Marple Wharf Development

[Snowball]

From the MCS objection document "it will be our Ground Zero"  (if the development goes ahead)

Geez c'mon.

I see they also take the opportunity to have a few digs at the pleasant new row of five houses further down the wharf, the development of which they also opposed.

There can't be many who think the houses are worse than the derelict, overgrown wasteland that was there before.

[Dave]

However, I will say that a group has been trying to make The Wharf something of community interest for quite a while now. 

The last five words there tell their own story.  Sadly, if there had been a viable plan for an alternative use, it would have come to fruition by now. 

[marpleexile]

As Amazon says, Marple Civic Society has responded to the application:

http://marplecivicsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/planning-application-dc067000-marple.html

To summarise for those who don't have the time to read it:

• Down with this sort of thing
• This is a local wharf for local people
• Urgh, change!
• Why can't things just stay like they were in 1932?

[andrewbowden]

Well I for one look forward to our brave new future.  A building not being used for anything whilst people mess around with pipe dreams that mysteriously still haven't gone anywhere even after several years of not going anywhere.

Onwards to our glorious new world!

I don't say the planning application is perfect.  But let's be blunt.  The notion that the council should reject change of use in favour of some "maybe" change of use that they aren't even being presented with, is just daft.

[admin]

As Amazon says, Marple Civic Society has responded to the application:

http://marplecivicsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/planning-application-dc067000-marple.html

I must say that personally I think they've made a very good case for rejecting the proposals on planning grounds.

A new petition has also been started here:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-marple-wharf

If you agree, please sign it and protect Marple's heritage!

[andrewbowden]

Marple civic society have recomended refusall of this aplication .

Shocked.  Shocked I am at this news...

[amazon]

Marple civic society have recomended refusall of this aplication .

[CllrGeoffAbell]

This is a planning matter and, as such, cllrs are bound to be impartial in this "quasi-judicial" matter.

However, I will say that a group has been trying to make The Wharf something of community interest for quite a while now.  It was also proposed that the 'derelict' bit of land next door is subject to a separate planning application.  Again this has been going on for a while.

On another note, this Sat (23rd) from 10 am to 2 pm, the toll house at the front will be celebrating a refurbishment and opens its doors.  I think cake is also provided.  So come to see a bit of history.

[Dave]

It's a pity it's come to this. I can't help thinking that if the Civic Society and the Local History Society, with support from SMBC, had got together with BW/ CRT years ago and submitted a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund for the conversion of the old warehouse into a visitor centre, it all might have turned out quite differently. But it looks to be too late for that now.

[Ozymandias]

I can't speak on behalf of New Horizons but I can see that they are in a difficult position. Whether or not they pay a commercial rent for their facility, they are tenants of Canal and River Trust and therefore dependent on that organisation's goodwill. If they were to criticise the proposed arrangements they could be jeopardising their own future.

[andrewbowden]

Hmmm, what a load of NIMBY nonsense.

I read in their minutes the other week that they were aware that they were seen in some quarters as being a negative organisation that only exists to oppose planning applications - and used in their defence that there had been 25 recent planning applications and that they had only commented on one, forgetting to mention that it had been a negative comment and thus disproving the point they were trying to make.

So their objections are:

• Inadequate parking
• Waste disposal
• inadequate facilities and access for New Horizons trip boat
• inadequate services for pleasure boats
• a complete disregard for the unique heritage

1 & 2 are basically objecting that the parking spaces and wheelie bin storage are too far from the front doors of the houses! Seriously, that's considered a reason to object to a planning application? Good job they weren't around 100 years ago or else my terrace house would never have been built!

3 & 4 I don't know enough about, but I'm surprised that it is something that should be considered in a planning application as sure that is a "business" decision for the Canal operators to sort.

5 is just a nonsense statement. The building is an industrial remnant. It'll never be used for it's original purpose again. Turning it into housing, so that there will be interested parties who have to maintain it, is probably the best outcome, and gives the Trust money to maintain the rest of the waterways.

I am well up for mandating the warehouse is restored to its original use.

As for New Horizons, i would prefer to know their thoughts.  Do they tally?  Are they happy with the proposals.  Cos it wouldn't be the first time that loads of people have spoken on an organisations behalf on an issue the organisation have no problem with...

[andrewbowden]

Perhaps then the Trust's objects need to be changed to explicitly prevent developments like these and ensure that housing is not an acceptable use for any significant buildings.

Let us know when you manage that.

[Condate]

I'm sure someone could argue quite strongly that converting the warehouse to housing, gives the building a strong, sustainable future.  Thus 2.2 would be met by conserving the building in a new use.  It does not state that conserving buildings have to be in their original use after all.

As for 2.5, well you could argue on the detail of that one until the cows come home on that one.  But ultimately they do a lot of work already in that respect.

Perhaps then the Trust's objects need to be changed to explicitly prevent developments like these and ensure that housing is not an acceptable use for any significant buildings.

[marpleexile]

Marple Civic Society has posted some more details and comments about this a couple of days ago:

http://marplecivicsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/marple-wharf-planning-application-how.html

Hmmm, what a load of NIMBY nonsense.

I read in their minutes the other week that they were aware that they were seen in some quarters as being a negative organisation that only exists to oppose planning applications - and used in their defence that there had been 25 recent planning applications and that they had only commented on one, forgetting to mention that it had been a negative comment and thus disproving the point they were trying to make.

So their objections are:

• Inadequate parking
• Waste disposal
• inadequate facilities and access for New Horizons trip boat
• inadequate services for pleasure boats
• a complete disregard for the unique heritage

1 & 2 are basically objecting that the parking spaces and wheelie bin storage are too far from the front doors of the houses! Seriously, that's considered a reason to object to a planning application? Good job they weren't around 100 years ago or else my terrace house would never have been built!

3 & 4 I don't know enough about, but I'm surprised that it is something that should be considered in a planning application as sure that is a "business" decision for the Canal operators to sort.

5 is just a nonsense statement. The building is an industrial remnant. It'll never be used for it's original purpose again. Turning it into housing, so that there will be interested parties who have to maintain it, is probably the best outcome, and gives the Trust money to maintain the rest of the waterways.

[admin]

Marple Civic Society has posted some more details and comments about this a couple of days ago:

http://marplecivicsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/marple-wharf-planning-application-how.html