Marsworth planning application withdrawn

[Naughty Cal]

Neither.

 

That isn't how planning works dearie.

 

You don't come up with half a dozen alternatives and tell people that they must have one of them.

 

The option to say "no" always exists.

 

As it happens the site is currently vacant and the locals are now complaining that the buildings are falling into dereliction and making the area look run down.

 

They cant have it everyway.

 

The developer has bought the land, so something will go up on it.

 

Begger me backwards, I agree with Dave!!!

 

Its been a funny week

[Shasterian Noble]

Can I take it that planning permission is no longer required to demolish a building that is greater than 50 cubic metres?

 

That is correct, though I'm not familiar with that rule myself? Either that was before my time or for a specific circumstance?

[carlt]

That is correct, though I'm not familiar with that rule myself? Either that was before my time or for a specific circumstance?

Okay well I've Googled and found loads of references to this rule but here's a quote I picked at random:

 

Will I need Planning Permission to demolish a building?

 

There are planning controls over the demolition of buildings. You will need permission to demolish houses, bungalows, flats etc and buildings such as warehouses, factories, offices, churches, theatres and shops that adjoining houses, flats etc.

 

For the purpose of the planning controls, each house in a pair of semi-detached houses and every house in a row of terraced houses is to be regarded as a separate building, whether or not in residential use.

 

Certain demolitions are exempt from these planning controls:

 

* Demolition of a building of less than 50 cubic metres (when measured externally)

* Demolition of the whole or part of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure (unless in a conservation area)

* Listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled monuments are subject to control under other legislation.

* Demolition of a building that is not a dwellinghouse, or adjoining a dwellinghouse. (The definition of a dwellinghouse should be taken to include buildings in use as a dwelling and those, if not currently in use, last used for such purposes. It includes detached, semi-detached or terraced houses, residential homes or hostels, and buildings containing one or more flats.

[Shasterian Noble]

Okay well I've Googled and found loads of references to this rule but here's a quote I picked at random:

 

ah! I'm with you now. There's a six week notice rule on demolition of a building which was introduced to allow authorities to spot list and request English Heritage consider formal listing. It came in after the firestone factory disgrace in the late 80s but if the building's not nominated for listed during that period it lapses and there's no restriction.

 

Pullin this back on topic, the buildings on this site were notified for demo, nominated for listing, rejected by EH, and so now there's no restriction remaining. I think a full 12 month period with no other applications on the site has to elapse before the 6 week rule is enforceable again.

 

I think the quote is from a Local authority FAQ site so tries to make it a bit more black and White. You have to inform them but strictly speaking it's not that you 'need their permission'.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Shasterian Noble

[alan_fincher]

As an objector, I have just received my "the applicant has decided to withdraw the application" letter.

 

I've checked the AVDC web-site, and both applications do indeed now show as "withdrawn".

 

Should be able to enjoy views like this for a while longer, then......

 

 

 

Those who have wrongly said this is an unused, unoccupied, abandoned (or whatever), site, please take note!

 

OK, OK - I know where we are tied up is for some inexplicable reason "no mooring"! - We were only stopping 20 minutes for a late lunch- OK ?

[Chris Pink]

OK, OK - I know where we are tied up is for some inexplicable reason "no mooring"! - We were only stopping 20 minutes for a late lunch- OK ?

 

No it's not OK Alan, you should know better, please go and report to Dave Mayall and wait for your punishment.

 

As Dave was kind enough to point out last week, if everybody did this then there would not be enough 'no mooring' places to go around.

[alan_fincher]

No it's not OK Alan, you should know better, please go and report to Dave Mayall and wait for your punishment.

 

As Dave was kind enough to point out last week, if everybody did this then there would not be enough 'no mooring' places to go around.

Ah,

 

But if politely asked, I'd have happily moved on if someone with a greater need to moor there illegally had turned up.

 

.........................OK - I'm coming quietly officer. May I make one phone call, please ?

[GUMPY]

OK, OK - I know where we are tied up is for some inexplicable reason "no mooring"! - We were only stopping 20 minutes for a late lunch- OK ?

 

IIRC Its no mooring so that there is an area for the fishermen to use away from moored boats, would you have moved if one had come along to fish there and had asked you to move?

[Naughty Cal]

IIRC Its no mooring so that there is an area for the fishermen to use away from moored boats, would you have moved if one had come along to fish there and had asked you to move?

 

Have you made that up?

[LEO]

As an objector, I have just received my "the applicant has decided to withdraw the application" letter.

 

I've checked the AVDC web-site, and both applications do indeed now show as "withdrawn".

 

Should be able to enjoy views like this for a while longer, then......

 

 

 

Those who have wrongly said this is an unused, unoccupied, abandoned (or whatever), site, please take note!

 

OK, OK - I know where we are tied up is for some inexplicable reason "no mooring"! - We were only stopping 20 minutes for a late lunch- OK ?

 

Hi Alan.

 

A good picture but what would you have the site used for? - it's not really a working wharf - OK, it's well used as a Sanitary Station, but apart from that what else?.

 

There has been a clapped out 3 wheeled tractor sitting in the yard for ages and a derelict concrete works which used to make piles for canal banking repairs, but what else? - a porta-cabin used by BB employees as a tea room (and 'get together' room when we boaters have an argument with BW I recall going to it once in about 2000), but what else?.

 

Ok, we have a building (converted for office use), which was built of stone - probably the only stone built building this far south on the GU and is really inferior in design and constructional standards to other GU buildings in the area (for example to the GU yard at Bulbourne).

 

We have a crane which is of doubtful operational/safety ability, it really is a decoration.

 

What else?.

 

Let's work together with BW and produce a reasonable scheme - they need the money, obstructing them costs us all money - get the yard tided up and a reasonable redevelopment scheme underway.

 

The buildings we should have worked out a strategey upon were situated on the old Min. of Supply Depot at New Ground close by - piled frontage, acres of hardstanding, good buildings for construction/repair yards boat building etc - it went for offices.

 

Locally there are lots of Dry docks/Wet docks, slipways. paint workshops for both steel and wooden boats available, all within 3 to 4 miles of Bulbourne, do we need more?.

 

Museum - if they can't make Gloucester and Stoke B pay, what chance an outlet at Marsworth.

 

So what do you want at Marsworth?

 

I am all for reasonable re-development - obstructing BW and living in the past generates some good pictures but in the end costs us all money.

 

Would you have it left to deteriorate like the yard at Bulbourne - decaying, the Manager's house boarded up (it used to be a lovely building with well maintained gardens). Some beautiful listed buildings, now used as a blacksmith's/quasi Retail outlet (how did someone get consent for that sign on a listed building!?).

 

Move with the times and work with BW to get a reasonable development. I wonder how many of the objectors have ever visted the site?.

 

Leo

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Hi Alan.

 

A good picture but what would you have the site used for? - it's not really a working wharf - OK, it's well used as a Sanitary Station, but apart from that what else?.

 

There has been a clapped out 3 wheeled tractor sitting in the yard for ages and a derelict concrete works which used to make piles for canal banking repairs, but what else? - a porta-cabin used by BB employees as a tea room (and 'get together' room when we boaters have an argument with BW I recall going to it once in about 2000), but what else?.

 

Ok, we have a building (converted for office use), which was built of stone - probably the only stone built building this far south on the GU and is really inferior in design and constructional standards to other GU buildings in the area (for example to the GU yard at Bulbourne).

 

We have a crane which is of doubtful operational/safety ability, it really is a decoration.

 

What else?.

 

Let's work together with BW and produce a reasonable scheme - they need the money, obstructing them costs us all money - get the yard tided up and a reasonable redevelopment scheme underway.

 

The buildings we should have worked out a strategey upon were situated on the old Min. of Supply Depot at New Ground close by - piled frontage, acres of hardstanding, good buildings for construction/repair yards boat building etc - it went for offices.

 

Locally there are lots of Dry docks/Wet docks, slipways. paint workshops for both steel and wooden boats available, all within 3 to 4 miles of Bulbourne, do we need more?.

 

Museum - if they can't make Gloucester and Stoke B pay, what chance an outlet at Marsworth.

 

So what do you want at Marsworth?

 

I am all for reasonable re-development - obstructing BW and living in the past generates some good pictures but in the end costs us all money.

 

Would you have it left to deteriorate like the yard at Bulbourne - decaying, the Manager's house boarded up (it used to be a lovely building with well maintained gardens). Some beautiful listed buildings, now used as a blacksmith's/quasi Retail outlet (how did someone get consent for that sign on a listed building!?).

 

Move with the times and work with BW to get a reasonable development. I wonder how many of the objectors have ever visted the site?.

 

Leo

 

If its money BW want, then they should sell some of the brownfield sites they have accumulated in recent years. Sell the interest in the pub portfolio or other joint ventures. Sell BWML.

 

They have almost £400m of assets - if they don't at least sell off those that do not generate an "in year" income then what is to stop government selling them off and pocketing the money.

 

Why should BW be allowed to sell operational property?

 

Remember Jericho!

[alan_fincher]

Hi Alan.

 

A good picture but what would you have the site used for? - it's not really a working wharf - OK, it's well used as a Sanitary Station, but apart from that what else?.

 

BW berth and load work boats there. The BW architect at the meeting I attended said they would still have an operational need to, but couldn't actually explain how it could be achieved with the plans presented, (as they were selling off right up to the canal edge).

 

There has been a clapped out 3 wheeled tractor sitting in the yard for ages and a derelict concrete works which used to make piles for canal banking repairs, but what else? - a porta-cabin used by BB employees as a tea room (and 'get together' room when we boaters have an argument with BW I recall going to it once in about 2000), but what else?.

 

It is clearly used as a vehicle park for a significant number of BW vehicles, as well as those of their employees.

 

Ok, we have a building (converted for office use), which was built of stone - probably the only stone built building this far south on the GU and is really inferior in design and constructional standards to other GU buildings in the area (for example to the GU yard at Bulbourne).

 

So because it is relatively unique it should be got rid of ? Good think better logic was applied to the Anderton lift! Nobody is claiming it is architecturally equal to the Bulbourne yard, (or at least not that I have seen).

 

We have a crane which is of doubtful operational/safety ability, it really is a decoration.

 

My understanding is that it is operationally used. The architect claimed it still would be in a relocated position, (with little access, and blocking the end of the arm).

What else?.

 

Let's work together with BW and produce a reasonable scheme - they need the money, obstructing them costs us all money - get the yard tided up and a reasonable redevelopment scheme underway.

 

I have no love of the old pile making / Fencrete works. It is not difficult to imagine a scheme that got rid of the dross, but managed to retain the carpenter's sdhop, the crane, the wharf, and hence much needed boater facilities. (Is it ?). The proposed housing was pretty damned horrible, even in the artists impressions.

 

The buildings we should have worked out a strategey upon were situated on the old Min. of Supply Depot at New Ground close by - piled frontage, acres of hardstanding, good buildings for construction/repair yards boat building etc - it went for offices.

 

I can't see the comparison. For a start it all stands so much higher than the canal that making any use of the "piled frontage" would have been impossible. It hasn't all become offices, has it. Most of it has retained it's use as warehousing - sensible reuse of existing buildings, in my view.

 

Locally there are lots of Dry docks/Wet docks, slipways. paint workshops for both steel and wooden boats available, all within 3 to 4 miles of Bulbourne, do we need more?.

 

Really ? I'd hardly say we are spoilt for choice. Ignoring club facilities, there really isn't that much, (or not within the limited range you are suggesting). Whilst the slip at Cow Roast can be hired, the wet dock can not, of course.

 

I've not suggested trying to build docking facilities at the Marsworth site, though.

 

Museum - if they can't make Gloucester and Stoke B pay, what chance an outlet at Marsworth.

 

I'd not suggest that, either - it couldn't work, in my view

 

So what do you want at Marsworth?

 

I am all for reasonable re-development - obstructing BW and living in the past generates some good pictures but in the end costs us all money.

 

I think it will have to be a housing scheme on the non canal related part of the site, but it needs to be appropriate to the location. The carpenter's shop, wharf, and boater facilities should stay.

 

The alternative boater facilities they were proposing had a very good chance of never happening, I believe, and would have been at a far inferior location.

 

Would you have it left to deteriorate like the yard at Bulbourne - decaying, the Manager's house boarded up (it used to be a lovely building with well maintained gardens). Some beautiful listed buildings, now used as a blacksmith's/quasi Retail outlet (how did someone get consent for that sign on a listed building!?).

 

I really can't see what the buffer depot site, Bulbourne Works, or any other site have to do with this application, (throw in Bridgewater Boatsd in Berko, if you like).

Move with the times and work with BW to get a reasonable development. I wonder how many of the objectors have ever visted the site?.

 

As a very high proportion of the objectors were either local residents or local boaters, I'd say the reality is the vast majority.

 

It's true some were encouraged to object who will not have done, but they are in the minority. You do not have to visit, to interpret a set of plans and artists impressions though.

 

Nor to read memos from both English Heritage, and from the councils own historic buildings officer. Neither share you view that destroying this buiding was reasonable, and the latter opposed the application on that basis. Hardly the actions of a few seasoned objectors with nothing better to do.

 

To my shame I have never before objected to any planning application - I'm proud to have got involved here now though, even if the end result is no "better" than a reduced housing scheme that doesn't trash everything on the site.

 

Leo

 

 

IIRC Its no mooring so that there is an area for the fishermen to use away from moored boats, would you have moved if one had come along to fish there and had asked you to move?

No,

 

I'd have directed them just down the Aylesbury Arm to join all the other anglers fishing on the lock aprons.

 

(That is a joke, by the way - the area is I believe also marked as no fishing, but I'd need to check).

[LEO]

Why should BW be allowed to sell operational property?

 

Remember Jericho!

 

Jericho - walls tumbled down? - no seriously, Marsworth is not really economically operational in the 21st century scheme of canal maintenance.

 

I have seen BW's ability (or lack of) with regard to property management since 1992 (when there were 2 big 'fire sales - remember the ill fated bids for the original Newbold Tunnel?)' and really the Marsworth yard is just another example of this.

 

Leo

[Bullfrog]

".......but what would you have the site used for? - it's not really a working wharf - OK, it's well used as a Sanitary Station, but apart from that what else?."

 

Good question Mike, I didn't object to the application, but in some ways wish I had. The scheme was very much a baby and very grubby bath-water scenario. If some plans had been proposed which retained the old building and the (all be it cosmetic) crane I would have had much more sympathy.

 

I think the old stone building looks rather fine, and I certainly wouldn't mind living in it, if converted to residential. Other houses of a similar scale on the site of the old concrete works would work out fine, but not at the density of the recent proposal.

 

With regard to :-

 

"Bulbourne - the Manager's house boarded up (it used to be a lovely building with well maintained gardens)." - we always gaze wistfully at this each time we pass. We would love to live there, but would it ever be sold except as part of another greedy "demolish, and redevelop, and cram in too many houses" plan?

 

Happy New Year BTW

 

David

[Speedwheel]

But these wharves are still required.

 

Once got rid of, all BW do is then pay obscene amounts of money to private boat yards or landowners to use their land to unload/load.

 

It is all because it comes from a different budget. Shuffling money around - but eventually costing more!

Edited January 26, 2010 by Satellite

[GUMPY]

Have you made that up?

 

No

I always thought it was silly which is why I remember it.

[LEO]

Hi,

Some intersesting replies - one must ask - Does the Crane have a current operational safety/loading certificate?

 

Ok - there is general agreement that the site should be re-developed with housing, but let's work to get a reasonable scheme and density.

 

Agreed, the sanitary station could be re-sited, but I would suspect the residents of Marsworth would fight 'Tooth and Nail' for it to be re-sited in Marsworth - BW may turn round a suggest it's moved to Bulbourne - there is nothing to say it has to be at Marsworth - there is nothing to say theye have to provide one anywhere - as has been said in previous postings BW are trying to cut down on services - there is a service point at Cowroast. - use that!

 

Boatyards - Cowroast (wet and covered slipway), Bulbourne (wet and dry), Pitstone (slipway covered painting dock), Aylesbury Arm - Jem Bates specialist services for wooden boats.

 

New Mill - would have made a great site for waterways activities - crane the boats in out - they do at Willowbridge and Croxley and it has great vehicle access.

 

You have to consider what goes on (and will eventually happen) at Marsworth with regard to other BW property locally, especially Bulbourne which in it's present state is a crying shame.

 

Berko Boatyard - no comparison that's why I did not include it - from my observations reasonable schemes have been put forward here but declined for various reasons - a bit like callind Berko a 'Port' as they do now.

 

Really, with these developments you have to move with the times and produce reasonable schemes which gets the land utilised, objecting to everything is reasonable but we all pay licence money to BW and should therefore have a say in how it is spent and is obstructing progress a not a fair way of proceeding?.

 

Work with people to achieve a reasonable solution.

 

I have objected/supported many planning schemes over the years and generally good developments/re-developments have been the result (even some by others close to back garden) - working to that end at Marsworth should be of paramount importance here - even it it means the loss of a building or re-location of a crane.

 

I still think that calling Marsworth a working wharf is a joke - a staff car park! Hmmmm.

 

Leo

 

 

 

Happy New Year BTW

 

David

 

And to you!.

 

M

[Pluto]

Ok - there is general agreement that the site should be re-developed with housing, but let's work to get a reasonable scheme and density.

 

Agreed, the sanitary station could be re-sited, but I would suspect the residents of Marsworth would fight 'Tooth and Nail' for it to be re-sited in Marsworth - BW may turn round a suggest it's moved to Bulbourne - there is nothing to say it has to be at Marsworth - there is nothing to say theye have to provide one anywhere - as has been said in previous postings BW are trying to cut down on services - there is a service point at Cowroast. - use that!

I would have thought the warehouse would make an excellent conversion to at restaurant of some sort, where boats passing would be looked on as a benefit. There are too many canalside housing developments where, once people have moved in to the houses, they start to complain about boats and mooring.

 

And why do people like canals, if not for the wealth of heritage structures along them, with more rural sections in between built up areas. If you don't complain and raise your worries about the number of new buildings being erected, canals could end up as linear housing developments.

[LEO]

I would have thought the warehouse would make an excellent conversion to at restaurant of some sort, where boats passing would be looked on as a benefit. There are too many canalside housing developments where, once people have moved in to the houses, they start to complain about boats and mooring.

 

And why do people like canals, if not for the wealth of heritage structures along them, with more rural sections in between built up areas. If you don't complain and raise your worries about the number of new buildings being erected, canals could end up as linear housing developments.

 

Good points, however there are several restaurants close by, attached to pubs and they tend to struggle - boat traffic is very seasonal and mooring is very limited in Marsworth - it would not make sense to open a food outlet interms of return on capital.

 

Linear developments are a problem, but here we have a site within the boundaries of a village - there are good examples of similar redundant warehouse developments on the GU - in similar settings - at Cosgrove for example.

 

I agree the proposed plans (now withdrawn) were verypoor and unsympathetic, but let's hope that the site dose not close and the building boarded up and allowed to deteriorate like the property at Bulbourne.

 

Leo.

[matty40s]

The reason they don't make places like Stoke Bruerne pay is because they run them according to prehistoric rules, shutting the museum and cafe on a hot,sunny May bank holiday weekend at 4pm was ridiculous, I know I should have gone the other way to Crick, but didn't!!!!

Stoke Bruerne could be so much better, adaptable to the times, weather and customer demands, and make a decent shilling.

Unfortunately while it remains an almost semi-nationalised operation, decisions will always be made which do not reflect the needs, or hopes of the silent(ish)majority.

[alan_fincher]

I agree the proposed plans (now withdrawn) were verypoor and unsympathetic, but let's hope that the site dose not close and the building boarded up and allowed to deteriorate like the property at Bulbourne.

Why would they close or board up that building, unless they are going ahead with a development.

 

My understanding from the consultation meeting held in Marsworth with boaters that it is still a very active office, and several expressed doubt that sufficient space could be found to adapt part of the Little Tring pumping station as a replacement.

 

They still had to obtain planning permission for this, and there was a view that not enough car parking space was possible.

 

The staff have to go somewhere - why not where they already are, unless the building changes purpose as part of any new development. ?

 

I can't comment on the status of the crane, other than BW said at the meeting it is used. A stack of shiney new piles beside it would seem to be a clue that that may well be true. Certainly they look destined for a boat, however the loading actually occurs.

 

BW work boats are both berthed and loaded and unloaded at this site - surely as near to a "working wharf" as you will find these days. BW said that need would continue after the redevelopment. It seemed impossible that it would remain practical though, as they were giving up nearly all the wharf frontage.

 

Residential moorings have been sold to people in Marsworth on the understanding that water and Elsan facilities are readily available. BW at no point at the meeting suggested relocating Elsan to the top of the Marsworth flight, but it would seem unreasonable to do so, given the basis on which people have bid for those moorings.

[SimonRNABO]

Seems to me that the problem with this was that BW and the developer did not have basic discussions with the local community and canal users before lodging the planning applications.

 

Have a look at the range of objections on the Aylesbury Vale DC planning site, if you don't want to take my word for it.

 

Many of us will cautiously support BW redeveloping sites to generate income. The problem is they too often, as here, go about it insensitively and without involving local people. The pursuit of profit is too often allowed to override simple considerations like providing reasonable alternatives to the existing facilities on site or very nearby and failing to honour exisiting committments to the local canal community.

[ditchcrawler]

As an objector, I have just received my "the applicant has decided to withdraw the application" letter.

Like wise

[mayalld]

Like wise

 

Me three

[Chris Pink]

BW work boats are both berthed and loaded and unloaded at this site - surely as near to a "working wharf" as you will find these days.

 

Surely sooner or later, before or after 2020 who knows, common sense will eventually prevail and the maintenance of the waterways will return to yards such as these to be undertaken by people employed to do just this and not between jobs cleaning litter from motorways.

 

...or am i still in the world of looking glass eyes?