving him of making a few million in readiness for his next application. However, having abjured such an approach I have to conclude that it is coincidental. You could of course ask yourself which conspiracy is more plausible.
Can this property be condemned as unsafe (does the Council have such powers) and the owner forced to make it right or demolish it, or must we continue to witness it crumble (and pose a possible hazard to the general public)?
The building looks sound enough to but in poor cosmetic order. The owner claims it is beyond economic repair, but then he would wouldn't he.
Under the Building Act 1984 local authorities are able to deal with a building or structure that is in a dangerous condition.
The danger may have arisen from the condition of the property or from loads that a building or structure may be carrying.
Where a building or structure is considered to be in such a state or is carrying such loads as to be imminently dangerous and immediate action should be taken to remove the danger, the local authority may take such steps as are necessary for that purpose. Efforts would be made to contact the owner before this action is taken as the cost of such work is recoverable from the owner of the property.
If the survey indicates a potential danger it is usual for building control to serve informal notice on the owner requesting that steps be taken to remove the danger and giving reasonable time within which to carry out the work.
Where an owner fails to comply with an informal notice, steps can be taken by the local authority to apply to a Magistrates Court by way of complaint for an order.
A court may make an order requiring the owner to carry out such work as may be necessary to remove the danger, stipulating a time within which the work must be done, or where the danger arises from overloading of the building or structure, restricting its use until a court is satisfied that any necessary work has been done.
Thanks for this comprehensive answer to my question.
If, however, the owners fails to comply with any order, or cannot afford to implement an order (assuming he/she owns it outright), is there some means by which the property would be taken over by the council?
Now that I think about it, the council could buy the site and convert it into a practical, modern and accessible parish hall (for Swanage council is a parish council, not a town council) with offices and a tourist information centre, and sell or lease the present crumbing town hall and TIC to pay for this.
For large meetings, the Mowlem could be used.
Great idea! The site could still include a care/bar at the end, perhaps a dive school or the like, the Swanage Sea Rowing Club could be built in, and there would be plenty of room for council offices, meeting rooms and a far more accessible Tourist information. Brilliant let's do it!
Is it for sale? I would be very surprised if it is.
I'm sure if the Council approached the owners they would give up the land for the above uses in return for a reasonable rent?
'Great idea! The site could still include a care/bar at the end, perhaps a dive school or the like, the Swanage Sea Rowing Club could be built in, and there would be plenty of room for council offices, meeting rooms and a far more accessible Tourist information. Brilliant let's do it!'
Sounds good to me!
'Many visitors to Swanage are amazed at how beautiful it is'
Beautiful? You cannot be serious! Quaint, yes, but not beautiful.
http://www.pierhead.plus.com/sod.htm is worth a read. (In case you were wondering sod is schedule of dilapidations.) It is a description and history of the building written a few years ago to justify its demolition.
This bit amused me. "It remains alien to the more commendable buildings adjacent, and shares no relevant architectural forms or details. The building contributes no significant enhancement or pleasant juxtaposition in respect of either The Downs, The Pier, or Royal Victoria Buildings. The design of the building has no architectural regard to the adjacent spaces, buildings or topographical levels; something which has always made the building appear meaningless, ill at ease, and out of place."
This is almost exactly what the planners said about the other Mr Storer's thatch structure across the road when they opposed its retention. That Mr Storer riposted that the essence of seaside architecture is eclecticism and the juxtaposition of unrelated styles. I hesitate to suggest that the Storers want it both ways, I am sure they pass the long winter evenings debating these questions of architecture and town plannng.
More seriously, Swanage has changed and moved on, the High Street is a row of restaurants and no longer the centre of retail. Most of the pubs are restaurants in all but name. We attract a different clientèle from the 50s and 60s. A smart restaurant in a renovated Pierhead could be a true landmark. A restored art deco pavilion would be brilliant.
Good post above. Surely this situation cannot continue forever.
A restored art deco restaurant? Is that the extent of your imagination?
What would it be called? Miss Marple's grill room? Harry Ramsden's fine dining? Just the thing to attract younger crowd!
Have a think of which other restaurants in private hands stand alone ie occupy a building without accommodation above?
Why would anyone want to pitch to a "younger crowd"? The UK has an ageing population and the proportion of young people is falling. In any case its a little strange to think that age of building and customer are somehow linked. The Club and the East Bar a few yards away are in one of the oldest buildings in Swanage but still attract the rump of the youth market. Although most restaurants are in multi-storey buildings many of the uppers parts were sold on long leases a long time ago. Ones like Ocean Bay come to mind. No doubt there are exceptions. Whether we like it or not Swanage trades on its time warp quality. Why anyone would want to emulate the homogonised modern town centres that prevail elsewhere is baffling. The existence of a reasonably authentic art deco restaurant would be far preferable for the town compared to the low grade contemporary designs and pseudo-period ones that have in the past been proposed for this site.
I have known the Pierhead since the early 50s. The fact is that it has always been a white elephant and I doubt it ever made much as a rather basic cafe open in the summer only even then. This was a time when tourists dined in hotels and guest houses and there was not a great deal beyond the lunch trade for restaurants. The situation has changed. The need for a high quality restaurant is widely accepted and there could hardly be a better place for it.
If the Mowlem had never been built and the old Mowlem Institute Building had survived, would we be arguing for its refurbishment, or demolition in favour of a proposed brand shiny new arts centre with restaurant and café bar?
The need for a high quality restaurant is widely accepted and there could hardly be a better place for it
Why dont you put the money up for a high class restaurant, lets see how you survive the middle of Nov on a wet windy thursday evening.
There is always many on here who rant and rave about how swanage needs this and that, go do it, find the finance the location the staff fund it for upto 3 years before it makes a decent return, no you wont will you. Answer me this hands up those who want a 2/3 star restaurant in town ok say 30 posters now go 3 times a month with your partner or family no I thought not you wont pay £45 per head per visit will you so how the hell do you expect theses places to survive.
Oddly enough Westbeach across in Bournemouth charges about this amount and was named Seafood Restaurant of the Year a couple of years ago. Riverside at West Bay is not exactly a chippie either. Google for seafood restaurant Dorset and you get a map showing them everywhere but here. We have lots of fish and chip shops with seating but thats about all.
I spoke to Mr Storer at the Quay yesterday. It appears the cost of meeting the new flood risk assessment thing will be £1M+ for the (lower) ground floor of the site, before anything even gets built on the required water rise proof 1.5m podium. No wonder they appear in no hurry to start redevelopment. No wonder they are pissed off they never got planning earlier. Apparently some of the previous schemes were turned down due to lack of car parking. Now car spaces are positively outlawed in town centres…
Sounds like a good argument for restoring the existing building. A lower ground floor on a site where the waves lap against the front wall during easterlies sounds like a lot of trouble.
I THOUGHT they must have meant 'mm' in the Core Strategy document, where they mention a 600 m 'freeboard'.......
8.13.2 The criteria for an FRA in Purbeck have been drawn up in agreement with the
Environment Agency. They make provision for the effects of climate change and
overtopping by waves in the coastal areas. To protect inhabitants of new buildings
from flooding, finished floor levels will need to be agreed. This should also include a
“freeboard” (sufficient gap) of 600m which allows additional protection against an
extreme flood event.
Can't say the existing restaurants were managing to fill their tables tonight, a wet and dark October evening so I don't think price level comes into it, in fact the cheaper places had not even opened.
I just watched the TV programme about Claridges Hotel. Art Deco works very well for them, not a breath of a suggestion that their guests had deserted them for something more modern.
I am not surprised the Storers are hacked off. If they had done as the plannning panel suggested some years go and submitted a plan for something with about the same footprint as the existing building it would have long since been built. The snag is this would not make enough money as far as they were concerned so you might well conclude they have only themselves to blame.
I once heard that one definition of insanity is when someone does the same thing over and over again that didn't work before, only to find it won't work again.
I am not suggesting the Storer family is insane, but if they cannot get whatever they seek, after so many years, then they should sell the site to someone who can develop it. At least the Storers will get some benefit from it. I can't see any benefit to them to from this charade.
I guess if it gets sold it would be a block of old peoples flats in no time.
'I guess if it gets sold it would be a block of old peoples flats in no time.'
Swanage = 'God's Waiting Room'!
Speaking of urban decay, what is the Council going to do about the crumbling Town Hall now that it is flush with money?
'Speaking of urban decay, what is the Council going to do about the crumbling Town Hall now that it is flush with money?'
I am wondering the same thing Haven't heard a dickiebird about where the 7+ million has gone. I do see that on the next STC meeting there is something about authorising bank account signatories. Maybe that will produce some information.
A Pizza Express in a beautiful art deco building would be ace no?
Anyone setting up a restaurant should be aware surely of the seasonal,financial ups and downs of a seaside town. There are seaside towns with thriving restaurants nationwide. We are an island.
or a prezzo
A Pizza Express in the Town Hall building would I think work. At least it would be standardised OKness. Better than the lackluster restaurants in the Town today.
Um - you are joking?
Pizza Express would fit just fine in the Pier Head. And McDonald's. Or Burger King.
I don't think so. Big corporate chains would rule out Swanage. Too seasonal to be viable. Subway just about works here but I don't see many using it.
Speaking of unused space for shops and flats, what's the story with the newish development between the library and Commercial Rd? Seems nice but well off the beaten track. Many shops and flats still vacant. Chilled Red seems lacking in custom.
The sports shop looks very nice but I rarely see any customers. If those spaces are not renting, what need is there for more of the same at Pier Head?
The flats have no car parking, chilled red would be busier with a sea view.
The most important thing about Swanage is that the council does not want to encourage a younger crowd. Vibrancy is not encouraged. Shops are being built - good ideas but who are they going to sell their products too? More people will put their money into them and lose it. Half of retail swanage is for sale at ridiculous prices when one considers the short season.
Chilled Red might be busier if it entered this century and had a website. We are intending to stay in Swanage next week and wanted to book a table at a restaurant for a birthday dinner. I wanted to check menus etc in advance.
When I called CR to ask for the website address I was told "we don't have one. I wouldn't know how to turn a computer on". When I said he might be losing custom the reply was "we're always fully booked. Seems remakable. Is it really true? Anyway, he's lost my custom!
I vote a Prezzo restaurant, the town could do with some italian flavour. they also look pretty stylish as well.
Post a Comment