http://planning-purbeck.dorsetforyou.com/Planning/Web%20Importer%20Attachments/36602/620110005Plans.pdf
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Quay kiosks
http://planning-purbeck.dorsetforyou.com/Planning/Web%20Importer%20Attachments/36602/620110005Plans.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
Good to see that the old wishing well will be retained. But what has happened to the thatch so beloved by locals and visitors ? Pity to let this little bit of tradition wither away with the new plans.
Gee Whites - the highlight of Swanage. Tasy food, great views, good prices, friendly service. Lets hope the new buildings allow it to go from strength to strength
Looks good to me.
Looks ok, but the planners will object.
Night owl. If planners = planning officers then (I understand that) they have been fully consulted during the progress of the plans by Morgan Carey the architects. If they had any objections then they should really have made them during the pre planning discussions.
Planners need to realise that they mess not just with peoples ambitions but with peoples lives.
As distinct from property owners who would cheerfully mess up an important part of the town to make money - sorry - achieve viability.
Anything that gets messed up has to have the consent of the planners.
Apart from fake thatch?
They'll probably end up listing it.
Have the new plans come about because of PDC not agreeing to the thatch? The thatch is fine, how can thatch be intrusive.
How did Harrow House get permission for its dome ??
The planning officer's objection to thatch was not that it looked intrusive. I know this is asking people to go to a little trouble but why not read through the relevant documents at www.dorsetforyou.com and see exactly what the objections were.
It seems a bit odd to strike a bewildered posture and to go to the trouble of posting on here when the answer to the question can be found with a few mouse clicks.
If its so easy and quick to find, then would you mind terribly and please copy and paste the planning application number and/or the text that gives the reasons why Mick needs to remove the thatch.
You asked for it:
"The group of structures in question have an acknowledged 'negative' impact upon both the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of adjacent Listed Buildings; it is thus vital that this impact is not worsened. The application of fake thatch' - or indeed thatch of any kind on the roofs given thatch is not a characteristic in Swanage - succeeds only in making the buildings stand out more. While the idea is ctearty to give a 'desert island' feel this is inappropriate in a sensitive context, and the clear artificiality of the treatment lowers the tone in terms of location quality and amenity'.
The pagoda the subject of this application and the extension which is the subject of PA 6/2008/0675) when combined have the effect of nearly doubling the size of the original building. It is considered that the impact of the development by virtue of its scale, bulk, mass and design including materials results in further unnecessary visual clutter in this highly sensitive location. Whilst the host building has a negative impact when considered in its townscape context, it is considered that this development worsens the situation further detracting from the character of the surrounding area. It continues the trend of ad-hoc additions and alterations which have been made on this site with little regard to the highly sensitive nature of its location. The pagoda appears visually prominent and incongruous in the streetscene when viewed from the High Street and Seymer Road. The use of materials of timber for the supports with a thatched roof is also out of kilter with the surrounding context and adds to the prominence of the development and as a consequence the setting of the immediate area is compromised. It does not have sufficient quality to be accepted as a positive response to the original building and the townscape around it. It is also considered to adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building (The Royal -Victoria building) which is located across the street approximately 12m away to the south."
The current application number is
6/2011/0005
and there don't appear to be any objections to the tent with first floor terrace. But two of the response links don't work.
adversely affects the setting of the listed building (the scruffy victoria hotel).....? They are having a laugh ! Gee Whites achieves more positive comments from visitors than many other establishments.
"Gee Whites achieves more positive comments from visitors than many other establishments."
And? How does that answer the criticisms made in the long extract quoted?
"the host building has a negative impact when considered in its townscape context"
-so why did they pass it in the first place?
“And? How does that answer the criticisms made in the long extract quoted?”
Because we are sposed to live in a democracy, not where a spotty graduate can impose on us what is good and righteous.
The criticisms in the long extract quoted are quite unbelievable. How can they be taken seriously? Eg:
1. The 'acknowledged negative impact'. By whom and how are they qualified to judge? How does the negativity rate against other buildings in the vicinity - eg the hotel and the pier head. Surely not as bad?
2. How can thatch 'lower the tone' provided it is well maintained? This is primarliy a tourist area with a disney world combination of stone jetty, crumbling hotel, delapidated building, arcade, modern buildings etc. In short - anything goes.
Because we are sposed to live in a democracy, not where a spotty graduate can impose on us what is good and righteous.
Come off it. A rubbish building is a rubbish building however many gullible punters the owner persuades to make out that it is wonderful. Embark on a little council official bashing and you can always expect a chorus of approval.
What possible chance does this application have when a planning inspector has just refused an appeal for two flag poles on the site?:
http://planning-purbeck.dorsetforyou.com/Planning/Web%20Importer%20Attachments/35553/620100232appealdec.pdf
800pm. Comments about spotty graduates and gullible punters... what exactly is meant here? I was just expressing a personal view about the suitability of Gee Whites on the site as I fail to see there is a problem. I am neither spotty, a graduate or gullible to the owners wishes, whatever they may be.
The next comment about refusal for flag poles says it all. There is little hope of anything ever being approved and the messy status quo looks set to continue. If that is what the planners and most people want thats fine although in my view it is just that attitude that holds Swanage back from progressing into a modern town and resort.
The last thing we need is for Swanage to become a "modern" resort. That would completely destroy it.
If modern means high class hotels and B&B’s with up to date facilities, destination restaurants, great public transport, leisure/sports centre, a working harbour, tidied up pier, toilets that don’t stink, pedestrianisation, no more pastiche new buildings, and sea change in attitude towards commerce in general, then bring it on.
The conservation officers comments on the proposed deign are at http://planning-purbeck.dorsetforyou.com/Planning/Web%20Importer%20Attachments/36602/00010F79.PDF
His conclusion is that we are close to a solution but there is still room for improvement which sounds about right.
That reads more like a list of old fashioned virtues. What is modern about cleaning the public toilets?
8.32 - Thats exactly what I meant by modern. Although, taking into account the comments by the previous poster,which may be supported by many (?) I suspect we can only move very slowly in Swanage. At least that would be better than not at all
But they are all totally unobectionable aims and have nothing to do with modernity. Which of them did not apply. in 1910? Modern resorts all look very much the same to me, huge concrete apartment blocks and hotels and an old harbour area pickled in planners formaldehyde. Very much the antithesis of what we have here.
Incidentally when you read the various studies of seaside towns done in the last decade you discover that this is one of the most successful resorts in the country. Its places like Clacton that have real problems. If anyone would like to read them I can post links.
Padstow, St Ives, Falmouth, St Mawes,
Watergate Bay?
StIves and Falmouth fare a lot worse than Swanage on the various deprivation indices. The studies I looked at limit themselves to a population minimum of 10,000 so we just scrape in and the other you mention are too small for the figures to have been included.. Cornwall has high unemployment and low incomes with islands of wealth.like Rock. I must confess I was a little surprised at how well we compare.but when I go anywhere else it generally seems to be worse than Swanage so perhaps the parish glass is a little more than half full.
The benchmarking studies confirm that things could be worse. Swanage benefits economically from its relatively close proximity to London and attractive scenery which draws residents and holiday makers alike. The planners could however contribute towards the desire of some business people to improve the quality and range of businesses and facilities within the town which would benefit everyone. There is a lack of vibrancy around the town which does not help encourage visitor numbers.
The controversy has tended to be over the quality of the changes to existing buildings and the new buildings that businesses have wanted approval for. Bulbous illuminated beer signs on pubs, faked up thatch etc. spring to mind. I am unclear about what contribution the planners can make. If they receive low quality proposals all they can do is ask the business in question to come back with something better. Unfortunately over the years their empathy for the needs of business has sometimes taken precedence over a concern for quality and there are a number of buildings that should not have been permitted. The original kiosks hidden away behind the thatch are a good example.
With hindsight then, would it not be a good idea for the District Council to buy up the controversial/sensitive sites remaining in the Town and put them to civic use?
Are they for sale? I was not aware of that. Where would the money come from? What civic use did you have in mind. If they bought the run down Pier Head cafe and other properties the owners would complain bitterly that they had acted in mala fides in turning down planning applications which would have increased the value considerably, in order to acquire them cheaply. Its strange how the great majority manage to bring forward plans which, possibly with considerable amendment, are accepted, but a tiny minority think the rules everyone else lives with should not apply to them.
Post a Comment