These are some illustrations of the plans for the Pier Head site which are in early stage discussion with PDC. Plans will not be submitted for formal scrutiny until the recommendation of planning officers has been obtained. The two Pavilion-style buildings sit on a stone podium to allow for sea level change.The architect's theme is a decaying headland similar to Old Harry's Rocks. I think if you click on the images you can take a closer look. It's flats/offices above commercial units.
Posts
62 comments:
The style is OK but the scale is far too big. This is a greedy overuse of space
Is someone having a laugh? The last upteen plans were thrown out because of their size and here is another monster.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Variously ascribed to K Marx and G Santayana. Its reckoned to be farce the second time, but this is more like the fifth oversized proposal.
What happened to Mr Storer's view expressed in these pages a few weeks ago that the flood protection requirements made it all to expensive to contemplate?
AWESOME
Looks pretty good from the graphic; worth a closer look at the plans.
12.23
Tenacity is usually viewed as a virtue. A lot of people want to see this site developed and see Swanage get ahead. ditto Old Grammar school site, Shore House site, New Industrial Estate site. etc
Looks ok to me. After all, compared with the carbuncle called the Mowlem, anything looks good on the seafront.
Build it. Think of the luverly jubberly property and business rates.
"Is someone having a laugh? The last upteen plans were thrown out because of their size and here is another monster".
Urm, yeah, sort of.
The other plans were for one building, filling the whole plot. This is for 2 buildings, with a gap between them. If you look at the %age of the site that is built on, then it's far less in this plan - how do PDC consider this issue, cuz I dunno.
When will the plans be available for public viewing? At PDC offices?
No he didn’t intonate “all tooo expensive to contemplate”; just that it would be expensive to build. But I guess the whole Town will have to face up to the flooding issues which are predicted. At least this building will be "safe" and will have the opportunity for green credentials such as ground source heating etc.
Its wonderful how many people think the owners of dilapidated buildings should for all practical purposes be exempt from planning requirements. The Advertiser has a totally predictable "anything would be better than whats there now" piece by Tilly Whim, who reflects the stone age opinions of many locals.
But almost always owners of delapidated property win planning permission. Its a battle of attrition.
It is indeed strange this one has taken so long. I suspect small town politics has singled this one out for 'special attention'.
This looks infinitely better than the mess on Swanage Pier. It looks like a refuse/building site. Old boats, a decrepit old caravan, a shack of a diving school - not up to snuff. The Pier committee does a great with the pier itself but this mess lets it all down.
'stone age opinions of many locals.'
Now, now dear......take a deep breath...relax.....
Can you link me to a study about flooding (I presume it concerns the possible effects of global warming) in Swanage? Thanks.
Does this development meet whatever 'sustainable' building conditions to be determined by the PDC Core Strategy? Hard to know until the strategy is determined, but this might be a cause to delay approval of the plans.
Try:
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0609BQDS-E-E.pdf
or use the flood map:
http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683.0&y=355134.0&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=floodmap#x=403363&y=79208&lg=1,&scale=5
Basically anything at Lower High Street level, say The Square needs to be 1.5 m higher or it will flood., unless we get a massive sea wall.
"This looks infinitely better than the mess on Swanage Pier."
Sorry, what has that got to do with it? This application is not for the pier.
A year ago all sorts of folk were opining that the Mowlem look as if was falling down. A paint job later and they thought it looked smart.
I can't help thinking that if the owner of the Pierhead was serious about caring abou the appearance of the town he would have got rid of the assorted lean-tos and general rubbish littering the site and simply painted the building. His attitude hardly inspires confidence in any claim he may make about how wonderful his proposed building is going to be. .
11:40 AM The Core Strategy is already ten years late, people aren't getting any younger!
'Basically anything at Lower High Street level, say The Square needs to be 1.5 m higher or it will flood., unless we get a massive sea wall.'
Thanks for this. If the science behind this study is deemed accurate, then all new building within that area should be subject to new regulations and existing buildings should be studied to determine whether they should be altered or allowed to be lost when/if sea levels rise. This would include much of what we call the lower town centre.
If this report predicts with accuracy what will happen, then Shore Road will be lost and with it all businesses and residences. I lived in North Norfolk and I can assure you that no defenses can keep back the sea forever. It always wins. Even much of Holland's polderland will not survive these predictions.
Of course, some say that the effects of global warming are being over-hyped and the science is inconclusive........
'11:40 AM The Core Strategy is already ten years late, people aren't getting any younger!'
How true, how true...!
'I can't help thinking that if the owner of the Pierhead was serious about caring abou the appearance of the town he would have got rid of the assorted lean-tos and general rubbish littering the site and simply painted the building.'
This is the developer's oldest trick in wearing down the Planner's resistance. Look at Bournemouth for dozens of examples.
you polish your car if you want to sell it, not if you are going to scrap it!
They want to demolish an old building, not repair it. Hence by making it an eyesore, they will create public pressure to get what they want.
Your car analogy doesn't seem to apply here.
Well the cunning plan doesn’t seem to have had much effect to date! "the assorted lean-tos" the bus hut and portacabin catering units are all used by people eking out a living; and I expect they are looking forward to their units in the new build. The poly tunnel is used by the Swanage Sea Rowing Club who themselves are in battle with PDC over the construction of a permanent club/boat house. Still what would they expect when it took five years to agree even on the new Coastguard Building?
Interesting facts re sea level rises:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Facts? From issue 40:
"LaRouche then outlines the essential actions required on behalf of our planet's immediate economic recovery. At the center of any development perspective, we require a mission to colonize Mars, an achievement which will compel us "to develop ourselves as we would never attempt such an achievement without devotion to the challenge of such a mission."
"Well the cunning plan doesn’t seem to have had much effect to date!"
I don't know about a cunning plan. Its more like someone who re-sits a maths exam at regular intervals and when asked to add 2 and 2 says the answer is 5 each time in the hope that they will be right eventually.
Am I correct in thinking the various applications over the years have never been tested at appeal? Perhaps the owner wants something passed locally with the support of local people?
It is not some form of beauty contest or a head counting exercise. Its a planning application to be decided on planning criteria. The planners have repeatedly said that they will agree only to something of about the same footprint as what is there already for perfectly sensible reasons. This has never been good enough for the applicant simply because he will not make enough money out of it.
I was talking to a local builder in the pub last night, he looked at the images on the pub computer and on the back of a fag packet (as it were) we reckoned that the building cost would be about £4m, that’s working at £200 a square foot and using massive guesstimates. It looks like 4 shops and 8 apartments from the second picture. The four shops are basically worthless, leaving the 8 apartments needing to be sold for £1/2 M each just to break even. It just don’t seem likely to happen even if planning is passed?
With the way Ed Balls (sic) and this government are dumbing down exam results, I would not be at all surprised if they would give partial credit for '2 plus two = five'!
Two hundred pounds a square foot is not unreasonable for Swanage, especially flats with a sea view. The shops worthless? Again, it depends on the economy over the next five-ten years (in which case I would agree).
IMHO I wish the Council had powers to demand that the site be demolished and turfed over until its future is determined (I assume demolition is on the cards anyway. And that the present structure poses a H&S risk).
I'm sure you could get it demolished but I don't see it being turfed over.
"And that the present structure poses a H&S risk)."
Apart from peeling paint what safety risk is there? There are a few cracks in the walls but apart from that no sign of structural problems from the outside. It was contended in the documents justifying a previous application that the foundations are shallow but if that was a reason for demolition every old building in town would have to come down.
Was the poster not aware that an application to demolish was in fact turned down some years ago?
old building, hardly old?
Why would an application to demolish this building be turned down? Certainly it is not listed, is it? Provided the demolition resulted in an agreed vacant space (such as turfed and maintained as a temporary measure) there can be no objection??
Do we need the Council's permission to breathe these days? Any reasonable request that improves anything without causing anyone harm should be approved.
Just who do the 'Planners' think they are? I have attended P&P meetings and have occasionally overhead some casual comments, about plans or the individuals behind them, made by STC members which were not IMHO proper or professional. Not often, but often enough to make me think there are, on occasion, personal agenda at work......
5.17 I have seen it too. Not brown envelopes, but councillors doing things for their mates, officers being economical with the truth, and naive well intentioned people being trampled over.
"Why would an application to demolish this building be turned down?"
Who knows. http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/planning/PlanAppDisp.asp?RecNum=22613 records the decision, some 12 years ago, to refuse demolition. The proposal was to "Demolish Pier Head Cafe, ice cream kiosk and sheds and dismantle taxi office" and was made by Mr N Storer. The reason is not recorded.
I have no doubt that there have been occasions when planning authorities have passed meritless applications. The leader of North Cornwall District some years ago was notorious for inventing "personal" approvals but "personal" refusals? Hardly.
I have found an amazing 92 planning applications made either by or on behalf of the various Storers relating to their premises in this part of Swanage over the years. 43 were approved. This hardly suggests they have been "picked on". I wonder if they get a bulk discount on plannng fees.
'I wonder if they get a bulk discount on plannng fees.'
Very droll. One would think they would have had better luck with this one, after all the practice they have had!
If you go back and look at the older attempts at getting planning on the PH land and click on the images you will find applications for one and two storey buildings, pastiche and modern designs, dense and park like developments. What would readers suggest for the site? See:
http://swanageview.blogspot.com/2007/06/ye-olde-pier-head-drawings_13.html
What would I like to see on this site? To be honest, I cannot think of any particular business, but one, that could profitably trade year round on such a prime site and that isn't already offered in Swanage.
Reading the other posts on this blog, the altruistic side of me would favour some sort of affordable housing for young (or not so young) locals who meet the criteria for such accommodation. Otherwise I see the flats becoming homes for weekenders and retirees, of which there are alternatives in town. Unfortunately, subsidised housing might not provide the sort of income the owners of Pier Head might want.
The only unique business might be a prime restaurant and hotel run by a Gordon Ramsay or a Jamie Oliver personality, such as White's new restaurant/hotel in Christchurch. The location and views will be stunning, especially if the restaurant were on the first floor, above the level of passing traffic. Its proximity to London would probably attract the sort of crowd that frequents these places year round, and the resulting spin-off of trade with other shops and services in town (such as galleries) might open a new market niche here.
Thanks for posting the link to some of the earlier designs. We had some lucky escapes! Is making impossible planning applications some sort of hobby I wonder. Something to fill the long winter months perhaps. Other developers seem to be able to sit down with the planners and find out what is likely to be approved. Something which one of the planning panel suggested when the last one was rejected as it happens.
White's new restaurant/hotel in Christchurch?
Come off it 9:06 people don't build new hotels in UK bucket and spade resorts anymore.
Sorry - I meant Keith Rhodes' new restaurant in Christchurch.
So many t.v. chefs these days!!
'Come off it 9:06 people don't build new hotels in UK bucket and spade resorts anymore.'
Whether they do or don't, I simply tried to think of one business that could survive year round in Swanage in such a premier location.
Your comment illustrates the false dichotomy presented by Swanage - 'bucket and spade' aspirations; London/Home Counties home prices.
This disconnect is at the root of the challenges facing Swanage discussed throughout this blog.
logical conclusion = restaurant and gallery with flats/offices above?
Who knows? No one else is offering a coherent solution, only sarcastic comments. I will now leave this post and 'look forward' to another decade of watching that disgraceful wreck 'grace' our shoreline.
You reap what you sow.
Would be great to see a smart new building there after all these years. It would really help to take the town forward (much needed). Full marks to N Storer for persistance - Swanage is a difficult place to make anything happen !
"No one else is offering a coherent solution, only sarcastic comments."
There does not seem to be a lot of point in posting "if I ruled the world" comments. Mr Storer has not asked for suggestions. His solution is a large building, or rather two large buildings. It is hard to resist being sarcastic in the face of his refusal to come up with an acceptable design and posture of feigned innocence.
What, in your view, is 'acceptable? Is this not a subjective judgment?
Let me turn the question around - in your opinion, what sort of building on that site would you think would be acceptable to Swanage planners?
Let me turn the question around - in your opinion, what sort of building on that site would you think would be acceptable to PURBECK planners?
(Swanage Town Council have voted in favour of the last three applications.)
“Mr Storer has not asked for suggestions.”
7.55 set ‘em out on this blog and I’ll print them off and take it down to him when he is open at the week end. Are you advocating some sort of design competition, ‘cus we,ve already had it?
When I used the word acceptable I took it for granted that we were talking about it being acceptable to the planning panel, not to particular members of the public. That was something so obvious it did not need stating. Why confuse matters by pretending that this is a beauty contest? If you want to pass a suggestion to Mr Storer it is that he comes up with something with about the same footprint as the original building. This is what the planning panel has said it will accept. I can't see what the problem is.
I suggested a design competition for this site some time ago as it happens, but since the issue is the scale of the development as well as the appearance I doubt that a design brief acceptable to all parties could be arrived at as this would require agreement on the main issue separating Mr Storer and the planners.
It does cross my mind that the town council is perfectly capable of announcing that it has no objection to a proposal in order to be seen as supporting a local business while knowing perfectly well the planning panel will reject it for very good reasons. Their endorsement is a political act. If you think thats a bit shifty look at some of the other comments about them. STC is not a planning body, it is a parish council which is entitled to be consulted and express a view in that capacity not as custodians of the district plan.
I suppose if The Club does close this would be an ideal site for a new night club -without moaning residents above. Perfect for all night raves, handy for skinny dipping, weddings, and good for summer outdoor gigs ;-)
I suppose if The Club does close this would be an ideal site for a new night club -without moaning residents above. Perfect for all night raves, handy for skinny dipping, weddings, and good for summer outdoor gigs ;-)
how about something like this?
http://www.innthepark.com/design.asp
Well if you build executive homes all over the Downs, put up a few boutique hotels, pass a marina, and have the Waverley stopping at the Pier all year around I guess it could just happen! Unfortunately the land is not a Royal Park!
Nope, it's just Swanage!
......and thats the problem. Can you imagine any other seaside resort that takes itself seriously allowing a decaying building in a prime permision and denying all proposed replacements? CRAZY !!!
Not as difficult as imagining a property owner who gets his plans rejected for the same reason time after time but refuses to come up with a scheme on a scale we all know will be acceptable. An owner who consistently deludes himself that if he comes up with a grand enough design it will be accepted. What is the planning panel supposed to do - roll over to have its collective tummy tickled? This looks like yet another suggestion that if you have put up enough unacceptable plans in the past you should become exempt from the planning process. Perhaps pdc could stop worshipping the free market and look at a compulsory purchase order in the public interest.
and what would PDC do with it? A block of social housing? A park? Did you read the original post? "Plans will not be submitted for formal scrutiny until the recommendation of planning officers has been obtained."
That's hardly "exempt from the planning process".
Post a Comment