Marsworth planning application withdrawn

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Where is that information coming from, please ?

 

Two days ago I emailed BW's Ed Fox inviting comment on AVDC's "invitation" to withdraw the planning applications. The reply I recieved today mentions planning applications in the singular rather than the plural. Whilst I am sure that H2O have withdrawn both applications I have further emailed -

 

Hi Ed

I'm afraid some confusion still exists with regard to H2O's intentions. Can you confirm that both planning applications have been withdrawn.

Regards

Allan Richards

 

Better safe than sorry!

 

**** Edited to say that I have received an "out of office" auto-reply - so don't expect a response until after the weekend.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Allan(nb Albert)

[the grinch]

the information i saw said the application had been removed because of concerns over the demolition this indicates to me that the planning dept had no real objections to the planned build just what the developer plannned to demolish.

no real information is currently available as to what part/s they objected to.

[luctor et emergo]

Right, just a thought...

 

Everybody seems to think that this 'historic' dock side must be preserved. Is there a commercial incentive to do so? If yes, why is there nobody wanting to take up the business that must be there?

 

How much would I have to pay to run a business from there (I admit that it looks like a perfect place to start a canal business). And why is nobody else wanting to do it?

 

If there is a commercial interest in the site, the canal community is not representing it very well. Lets face it, people are not interested in heritage, they are interested in housing... or business. Not 200 year old history..

 

 

If you want to preserve history, make it work, not just vegetate.

[Derek R.]

Good grief! If no-one was interested in history - however old - in that it didn't pay for itself by dint of it being a commercial entity, where would that leave all those enthusiasts that keep alive historic vehicles and boats for the enjoyment of all who see, hear, and perhaps own and tinker with them for the sake of posterity and their own pleasure?

 

Some linear scrap is actually quite attractive, disused railway lines and canals, ancient ruins. Everything tickety-boo, spic 'n span and churning out products is itself a relic of the past. Today is high rise, glass and aluminium, no smoking, don't step on the joins in the pavement - or wear a hood.

 

If you want to find out how much it will cost you to set up YOUR business on the Marsworth site - ask the owners. But I'll wager they will want something in the region of £xxm for the privelege. Such is the face of greed over property. Stuff the history - gimme the money. The carbuncle beside Mile End Lock - Tooley's dock, Banbury, towpaths become cycle tracks, and many many more. Life moves on, but it need not be so ignorant.

 

Derek

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Not withdrawn officially yet. According to the Aylesbury Vale DC website both applications (09/01946/ACD and 09/01945/APP) have the status "Pending Decision".

 

David Mack

 

At a guess, I would suggest that the decision to withdraw the application(s) was not made until yesterday as it would have involved about six H20 directors. As such, it is quite possible that AVDC have yet to be notified by post.

 

The burning question in my mind is what would have been in the refusal notice that H2O (and AVDC) would prefer the public not to see?

 

 

****** Edited to say within the last couple of minutes Ed Fox has confirmed that H2O have withdrawn both planning applications *******

Edited January 22, 2010 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Naughty Cal]

It seems everyone is so dead set against the demolition of a warehouse with no use or future purpose.

 

Maybe if the land where in use, not just laying dormant, the plans to build housing on the site would not have materialised. In an age where housing, affordable to all, is in very short supply maybe we should be looking at ways to use derelict/dormant land to provide affordable housing. The warehouse in question here, has already been deemed as of little architectural/historical importance, enough so that it even failed to get listed status. I wouldnt hold out much hope of it remaining in a few years time.

[sociable_hermit]

It's of HISTORICAL importance.

 

If you want to make best use of derelict land, start with all of the inner city wasteland that can be found, handily situated close to shops and transport links.

 

Not everything is about money, Phylis. You wouldn't be happy if someone landfilled your mooring site with your boat still in it, on the basis that the houses they'd build on top would represent a far more efficient use of the land. Does that put it in context for you?

[carlt]

Maybe if the land where in use, not just laying dormant, the plans to build housing on the site would not have materialised.

There are thousands of acres of land, lying dormant, owned by organisations that rely on your blinkered attitude to slip in a development application, at a future date.

 

It has been left unused and allowed to decay by the very organisation that says "Look at this unused, decaying land! We'll save it by building a development on it."

 

Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen sites, in Northamptonshire, that have been allowed to go derelict and vandalised until the locals start asking "Who will sort out this eyesore?" and along come a developer (owned by the landowner) to say "We've got local support to put a few warehouse units here."

[Naughty Cal]

It's of HISTORICAL importance.

 

If you want to make best use of derelict land, start with all of the inner city wasteland that can be found, handily situated close to shops and transport links.

 

Not everything is about money, Phylis. You wouldn't be happy if someone landfilled your mooring site with your boat still in it, on the basis that the houses they'd build on top would represent a far more efficient use of the land. Does that put it in context for you?

 

Given that our marina was built on quarrying waste land about 7/8 years ago and includes a gated housing development this is hardly about to happen. Im sure the developers thought long and hard about the site before jumping in and building. Much the saem as will have happened at Marsworth. Years of consulatation will have taken place to ensure that the site is a viable development.

 

The historical importance of the warehouse will be decided by the local council and their consultants, not a group of internet campaigners who believe it is of importance. From what has been published so far, the concensus is that the building has been altered too many times to retain any of its importance. That desicion is unlikely to be reversed.

 

There are thousands of acres of land, lying dormant, owned by organisations that rely on your blinkered attitude to slip in a development application, at a future date.

 

It has been left unused and allowed to decay by the very organisation that says "Look at this unused, decaying land! We'll save it by building a development on it."

 

Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen sites, in Northamptonshire, that have been allowed to go derelict and vandalised until the locals start asking "Who will sort out this eyesore?" and along come a developer (owned by the landowner) to say "We've got local support to put a few warehouse units here."

 

Such is life.

 

Marsworth is just another example.

 

If we all want to maintain the same standard of living that we have all got used to then development has to continue.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It seems everyone is so dead set against the demolition of a warehouse with no use or future purpose.

 

Maybe if the land where in use, not just laying dormant, the plans to build housing on the site would not have materialised. In an age where housing, affordable to all, is in very short supply maybe we should be looking at ways to use derelict/dormant land to provide affordable housing. The warehouse in question here, has already been deemed as of little architectural/historical importance, enough so that it even failed to get listed status. I wouldnt hold out much hope of it remaining in a few years time.

 

I agree, but this is an operational site - it is being used. BW has spent a couple of hundred million pounds of taxpayers money buying non-operational brownfield sites all over the system to build thousands of houses on. If it want to shove up 14 houses, why does it not build on these instead of bulldozing a bit of canal heritage?

[alan_fincher]

It seems everyone is so dead set against the demolition of a warehouse with no use or future purpose.

Are you incapable of reading other people's posts.

 

Far from "no use or future purpose", the warehouse / carpenters workshop is an active BW office, in full use.

 

The wharf is actively used for mooring, and loading BW workboats, (several of which are typically berthed there).

 

As usual, you have to make some ill judged point, but can't be bothered to read the facts being presented to you.

 

They are facts - BW would have had to try and shoehorn these office staff in somewhere else, and didn't have planning permission for that either.

 

I'll not type it a third time - if you can't get in two readings, I'd be wasting my time, I suspect!

[Naughty Cal]

I agree, but this is an operational site - it is being used. BW has spent a couple of hundred million pounds of taxpayers money buying non-operational brownfield sites all over the system to build thousands of houses on. If it want to shove up 14 houses, why does it not build on these instead of bulldozing a bit of canal heritage?

 

Im sure they will when market conditions improve. At the moment it is very hit and miss as to where viable developments can take place.

 

I dont know the area in question, but can assume that there is a high demand for the the type of housing proposed in the immediate area. If there wasnt they wouldnt go to this expense at this time.

[alan_fincher]

From what has been published so far, the concensus is that the building has been altered too many times to retain any of its importance. That desicion is unlikely to be reversed.

More total crap I'm afraid.

 

Again it proves that you are exercising you usual right to comment robustly without actually reading all the material on which you are commenting.

 

Go and read what British Heritage actually said about the building.

 

Or what Aylesbury Vale's own historic buildings people said about the building.

 

You, like BW at the consultation meeting, are cherry picking a few comments that imply because the building has not got listing status, that it is not worth preserving.

 

If you read far more, before posting, you might stop keep publishing that things are "facts" or "consensus", despite the fact that you are disagreeing with experts in their field.

 

You really don't get it, do you ?

Edited January 22, 2010 by alan_fincher

[carlt]

If we all want to maintain the same standard of living that we have all got used to then development has to continue.

If we want to maintain the same standard of living then development shouldn't be left in the hands of scam artist organisations who use underhand methods to sway planning applications.

 

My standard of living is not improved by people locking themselves in their "gated housing development" safe with their "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

 

It is enhanced by our heritage being preserved and sensitively developed for future generations to learn about and enjoy.

 

It saddens me that, in the future, historians may look at the gap, in history, where the structures of the industrial revolution had been bulldozed and eradicated by developers who prey on an apparent lack of interest in one of the most important periods of man's development.

[David Schweizer]

It would be a waste of the land to leave it in its current state.

 

There is clearly an opportunity to develop the site, it will just be a matter of reaching a happy medium.

 

The developers wont give in until they get planning permission though. They will wait until the dust has blown over and then submit new plans on the quiet.

 

It would be a waste of the land to leave it in its current state.

 

There is clearly an opportunity to develop the site, it will just be a matter of reaching a happy medium.

 

The developers wont give in until they get planning permission though. They will wait until the dust has blown over and then submit new plans on the quiet.

 

For someone who claims to be working on a Planning Application at the moment, you display a remarkable naivity about the planning process, probably the reason why it is the third appeal.

 

It is impossible to submit Planning Applications or Appeals "on the quiet" They are required by Statute to be presented in the Public Domain, and that includes a Legal requirement for them to presented to the Local Parish or Town Council for observation and comment, together with all persons who have previouisly submitted written objections or observations.

 

In my experience, objections to contentious Planning Applications only cease when all the previously raised objections have been met, or the Secretary of State rules in favour of the Application. There is an application to develope a site of Industrial Historical importance in our nearby town which has been continuing for almost ten years, and as yet is still unresolved.

Edited January 22, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Naughty Cal]

On the booze early David?

 

If we want to maintain the same standard of living then development shouldn't be left in the hands of scam artist organisations who use underhand methods to sway planning applications.

 

My standard of living is not improved by people locking themselves in their "gated housing development" safe with their "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

 

It is enhanced by our heritage being preserved and sensitively developed for future generations to learn about and enjoy.

 

It saddens me that, in the future, historians may look at the gap, in history, where the structures of the industrial revolution had been bulldozed and eradicated by developers who prey on an apparent lack of interest in one of the most important periods of man's development.

 

Not all development is residential.

 

If you want a modern washing machine, it has to be built in a factory, transported to a distriubtion centre, displayed in a store, and then delivered to your home via roads, which have to be designed, and constructed and maintained. All of these processes and the many more involved require developements to take place. It isnt rocket science, we need developement to live our everyday lifes.

 

For someone who claims to be working on a Planning Application at the moment, you display a remarkable naivity about the planning process, probably the reason why it is the third appeal.

 

It is not on its third appeal due to our efforts. We bent over backwards to comply with the planning requirements for the site.

[PaddingtonBear]

Sorry to be joining the pack Phylis but here is another 'fact' for you. According to recent, very high quality research, released yesterday, there are between 10 and 25 "empty properties" for each "homeless person". The disparity is due to variations in definition but it might just demonstrate that all these dreadful, badly built, houses despoiling the land are built for purposes other than housing people, mighten it?

[luctor et emergo]

Are you incapable of reading other people's posts.

 

Far from "no use or future purpose", the warehouse / carpenters workshop is an active BW office, in full use.

 

The wharf is actively used for mooring, and loading BW workboats, (several of which are typically berthed there).

 

As usual, you have to make some ill judged point, but can't be bothered to read the facts being presented to you.

 

They are facts - BW would have had to try and shoehorn these office staff in somewhere else, and didn't have planning permission for that either.

 

I'll not type it a third time - if you can't get in two readings, I'd be wasting my time, I suspect!

 

 

This ties in with my reply, which may not have been worded clear enough.

 

This is to all intents and purpose a working wharf, right? BW has an office, and it moors it's boats, they even use the historical crane...

It is on a prime site along the canal. Surely, BW, if nobody else, should keep it in use, and develop more boat related use for the site. There must be scope for a chandlery, a dry dock or slip way, a painting dock, a visitor centre (that would give the bowler hat people somewhere to play.. ), or even a museum?

If BW can't, (or won't, they seem to be very keen to sell things for a quick return.. these are the people who you trust to keep your canals navigable.....) run it, then who can? And if they site can not be run as it is, should we leave it as an eyesore? Decaying until the 'historical' building (boarded up because it will be unstable), collapses?

Some things change, and not always to our pleasure. One man's 'historical' artefact is another man's supply of building stone.

 

But the argument about historical importance is in my opinion masking a far more important issue. An issue that you should be far more worried about...

 

BW is selling off a working wharf, in a prime location...... helloooo.

They let a road redevelopment build a new bridge which blocks access to a canal....

What will be next?

[Naughty Cal]

Sorry to be joining the pack Phylis but here is another 'fact' for you. According to recent, very high quality research, released yesterday, there are between 10 and 25 "empty properties" for each "homeless person". The disparity is due to variations in definition but it might just demonstrate that all these dreadful, badly built, houses despoiling the land are built for purposes other than housing people, mighten it?

 

They keep me in a job

 

Does this "research" include the homes bought under complusary purchase which are due to be demolished as they are unfit for purpose?

 

Whole swathes of some towns/cities are currently rolling out schemes to replace aging housing stock. Sheffield, for example, is currently in the process of demolishing large areas of council housing that has been uneconomical to repair/maintain. These areas will be and are being successfully redeveloped to include high quality medium density housing in areas previously occupied by low quality low density housing. Other examples are being successfully carried out in deprived areas of the city with high density low quality private housing stock.

 

The market follows what people are willing to purchase, hence the massive reduction currently in schemes including apartment blocks and larger dwellings and the huge increase in affordable/shared ownership/social housing schemes.

[alan_fincher]

This is to all intents and purpose a working wharf, right? BW has an office, and it moors it's boats, they even use the historical crane...

It is on a prime site along the canal. Surely, BW, if nobody else, should keep it in use, and develop more boat related use for the site. There must be scope for a chandlery, a dry dock or slip way, a painting dock, a visitor centre (that would give the bowler hat people somewhere to play.. ), or even a museum?

Unfortunately the bottom line is I think that obscene amounts of money can be made out of a site like this if one is prepared to ignore history, tear everything down, and go for highest possible density housing.

 

Basically that was the plan submitted.

 

There is a claim that the BW architect at the meeting was being "economical with the truth" at the consultation meeting we attended when he said it was planning requirements, rather than greedy developers, insisting on such high housing density. The actual word is that the council thought a lower density would be better, (I can't find proof one way or the other, though,on this point).

 

If they manage to get housing on this site there is scope for far more greed than any canal related use, which, as you rightly suggest, would be a much better outcome.

 

I can see no prospect of the site being sold off for a canal related use, because simply too high a potential value is being placed upon it.

 

I suspect new plans will ultimately concede some kind of retention of the carpenter's workshop, and possibly a proper wharf, and hence a reduced number of houses. If I had to guess, that's where it will land eventually.

 

Not a perfect result,if it does, but better than not complaining at all, in my view.

[sociable_hermit]

The historical importance of the warehouse will be decided by the local council and their consultants, not a group of internet campaigners who believe it is of importance.

 

So what you're saying is, it's only important if Councillors and Consultants say it is? Nothing to do with local people, then, or people with a knowledge, understanding and interest in the property?

 

Erm... who do you think the Councillors and Consultants are supposed to represent, then?

 

The point I was trying to make about your mooring is that decisions are not made on profit alone. IF the most profitable way of using your mooring was to build a block of flats on it, that would deprive you of the pleasure of mooring there. The debate is not simply £ vs. £.

 

If it was, most inner city canals would have been filled in long ago. And that's the real worry here. BW are (or were) custodians of history, not just managers of financial assets. They are supposed to be looking after all this for us, and for future generations.

Edited January 22, 2010 by sociable_hermit

[carlt]

Not all development is residential.

 

If you want a modern washing machine, it has to be built in a factory, transported to a distriubtion centre, displayed in a store, and then delivered to your home via roads, which have to be designed, and constructed and maintained. All of these processes and the many more involved require developements to take place. It isnt rocket science, we need developement to live our everyday lifes.

As usual you do not read carefully enough to make educated comments.

 

Most of my comments are about warehouse/retail developments (If I were to start talking about housing development scams then I could spend all day on Daventry alone).

 

As far as distribution is concerned let's have a look at DIRFT (though DIFT should, perhaps be a more accurate name).

 

Built on Green Belt land, deemed "agriculturally worthless", it being built on meadow land, home to several rare species of plants and animals, but hey, progress is progress.

 

There are acres of Brownfield land, in Northamptonshire, that could have been used but that would have been inconvenient, wouldn't it?

 

The plans were forced through and companies given huge incentives to occupy what is actually not an ideal location.

 

One large freight company was sold a large portion of Dirft's land for £1, despite them insisting that it was the wrong location for them.

 

They subsequently sold that land for £1M, which they used to build their depot, in a more appropriate place.

 

Oh and could you let me know where I can buy a new, British built washing machine?

[Naughty Cal]

So what you're saying is, it's only important if Councillors and Consultants say it is? Nothing to do with local people, then, or people with a knowledge, understanding and interest in the property?

 

Erm... who do you think the Councillors and Consultants are supposed to represent, then?

 

The point I was trying to make about your mooring is that decisions are not made on profit alone. IF the most profitable way of using your mooring was to build a block of flats on it, that would deprive you of the pleasure of mooring there. The debate is not simply £ vs. £.

 

If it was, most inner city canals would have been filled in long ago.

 

The majority of cities/towns with river/canal frontages have used these areas to great effect, with redevelopement/regeneration projects being given the green light on once industrial sites. A riverside balcony adds thousands to the cost of a typical apartment.

[sociable_hermit]

The majority of cities/towns with river/canal frontages have used these areas to great effect, with redevelopement/regeneration projects being given the green light on once industrial sites. A riverside balcony adds thousands to the cost of a typical apartment.

 

Not what I said, though, is it?

 

Given the property values in many town and city centres, BW could have made a fortune out of landfilling urban canals completely and building houses on top of them.

 

If BW's role was purely to make money and facilitate development, that would have been exactly the right thing to do. But that ISN'T their role. Although at the moment they seem to think it is, which is why places like Marsworth are getting sold off and ruined.

[Naughty Cal]

If BW's role was purely to make money and facilitate development, that would have been exactly the right thing to do. But that ISN'T their role. Although at the moment they seem to think it is, which is why places like Marsworth are getting sold off and ruined.

 

That again is a matter of opinion. There are many stretches of BW owned waterways that have been transformed due to the huge amounts of private money being invested in these areas along the waters edge. Without this investment these areas would have faced certain neglect.