Rugeley loses its towers

[cuthound]

If I had known they were demolishing the Rugely cooling towers, I would have delayed my recent trip through there so that I could have witnessed it. 

[Tacet]

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

My understanding is that the provison of affordable housing (which is generally a requirement of PP by the LA) is that it is for the 'low-paid' to be able to afford it, but, unless there is legislation in place to ensure that happens how would you stop two people on 'above minimum wage' from buying it, and / or putting in an offer above the asking price to make sure they get it ?

 

The whole thing is a farce - 'Affordable' is meaningless.

It is not a perfect system, but that is a bit harsh.  Generally speaking, the affordable element has to remain with a registered social landlord.  The tenure types usually include social rented (e.g. housing association units let at less than market rents) and shared ownership (part-owned, part rented).  The latter is a form of long leasehold and onward sales are controlled by the freeholder, typically with purchasers nominated by the housing authority which largely precludes a sale to those that can afford the local market rates.

 

More abstractedly, the provision or non-provision of affordable elements is a burden/advantage on the landowner (e.g. the owner of the nice green field).  Being a competitive sector, the sale is typically to the developer offering the best price.  Post-purchase, and having regard to any overage payments, the developer will try to squeeze the scheme - but to some extent that prospect is built into the price paid too.  Developers are in business of course, but it is not going to work to expect the to buy a site at a price that assumes, say 100 market dwellings to be then restricted to typically only 70 market dwellings, with the remaining 30 dwellings put to affordable units with much reduced values  

 

The fundamental, politically-charged issue is that society reserves unto itself the right to decide which sites may be developed - and which may not.  That carries enormous financial consequences for one site over another - but, as a first principle, it is the landowner that reaps the benefit and not society.  When modern planning commenced, in the post-war Labour government, the development right and value was to be nationalised.  There were provisions for compensating owners for taking-away the previous rights.  There have been several periods when this has largely been the case - 1959 Town & Country Planning Act, Community Land Act 1973, Development Land Tax.  They have worked a little - but tend to slow the market as the industry correctly predicts that the legislation will be relaxed before too long.

 

We currently have a mixed public & private system where land owners are expected to provide a proportion of affordable dwellings, meet s106 and community infrastructure charges but also make a profit.  If the scheme is unable to sustain the full public benefits (and maintain a reasonable land price) , then something has to give or the development does not happen.  

 

It is a pragmatic rather than a logical position.  The purest right-wing thought is that the landowner should be entitled to develop (with town planning merely controlling good taste and locations) and any public-type housing provided through general taxation.    The purest left-wing thought is that the development right (and value) belong to society - and the land owner is entitled only to non-development (agricultural?) value.

 

You choose

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Tacet

[matty40s]

Does anyone know why the cooling towers further down the Trent near Mercia Marina Willington are still there. The power station disappeared a lot longer ago than Rugeleys, but they continue to impress coming along the A50.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Does anyone know why the cooling towers further down the Trent near Mercia Marina Willington are still there. The power station disappeared a lot longer ago than Rugeleys, but they continue to impress coming along the A50.

 

 

I was going to ask if they were still there, they defined the view from our mooring at Mercia marina. Surprised they are still up.

 

The ones at Barnby Dun are also long since gone, they defined the view going south on the NJC, first time we went that way after demolition was strange.

[Mike Todd]

21 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Does anyone know why the cooling towers further down the Trent near Mercia Marina Willington are still there. The power station disappeared a lot longer ago than Rugeleys, but they continue to impress coming along the A50.

According to a Google search, an initial plan to develop the site for housing etc was opposed by the local community.  In 2011 approval was given for the development of gas powered generation for peak usage with special subsidies for this commitment. However about a year ago this subsidy was ruled illegal and the site is in limbo. I guess that the demolition will take place when the future if the site is determined. Further clean up of the site, including demolition, is no doubt expensive and unlikely to be undertaken speculatively. 

[Stroudwater1]

Didcot and Ironbridge ones have gone, the latter would have been visible from the Severn were it navigable under power - they were an unusual pinkish colour, looked very surreal in the Shropshire landscape especially coming from Shrewsbury  

All looks surprisingly quiet at Ironbridge development wise still though 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Does anyone know why the cooling towers further down the Trent near Mercia Marina Willington are still there.

 

Castle Donnington ?

 

A neighbour of ours (late 1950s) built the cooling towers, (not on his own of course).

We lived near Gotham until '68, and had sheep on land at Barton and Thrumpton.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Castle Donnington ?

 

A neighbour of ours (late 1950s) built the cooling towers, (not on his own of course).

We lived near Gotham until '68, and had sheep on land at Barton and Thrumpton.

 

No Willington. Further West.

 

Lots of blather in the Derbytelegraph if anybody can be bothered to wade through the ads. and click bait.

 

Basically the site owners are in administration after a long convoluted planning application and dispute about homes being built.

[Skeg]

6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

No Willington. Further West.

 

Lots of blather in the Derbytelegraph if anybody can be bothered to wade through the ads. and click bait.

 

Basically the site owners are in administration after a long convoluted planning application and dispute about homes being built.

I was gobsmacked to see the demolition on Spanish TV LA Sexta tonight. They went on to do the top five demolitions which included Didcot.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Skeg said:

I was gobsmacked to see the demolition on Spanish TV LA Sexta tonight. They went on to do the top five demolitions which included Didcot.

 

Im not sure what you mean but I do know a guy from the next village was killed at Didcot.

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, Jerra said:

O know what you mean by "affordable" however unless a house stands empty because nobody buys it is affordable, to somebody.  I wish they would find a term which reflected the situation more clearly.

It really should be unaffordable so people cant buy but have top rent

[matty40s]

36 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Im not sure what you mean but I do know a guy from the next village was killed at Didcot.

He wasnt killed in the big demolition, the boiler house partially collapsed in preparation work.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, matty40s said:

He wasnt killed in the big demolition, the boiler house partially collapsed in preparation work.

 

Correct. I dont think l said otherwise.

[ditchcrawler]

2300 houses to be built and I bet they all get sold and there wont be 2300 empty houses in their place. People need somewhere to live. if there were more houses the demand would be lower and they would be cheaper.

[Jerra]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

2300 houses to be built and I bet they all get sold and there wont be 2300 empty houses in their place. People need somewhere to live. if there were more houses the demand would be lower and they would be cheaper.

Do you know any business which would voluntarily reduce the profits it made?   The only answer as far as I can see is the houses need built by somebody/organisation/state which isn't driven by profit margins.

 

Currently there is no incentive for private business to build beyond a certain speed/amount as they have an eye on their bottom line.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Do you know any business which would voluntarily reduce the profits it made?   The only answer as far as I can see is the houses need built by somebody/organisation/state which isn't driven by profit margins.

 

Currently there is no incentive for private business to build beyond a certain speed/amount as they have an eye on their bottom line.

They do not have to be built by a non-profit organisation so long as there is appropriate regulation in place (like OFCOM)

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

They do not have to be built by a non-profit organisation so long as there is appropriate regulation in place (like OFCOM)

You seriously see a business building sufficient houses at a very low profit?    A not for profit organisation could build them even more cheaply and the state could even subsidise if it built them.

[Heartland]

The cooling towers at Rugeley were part of the canal vista and for those passing on the Trent Valley Railway they were seen close up.

 

The power station cooling tower is rapidly disappearing, but it must be remembered that this design came about through the need of an efficient need to cool steam after it was used in the turbine hall. And, such towers were not just confined to power stations. In the 1920's the cooling towers were often made of wood. In Birmingham Nechells A had wooden towers, and the B station had the concrete version.

 

Nechells A was served by canal and railway, the B was rail served. Summer Lane power station in Birmingham, also canal served, had a wooden cooling tower and some column cooling towers of a rare design. 

 

[MoominPapa]

5 minutes ago, Heartland said:

The power station cooling tower is rapidly disappearing, but it must be remembered that this design came about through the need of an efficient need to cool steam after it was used in the turbine hall.

 

What I've not been able to find out is why the new combined cycle gas stations all seem to use fan-forced-draught coolers to reject condenser heat. As many of them are built on the sites of closed coal-fired stations, you'd think it would be cheaper to  re-use the hyperbolic towers from the old station, even if new build is now cheaper with fans.

 

MP.

[Tonka]

17 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

2300 houses to be built and I bet they all get sold and there wont be 2300 empty houses in their place. People need somewhere to live. if there were more houses the demand would be lower and they would be cheaper.

But according to the news there are 125,000 + less of us living in this country and less migrants coming from Europe

[Stroudwater1]

5 hours ago, Heartland said:

The cooling towers at Rugeley were part of the canal vista and for those passing on the Trent Valley Railway they were seen close up.

 

The power station cooling tower is rapidly disappearing, but it must be remembered that this design came about through the need of an efficient need to cool steam after it was used in the turbine hall. And, such towers were not just confined to power stations. In the 1920's the cooling towers were often made of wood. In Birmingham Nechells A had wooden towers, and the B station had the concrete version.

 

Nechells A was served by canal and railway, the B was rail served. Summer Lane power station in Birmingham, also canal served, had a wooden cooling tower and some column cooling towers of a rare design. 

 

Im sure I remember some wooden cooling  towers by a canal, they had a wide variety of algae and moss growing on them, very decorative but I suspect they wouldn't have survived if it was being used. This would have been in the 70s,  Would that have been by Nechells? 

[Richard10002]

17 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

2300 houses to be built and I bet they all get sold and there wont be 2300 empty houses in their place. People need somewhere to live. if there were more houses the demand would be lower and they would be cheaper.

 

It always amuses me that people complain because there aren't enough houses to serve the demand then, when someone gets the OK to build anything from 1 to several thousand houses, people complain because money grabbing developers are ripping people off, or similar. Even if these 2300 houses are "expensive", or "not affordable", the people who buy them will not be buying some other 2300 houses, thus reducing the demand elsewhere.

 

Having said that, until enough houses are built to ensure that supply exceeds demand, both social and private, prices will rise, or hold firm, and the problem remains.

 

Government is the only organisation with the ability to build in sufficient numbers to achieve this, and that ain't happening any time soon, even though government could build cheaper, and doesn't need to make a profit on the build, sale, or rent.

[Mike Todd]

7 hours ago, Jerra said:

You seriously see a business building sufficient houses at a very low profit?    A not for profit organisation could build them even more cheaply and the state could even subsidise if it built them.

I was not implying that they would have to built without an adequate return on their investment. A significant part of the debate is about how the forces of supply and demand operate with regard to price - and also how that price (and profit) effect supply.

 

At the present all houses have to be built to building regulations - most of which were lamented when first mandated on the basis that they would erode the profit margins of the builders.

 

Similarly when various utility sectors were privatised with price-setting regulators. Seen any water or energy companies going bust? (Apart from one or two rogues resellers but they were not what was really in mind when the process was established.)

 

It is far from clear whether a not-for-profit company would build any more or less efficiently- there are a lot of myths around regarding this part of the economy (not just in house building) 

 

It is, overall, the public will that undeveloped land (often green) should not be allowed to be developed without constraint - hence TCPA. So, we satisfy the Nimby folk but do not compensate those rest of society who lose out in the process. Earlier in this thread a couple of us reported on what happened to the Willington site and why it has yet to make a contribution to sorting the housing shortage.

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

 

It always amuses me that people complain because there aren't enough houses to serve the demand then, when someone gets the OK to build anything from 1 to several thousand houses, people complain because money grabbing developers are ripping people off, or similar. Even if these 2300 houses are "expensive", or "not affordable", the people who buy them will not be buying some other 2300 houses, thus reducing the demand elsewhere.

 

Having said that, until enough houses are built to ensure that supply exceeds demand, both social and private, prices will rise, or hold firm, and the problem remains.

 

Government is the only organisation with the ability to build in sufficient numbers to achieve this, and that ain't happening any time soon, even though government could build cheaper, and doesn't need to make a profit on the build, sale, or rent.

It is not the actual building that the Gov should be most concerned about as the controls over the rate of building and how to avoid unregulated development over-heating the market. The recent schemes to help first time buyers onto the housing 'ladder' have largely failed as they simply fuel the prices )both rent and buy)

[Tim Lewis]

19 hours ago, matty40s said:

He wasnt killed in the big demolition, the boiler house partially collapsed in preparation work.

 He and his three colleagues were killed during the demolition process. Having worked for a demolition contractor in the past it was noticeable that explosives account for a tiny percentage of demolition works.

2 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Im sure I remember some wooden cooling  towers by a canal, they had a wide variety of algae and moss growing on them, very decorative but I suspect they wouldn't have survived if it was being used. This would have been in the 70s,  Would that have been by Nechells? 

 

There used to be a wooden cooling tower alongside the Ryders Green Flight on the Walsall Canal. This is us about to pass it in 1985.

 

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

More footage of the demolition, from lots of different angles, 1x speed and slow motion. Smoke rings coming out the top as they collapse.

Jen