Swanage and Herston both have conservation areas with stringent rules about development. These are major assets to the town both environmentally and economically.
Unfortunately there is very little awareness of the importance of maintaining and enhancing the conservation areas. So far as I know PDC has no means of monitoring them for unauthorised changes and there has been a steady attrition ranging from upvc window frames to steel shutters on business premises, the latter having been given a certificate of lawful use last year because PDC was unaware of their existence for four years. A fact which tells us a lot about how little real concern there is for keeping the character of the conservation area.
I am posting this to find out whether there would be any support for establishing an informal organisation of occupants of premises in the conservation areas, both business and residential with the aim of exchanging views and information and expressing a collective "users" opinion on proposed changes and enhancement. I recognise that the views of the occupiers are frequently opposed to one another but I think a forum along these lines would be valuable and give those involved and insight into the concerns of the others.
I am able to offer a venue for meetings which is within the conservation area and basic facilities to produce a newsletter fr example.
Any takers?
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 12:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
Why not start with the landlord of the East Bar who has taken the balcony off the listed building in the conservation area and replaced it with an advertisement. PDC can hardly say they haven’t noticed as there have been two site meetings opposite.
I believe that PDC don't pro-actively seek infringements, but only act (perhaps only CAN act?) when something is brought to their attention. So contact their Planning Enforcement Officer, Chris Frampton on 55 6561 or ChrisFrampton@purbeck-dc.gov.uk
I assume the original poster refers to the shutters adorning the oyster bar on the Quay. What a travesty this has turned in to. The original complaint from residents in the Victoria Apartments was made years ago; and yet the “Thatch Restaurant” remains. BUT if a little old lady in Corfe decides UPVC glazing would keep her warmer in Winter the full force of the planning Department descends upon her!
Join the Purbeck Society. They seem to be the new tier of planning control in Purbeck.
I emailed the planners asking whether the East Bar fascia had planning permission. I received an acknowledgement with the surprising subject line "possible spam" and nothing since. I also asked how, or indeed if, they monitor the conservation area and never had a reply on this point either. I have learned since that the fascia was originally intended to wrap round the sides as as well so whether there was an informal intervention is open to question. The font used for the name of the bar is also inappropriate for the style of the building.
I quite believe that PDC don't "pro-actively seek infringements" but this makes as much sense as going back to the days when there was no police force and the courts relied on informants. Why have a conservation area if you do not go to the trouble of enforcing it and making sure that occupiers of property within it are made aware that it is in their interest to maintain and enhance it?
I have had a cursory look at the legislation and found that it empowers local authorities rather than obliging them. The exception is in the consideration of planning applications where the law says "special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area."
Wikipedia remarks "In practice, enforcement of Conservation Areas varies, dependent on the resources and priorities of the local authority, and many fail to meet expectations." In other words if they don't think its important enough for someone to stroll round from time to time to see whats going on its down to firefighting after the damage has been done,
Yes, The Purbeck Society do monitor many conservation issues and highlight their discoveries at meetings, but as for their clout or positive results, I guess they can only go so far and write letters of objection?
Paul
A bit of a local mystery - the Purbeck Society.
Believed to have been around for over 100 years, loosely linked to the CPRE.
But just who are they?
What do they believe in?
Why don't they have a website?
Is there another way to find out about them?
Dont think there is any point to this thread. It assumes that PDC actually care about preserving the conservation areas. My thinking is that they dont as it would cost them shed loads of money to do so for little political benefit. An example is the pavement in Church Hill Swanage, the oldest part of Swanage, which is , from local knowledge, a very old and unique pavement. All the slabs here are marked on the faces, each different mark being the signature of the stonemason who cut it. Unique and irreplaceable yet PDC etc are allowing this pavement to be smashed to pieces by cars parking on it. It is now so dangerous to walk on in parts that elderly people and mums with young children walk in the road to avoid it.It is hardly invisible yet the powers that be seem quite content to allow this to happen, turning a blind eye. Yet wo betide anyone who tries to change even a door on their houses, they descend like the proverbial ton of bricks. So good luck with your idea of an informal local forum but I think it would all be just a waste of time, no-one would listen.
no, no, no Paul
PDC have virtually devolved decisions on planning in Swanage to the Purbeck Society.
or at least the PS appear to think so.
1.16 pm ... The Purbeck Society, and we joined soon after moving here, seem to be full of good intentions, but I feel that a certain amount of progress is essential for the area to survive. I admire the tenacityh of the Chairman and his CPRE companion, though, as I said, some liberality is needed.
There is no direct website, though a notice of meetings is posted on the Mowlem noticeboard, and various 'speakers' are employed to give talks to mostly elderly listeners. A bit like mixed Women's Institute I expect, but not regimental in any way.
Membership is very cheap, and 50p per monthly talk with tea and biccy. I understand there are outings also?
The Gazette has the meetings in the general 'what's ons'. Recommended that anyone with the history and conservation ideals takes a look.
Paul.
Thanks for that Paul.
Nice to know that they're not a secret society who wield un-worldy powers!
Cue: The Masons
Sounds like a good idea. Are you thinking along the lines of Poole's old Town Conservation Group?
http://www.pooleoldtown.co.uk/
I would point out that these groups typically end up with a few doing most of the work, with a few tiffs along the way....
Is the Purbeck Association involved in Swanage, or Purbeck generally? If its focus is mainly Swanage, then it may be the way to go, if it develops a web presence.
PDC has acknowledge planning issues raised by the Purbeck Association:
http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/Planning/Web%20Importer%20Attachments/34103/0000D6CB.PDF
Masons rock (geddit)??
My thinking is that they dont as it would cost them shed loads of money to do so for little political benefit.
I know of an instance where illegal occupation and change of use took place the person who reported it told me they were stunned when they were told that they were taking no action, but some one who had put up a garden shed was taken to task. Easy prey I suppose.
Why would keeping an eye on the conservation area cost a lot of money? All that is needed is for someone to walk round from time to time, say once a month and check that any ongoing changes had the relevant consents. As they are all recorded on PDC's wesite all they need is a small laptop and a mobile dongle to check this. Its a simple enough matter to generate a letter to the occupant of the property in question, indeed it can be done on the spot. Catching an unauthorised development at an early stage rather than than taking action years later would be a lot cheaper.
Next to the beach the built environment is Swanage's most valuable asset. Unfortunately this is often not appreciated either by the public or by their elected representatives. If you don't think it is important asset suggest what in the town itself is. I can't think of anything.
There have been one or two references to people in Corfe putting in plastic window frames. I can't say I have a great deal of sympathy for them. Why go and live somewhere like Corfe if you have so little regard for the appearance of the place or think it does not matter?
7.00pm I think you miss the point they cant even be bothered to sort out obvious breeches of planning so why would they want to wander about?
The planning fate of the Thatch Restaurant/Oyster Bar should be decided on Thursday this week the 25th Feb. There are only four other applications that day so I may go along and see whether the planning officers get there way and get it taken down.
The application number is 6/2009/0444 for anyone not aware of the glass, steel and slated wood construction which is now proposed.
Recently added to the online application is a strong letter of support from Jim Knight and a less rose tinted picture of what existed onsite before:
http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/Planning/Web%20Importer%20Attachments/34735/0000F7A4.PDF
"7.00pm I think you miss the point they cant even be bothered to sort out obvious breeches of planning so why would they want to wander about?"
So that they are aware of breaches and can't claim ignorance. How else do they know - their powers of telepathy are limited.
Slam dunk.
They cannot refuse it now, not without looking like a bunch of numpties.
Unless, of course, they wish to earn that sobriquet.
Let's give it its permit, and then move on to do the same for Pier Head, and let the owner create a business that will enhance Swanage for tourists and residents alike, and produce much needed jobs for the area.
Enough of this puffery from the planners!
But on other hand if the committee don’t support the officers in their opinion that they are being “asked to recommend approval of the dressing up of an established eyesore”, how will there ever be quality building in Swanage? Clearly the proprietor would like a special piece of architecture on his exceptional site, but not if the planning officers are so unconstructive and financially unrealistic. The building must pay for itself.
Let’s have some Spinnaker Tower style thinking!c
'Let’s have some Spinnaker Tower style thinking!'
More jib than spinnaker for Swanage!
So that they are aware of breaches and can't claim ignorance. How else do they know - their powers of telepathy are limited.
They dont even act on breaches in planning when sent letters pics addreses and eveidence, so why the hell pay em to enjoy a amble round purbeck, if they take 5 days out a month doing that and only see one breach is that worth it? stay in the office? and deal with the ones told to them.
Don't you get it? Finding breaches doesn't produce income. Chasing them up costs PDC money! Planning permission applications do produce income. Repeated planning permission applications = nice little earner for them. (Mr Storer should have shares in PDC by now!). It's all a racket. It's little to do with concern for preserving Purbeck - that is way down the list of priorities at PDC. Money and power, that's what it is.
Call me a cynic - I think I'm a realist. Go on and attack me!
In Echo:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/purbeck/5021849.Cool_response_to_new__plans_for_Swanage_bar_canopy/
"They dont even act on breaches in planning when sent letters pics addreses and eveidence, "
Sad but often true. How on earth do we get them to do their job? If we had a local organisation that made a point of making some effort to get them to do their jobs we might, just might, make some progress. Am I the only one who think preserving and enhancing the conservation area is central to Swanage's economic fortunes?
We can't. When did any local group persuade PDC to change its mind over anything?
Go on. Dare you to find the answer!
And don't cite St. George's School quite yet - it hasn't been saved yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAch3MypvoA&feature=PlayList&p=F3D69E1BA1DF25FF&index=4
So the Thatch Restaurant is turned down planning permission again. Will councilors have the courage to have to torn down now? The East Bar balcony restored? The original complainant must be desperate after so long. It's certainly proved the case that public opinion has no sway over planning decisions after this and Sea Court. So why must they be seen to keep on consulting us?
Thats a relief. Perhaps Mr Storer can come forward with a good design now. I wonder how many of the people who signed his petition had gone to the trouble of looking at the plans and asking themselves how they could possible enhance the conservation area. How the kiosks ever got permission in the first place is strange but the sooner they go the better.
no no no how did Quayside Court ever get permission?
Yes quite. In front of this revered grade two listed building (which was allowed to be converted into flats with all the services running top to bottom, with a car park in front and advertising all over) they allowed a four storey block of flats. Thats OK then. Now this guy wants to run a burger bar, cockle stall, and sell cornettos at one storey and there is a problem????
Have you read through the documents on PDC's website about the appplication? In particular the planning officers report. It seems pointless commenting on this matter unless you are awre of the arguments.
I don't know or particularly care about the ins and outs of local planning in Swanage, but as a frequent visitor my family always goes to the al fresco thatch kiosk restauarant, as you call it, and think its the main reason for us coming to Swanage on a sunny day.
How many other al fresco eating places are there overlooking the bay in the very centre of Swanage? Doesn't it fulfil a need?
4:27 PM
the officers' arguments are just so bigoted
"bigotted" ??? An interesting choice of words. Wikipedia defines it along these lines: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."
Well, that does describe someone who puts in repeated planning applications which are turned down for the same reason each time and never takes the advice he receives from the planners, so that the other Mr Storer summed up.
The planning system is based on producing a carefully considered plan and set of planning criteria after much discussion and consultation. It would be irrational to expect the planners to make decisions outwith the plan simply because the applicant in question makes large numbers of applications or in this case, is providing a popular and highly profitable service. Should all other catering establishments be encouraged to ignore planning because it gets in the way of profit?
"Well, that does describe someone who puts in repeated planning applications which are turned down for the same reason each time and never takes the advice he receives from the planners, so that the other Mr Storer summed up."
You are entirely wrong. A bigot directs bigotry toward another person. Mr. Storer is merely looking after his business. He has every right to be one-sided in his application. He is not stating, nor is he implying, any form of bogotry toward the planners. I add I have never met Mr. Storer, but I cannot let the last post's preposterous assertion pass.
A friendly word of advice: 'Cut and paste' is lazy argument. 'Cut and paste' from Wikipedia is about as reliable as a Toyota - it might get you home, it might not........
Your friendly word of advice is really silly!
In recent studies Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as Bitannica; obviously I can't say where as that would mean copying and pasting!
Perhaps you don't understand research, but when researching, you're doing so cuz you have an idea that you want to verify. Checking Wikipedia or the Enc. Brit. are entirely reasoanble places to start as they, very kindly, bring together a lot of info and put it all in one place.
What's important about Wiki is that it quotes it's sources and then you can go and check them.
Your comment about Toyota is obviously meant humourously, but again is just silly; the vast majority of Toyotas are perfectly decent vehicles. I could provide proof, but then I'd have to .......
A friendly word of advice: 'Cut and paste' is lazy argument. 'Cut and paste' from Wikipedia is about as reliable as a Toyota - it might get you home, it might not........
I agree with this post. On the Secondary school thread there's miles and miles of cut and paste articles and links that are posted with no explanation or relevant link to the argument.
Lazy scholarship. I would like to see the 'recent studies Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as Bitannica'. But please do not cut and paste!
Oh, my Toyota has had its recall! The second one in less than a year. I will not buy another. But I will sell you mine!!
Oh, my Toyota has had its recall! The second one in less than a year. I will not buy another. But I will sell you mine!!
How much do you want for it?
Wouldn't sell it to you, mate. Fancy a Skoda?
Good cars Skodas. VW mechanicals and built to a high standard. The Superb had terrific reviews.
You are aware I trust that the badge tells you very little about who made the car. A Czech factory makes the same small car for Peugeot, Citreon and Toyota. The Renault Clio and Nissan Micra are the same. Various Vauxhalls are Suzukis made at a factory in Hungary. VW Polos were made at their Spamish SEAT factory to Spanish quality standards. I could go on. Various Fords, Volvos and Mazdas have the same engines and floorpans. Badges mean next to nothing. The makers ae having a laugh at the buyers.
The planning system is based on producing a carefully considered plan and set of planning criteria after much discussion and consultation. It would be irrational to expect the planners to make decisions outwith the plan simply because the applicant in question makes large numbers of applications or in this case, is providing a popular and highly profitable service. Should all other catering establishments be encouraged to ignore planning because it gets in the way of profit?
Can you give us some examples of positive outcomes that planning policies have achieved in Swanage. If planning polices are so amazing, how come the white bubble was allowed, how come new buildings have been allowed to dominate the landscape, how come ??
And why waste so much of tax payers money on rejecting the straw roofed addition. How can a straw roof not be in keeping with the surrounding landscape. Would it be acceptabel if the roof was covered in seaweed.
It is not the thatched roof that PDC have just rejected. They have rejected the recent application for a glass and steel construction, after the developers'(retrospective) application for the thatched option was rejected some months back.
"How can a straw roof not be in keeping with the surrounding landscape."
People who make remarks like this either look upon us from afar with no knowledge of Swanage or walk round with their eyes closed. Where are other thatched roofs to be found in Swanage? There are a couple of cottages with thatch at Ulwell and thats about it. You really must have some rustic stereotype in mind - or another place entirely. The stuff on the roof of the kiosks is nothing like a proper thatched roof in any case. I suggest you go and have a good look at it.
The idea was not to recreate a British thatched roof, but to emulate a Tiki Bar, common in the Bahamas and Florida, which is thatched with palm fronds in the Bahamian way. There are 'palm' trees of sorts in Dorset, so I guess there is a loose justification for this sort of roof for a seaside bar - or not?
http://i.ehow.com/images/a04/e7/t0/thatch-tiki-bar-800X800.jpg
'People who make remarks like this either look upon us from afar with no knowledge of Swanage or walk round with their eyes closed.'
Why is a thatch type roof any less in keeping with the surrounding landscape, than cement, bricks, stone, glass.
The landscape, is made up of trees, grass, all types of building materials. Just because all houses do not have a thatched roof, so what, as I said there is a white bubble on the hill..is this any more in keeping that a thatch roof. I assume the white bubble was thought to be in keeping with the surrounding landscape.
What I am saying is that all planning policies are vague and ambiguous in the extreme and can be interpreted very differently by each individual that is using them. To support or refute a planning application.
Are you suggesting pdc should have an "anything goes" approach? The "bubble" is not in a conservation area where development should protect and enhance the area. I agree that planning policies are kept vague. Do you think they should be more proscriptive? Its a general problem, not just locally, and invites accusations of partiality.
Does anyone have any knowledge of how they do this in other countries? I understand that the US equivalent of conservation area designation is enforced very rigidly. On the other hand they are less demanding about what can be built elsewhere. For example you can build a taller building than those around it in a residential street which upsets the applecart here.
From a US resident with a holiday home in Swanage:
Generally the last post is right but there is a fundamental difference - we have enormous reserves of undeveloped land, whereas every square inch of land in the UK is designated or restricted, Hence we can be more pragmatic about what we build on land. You have to be more restrictive to protect your crowded island. The common factor we share is NIMBYism.
I take the point about the bubble being outside a conservation area but damn! that monstrosity is visible from just about anywhere above the Town Hall level. I know if I had to choose between the tiki bar/metalbox or the white zit, I'd go for the tikibar any day as being the lesser of two evils!
I think if Swanage Conservation Area had been conserved then everyone would agree how precious it is and respect it. However having seen what has happened to it in the past you can't expect people to go along with locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. If the then council had purchased and turned the old Royal Vic garden into a park or even car park all this "thatch affair" would never had come about.
In memory serves me the Victoria garden ceased to be a garden before the conservation area came in to force in the 1970s. At the time there was a rash of unfortunate changes to buildings, e.g. the Purbeck Hotel (not Purbeck House Hotel - I mean the pub in the lower high street). What other inappropriate changes did you have in mind? I don't think it is too late to be more active in protecting the conservation area. Nobody speaks for it. Every time someone wants to mess it up they claim they are doing so to make money as if they had no alternative. It is in fact a considerable asset to the economy as you will find if you talk to visitors. The problem, as I see it, is making businesses and Councillors aware that it is a benefit not a liability.
Regrettably the conservation area never enjoyed the real support of the local politicians. I recall the wife of a former mayor, who had better not be named, being very pleased that they had put plastic window frames in a house in the conservation area before the designation came into force.
This may go some way to explain why pdc has displayed such a lukewarm attitude. To their credit things could have been worse. The Purbeck Hotel was called upon to remove foul bulbous illuminated beer signs from the front of the building, the Chinese restaurant to take down a plastic fascia and have a wooden one. The enlargement of the conservation area gives a measure of protection to many Victorian and Edwardian buildings which seem to have been regarded as of negligible importance in the 70s.
May I suggest that asking visitors in Swanage, who are probably staying in a caravan, to comment, is not as useful as asking people staying in expensive country house hotels, boutique hotels, eating in fine restaurants, walking the Jurassic Coast, touring the coast off season in a car, watching a play at the Minack theatre or an opera at Glyndebourne, or perhaps sailing in and around the Solent. Ask them what would be attractive, then change Swanage accordingly. Turkeys don’t vote in favour of Christmas.
"....expensive country house hotels, boutique hotels, eating in fine restaurants, walking the Jurassic Coast, touring the coast off season in a car, watching a play at the Minack theatre or an opera at Glyndebourne, or perhaps sailing in and around the Solent."
..................................
An interesting set of criteria to choose, as a focus group, to consult on Swanage as a tourist destination. Swanage has few of the attributes these people favour, and I suggest that this may be part of its attraction. Why reinvent the wheel? Why not upgrade the wheel that fits instead?
I can tell you the top four reasons why people visit Swanage (and spend money here):
-as a family friendly, safe and traditional bucket and spade beach with a very nice town centre immediately adjacent.
-as a centre for some of the best walking, and diving, in the UK. The surrounding countryside and bay are simply glorious for these purposes.
-as a host of really well supported special events, such as the Swanage Carnival, Blues Week, Jazz Festival, etc. etc.
-for its proximity, as the only nearby town, to the naturist beach at Studland (like it or not, a large number of summer overnight visitors come to Swanage for this reason. I wonder why it never features in any tourism information about the town? Are we embarrassed?)
Let Bournemouth try to reinvent itself for the A1 tourist market. That is not the character of Swanage.
Concerning that beach at Studland....
Over the past few years, police patrols have been increased, especially in summer months. This is undertaken from officers at Swanage. I hope these extra police hours are being paid for by the National Trust, who own the land, and that our police coverage isn't being reduced as a result?
It seems a lot of trouble would be stopped if the whole dune area was closed (as happened on a stretch just south about 10 years ago) for dune restoration. If nothing else, all that foot traffic can't be good for the dune habitat. And I think for those who wish to enjoy the sun au naturel, the main beach area should be more than sufficient their needs, closing the dunes and should cut down on a lot of the goings on in the dunes that have caused this need for extra police patrol. Birds watchers could use the dune path without coming across 'bevahiour' that does not happen on the beach.
Perhaps a naturist reader or member of SUN could explain why this has to be allowed in the dunes, and why the beach is not sufficient.
Post a Comment