Marple Wharf Development

[Belly]

What concerns me about this subject is that when and if, a planning application is submitted, will this council, notwithstanding the views of the residents and other interested groups, pass it, rather than run the risk of a costly appeal.

Problem is its not enough for the Council just to turn things down just cause the local residents don't like it. Planning doesn't work that way.

Refusing planning permission always needs a proper defensible reason. Without such a reason the Council would simply be wasting money taking things to appeal - something that residents are always complaining to the Council.

Lets hope that some pressure can be placed on BWB to try to incorporate sensible suggestions. Just saying no all the time will in the long run, get Marple nowhere.

[alan@marple]

What concerns me about this subject is that when and if, a planning application is submitted, will this council, notwithstanding the views of the residents and other interested groups, pass it, rather than run the risk of a costly appeal.

[Chairman Civic Society]

Many thanks Mark for your support.

I can assure Miss Marple and others that it is by no means too late to write to us with their views on British Waterway's housing proposal for Marple Wharf. It is in fact very timely because we have just begun discussions with British Waterways and it is only public pressure which persuaded them to talk to us. Councillor Craig Wright has recently joined our steering group and will join us in discussions and meetings with BW.

The Society has received 61 communications from the public. With sufficient pressure we hope commonsense will prevail and a suitable scheme will be found for this iconic heritage site.

Please please write to us with you views, public pressure can have an enormous impact on matters such as this. Better still, pursuade your friends, neighbours and family to do the same and print a poster from our website to display in a prominent place to alert others.

We will be updating our website this week so visit www.marplecivicsociety.org.uk for updates

Send your emails to:mail@marplecivicsociety.org.uk. or write to Marple Civic Society 268 Windlehurst Road, Marple Stockport, SK6 7EN

Together we can make a difference

[admin]

You should both write to express your views to Marple Civic Society. They have formed a sub-group just to deal with this particular issue and they are collating the views of local people. Every letter or email that expresses objections to the proposals will help the Society battle on behalf of the community. And if you're looking for an organisation to join in order to have a say about this and other planning matters then consider joining the Civic Society.

Their posters say "Shouldn’t any new development celebrate Marple’s canal heritage rather than destroy it? There’s still time to voice your concerns about the proposal and help influence the decisions." Please send us your views by email to: alan(dot)postill(at)btopenworld.com or by post to: Marple Civic Society, 268 Windlehurst Road, Marple, SK6 7EN.

For more details check out the planning section of their web site at www.marplecivicsociety.org.uk

[Miss Marple]

Hi just a thought but has anyone organised a petition against the proposed changes.as a group of interested residents it may be a great idea. Its not really enough to 'wait and see' (Seventeen Windows springs to mind )maybe we should become proactive before we have yet another change to our landscape! I will be interested in joining some form of organised group! Any ideas of how we start to have a say in our local community planning !   Just a thought !!!

[PeterU]

As a boater and great fan of the canal system it seems to me that the desecration of the British Waterways site at Marple is much to do with that organisation's desire to exploit whatever property comes to hand for the maximum profit rather than give any consideration to the historic importance of such a site.
British Waterways’ senior directors are part of the bonus culture which means they can take home many times more than any cabinet minister, including expenses and in recent years their focus has not been canals but property.
They do not seem to have realised that particular gravy train has come off the rails and their plans to turn the wharf at Marple into yet another development of flats and boxlike homes ignores the needs of the town and the local canal community.
Marple prides itself on being a canal town, with narrowboats on all the lamp posts, yet British Waterways have failed to keep even the designated mooring spots useable -  the bank has collapsed in many places and not been repaired for years.
Now it proposes to take away the facilities for boaters and will succeed, if not checked, in making Marple a place where it is impossible for boaters to stop, shop, have a pint and eat.
In addition, it is moving the well-used trip boat for the disabled in its greed to clear the development site and has yet to come up with a suitable alternative mooring.
All of this is particularly ironic as the British Waterways chairman, Robin Evans, is currently telling anyone who will listen that he wants to transform the organisation into a National Trust for the waterways, focused on retaining this massive and important national heritage for everyone from boaters to walkers, cyclists to fishermen and simply those who enjoy the remarkable engineering achievements of our ancestors.
Just how he squares this with the plans to desecrate the Marple site has yet to be explained by his public relations machine.

PeterU

[Dave]

Maybe the credit crunch will sort this development out, as it seems to have done at Compstall. 

I fear you're right, Barbara.  But if you click on the links in Mark's post you get a glimpse of what other parts of the canal network have got, in terms of visitor facilities.  It makes you realise that we (and BW) have yet to make the best of our own corner of the network.  If we could persuade BW to convert the old office into a visitor centre which could attract more boaters and other visitors to Marple, it could do a lot to help create employment and regenerate the town.

But the money has to come from somewhere, and if not housing, then where?   

[wolfman]

Essex today, Marple???Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
The contortionist’s skill required to squeeze a car into a tiny modern garage and climb out of a barely opened door will become redundant under plans to allow more generous parking provision on new housing estates.

A decade after the Government ordered developers to discourage car ownership by making it difficult to park, a local authority has produced new guidance that acknowledges that the policy has failed.

Far from reducing car usage, the policy has turned modern housing developments into obstacle courses for pedestrians and cyclists, who routinely find pavements and cycle paths occupied by cars with nowhere else to park.

A study by Essex County Council found that 78 per cent of garages were not being used to store vehicles, largely because a trend towards larger cars and 4x4s meant that many did not fit comfortably inside the space.

Related Links
What Essex man wants: indoor room for Mondeo
Essex has become the first authority to challenge the Government’s anti-car planning guidelines. It has issued draft guidelines that require larger garages and driveways, more parking spaces per dwelling, bigger on-street bays and at least 25 extra spaces for visitors for every 100 homes. The council has discussed its approach with several other authorities interested in relaxing limits on parking.

The new parking standards will be treated as a minimum rather than, as at present, a maximum. Developers will be free, for the first time in a decade, to offer as many spaces as they believe their customers will want.

Garages will have to be at least 7 metres by 3 metres (23ft by 10ft), as opposed to the existing guidance of 5 metres by 2.5 metres. Any garage smaller than the new dimensions will be treated as a storeroom and not counted towards the minimum number of parking spaces. Any home with two or more bedrooms will require at least two spaces.

The council found that planning guidance issued between 1998 and 2001 had created a severe shortage of spaces in many developments. Families had responded not by giving up their second car but by parking on narrow residential roads, blocking access for emergency services and refuse collection lorries.

There are more than 1.5 cars per home in 35 per cent of council wards in Essex. Nationally, there are more homes with two or more cars than there are homes without a car.

The proportion of car-less households fell from 45 per cent in 1976 to 24 per cent in 2006. Over the same period, the proportion of homes with two or more cars rose from 11 per cent to 32 per cent.

Norman Hume, the Conservative-controlled council’s Cabinet member for transport, said: “This new parking guidance is a radical break from the past failed approach which has seen local communities blighted by parked cars. We are effectively asking people whether we should continue living in neighbourhoods that often have the appearance of disorganised car parks or if instead we should look much more closely at how we accommodate the car to allow a better quality of life for our residents.”

The Campaign for Better Transport, which promotes alternatives to cars, said that Essex was undermining a decade of work to help people to become less car-dependent. Stephen Joseph, the campaign’s director, said: “Essex will create a new generation of car-dominated estates, causing congestion and pollution. In the guise of offering freedom, people will be locked into car dependency. Homes will be too spread out to make good public transport feasible.”

Mr Joseph said that Essex should have adopted the approach in Cambridge and Kent Thameside, where clusters of new homes are being built close to dedicated bus lanes offering fast, regular services.

John Jowers, Cabinet member for planning in Essex, said: “Whether you like it or not, you have to live with the car. Rationing parking spaces doesn’t stop people owning cars, it just means they park where it is most inconvenient for everyone else.”

He said that Essex was considering reducing the number of people commuting by car by imposing a charge on workplace parking spaces.

Times online author as stated

[Barbara]

The parking problem was one which both I and my husband pointed out at the so-called 'consultation' event.  The representative we were talking to could not have been more dismissive - almost 'what do you know you peasant!'  Maybe the credit crunch will sort this development out, as it seems to have done at Compstall. 

[CTCREP]

I haven't looked at this plan, but if it is anything like the one created for Compstall Mill it is very likely there is insufficient car-parking allocated. Two cars per dwelling is now the norm, as is providing garages too small to be used for cars so they get filled up with garden appliances etc and the cars go on the road. If you live or use the area this could be a problem.

[admin]

The following text is from a letter by local residents living near the development site to Waterways World magazine. Hopefully something will appear in the mag:

MARPLE WHARF – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Marple Wharf (approx. 100 metres long) is located at the start of the Macclesfield Canal between bridge nos. 1 and 2, next to its junction with the Peak Forest Canal, and at the start of the descent through Marple's historic flight of sixteen locks on the way to the Ashton Canal.
The wharf area is currently owned by British Waterways, who use a Grade II listed warehouse building as its offices.  The wharf also houses BW workshops and storage areas, as well as a water supply point, rubbish disposal and recycling point, and a sanitary station for boaters.
In addition, the site includes the moorings of the disabled access canal boat “New Horizons” run by the Stockport Canal Boat Trust.  This boat was launched in 1981 by Prince Charles and it runs trips for people with disabilities, seven days a week between April and October, having carried over 2,000 passengers in 2008.
Photos are attached showing the current situation at the wharf.

Marple Wharf is of significant value in terms of the heritage of the canal as it symbolises the hub of the area’s former industries.  Since the mid-1800s the area has been available for boats to load and unload and replenish supplies – a living testament to those who built it.  The great scenic beauty of the canal attracts many visitors to the area throughout the year.

This has all now been put in jeopardy by BW’s proposals to develop the site, in a joint venture with H2O Urban Ltd.  A “Consultation Event” was held on 30th January 2009 at the site’s BW offices enabling invited local residents to view and comment on plans of the proposals, which include converting the Grade II listed building into private dwellings and the building of a further nine houses on the site.  The attached photos show the plans displayed by H2O at the event.

There is currently growing concern amongst Marple residents and the boating community regarding British Waterways’ proposals.  Marple Civic Society has written to British Waterways to express their reservations, concluding that the proposals are inappropriate to this historically important site and are, in fact, a wasted of the opportunity to develop the heritage site with a more sensitive approach, involving people from the local community in the scheme.
The loss of the Marple facilities will be an extreme inconvenience to boaters who regularly use this stretch of canal and will be a disincentive for boat users planning their holidays and cruising time to visit Marple, resulting in a loss of revenue for local businesses.

The following are further observations made by local residents:

-   The junction of the Macclesfield and Peak Forest Canals and the lock flight are key historical features at the heart of Marple, attracting local visitors as well as tourists to the area.  The canal architecture is the subject of guides, postcards and paintings and the stretch between the Top Lock and the Ring O’Bells bridges is particularly distinctive.  Far from the claim that the development will “enhance the site and positively contribute to the local area” and “positively address the canal”, a row of new houses would completely detract from the canal.  It would change drastically the view of the area from both bridges and therefore we disagree with your statement that this proposal offers “an appropriate use that will deliver a positive future for the historic site”
-   At present the view from the bridge on Church Lane towards the junction is particularly attractive and in keeping with the nature of the area with, usually, a number of canal boats moored up and few if any modern buildings in sight. It seems to me that to fill up the whole of one side of the canal with tightly packed modern houses would be an act of aesthetic vandalism
-   I cannot see how it will enhance the site. Currently the site provides an open aspect alongside some old canal buildings. The easy access to the canalside is particularly important for the New Horizons disabled boat. The canal at Marple is important for drawing visitors to it and its beauty comes from the fact that there is not wall to wall housing alongside it.
-   I am disappointed at the proposals to turn the grade II listed warehouse into private dwellings. I believe this building could be much better used by BW to provide services to the boating community and to the public. Such uses could include a heritage centre / boating museum / boating centre / cafe / restaurant / tourist information with the selling of souvenirs and boating supplies. I believe that (this) may mean less short term profit for BW but would lead to long term benefits for the local community, the boating community and the disabled who would use the New Horizons boat.
-   Whilst we accept that this area could be improved and are aware of the need to recuperate funds, we are very disappointed that British Waterways considers this an appropriate proposal for this site as it completely ignores its legacy. Had the proposal involved the development of the Grade II listed building for purposes linked to canal heritage, education and leisure, and the improvement of the area for boaters and visitors with some public community use foreseen, then your claim that it will “enhance the setting of the conservation area” would have been justified.  As it is, this would appear to be an incongruous cramming of houses into a tiny space with little genuine consideration of the nature of its unique surroundings, and the true impact it would have on them.

A letter in the May 2006 issue of Waterways World regarding waterside development made some interesting points when referring to an editorial highlighting the plight of our canals as a result of British Waterways striving for financial self-sufficiency:

-   In my experience, residents of such canalside properties begin to see the waterway as not only adding value to their premises, but also that it somehow belongs to them. This usually manifests itself through pressure groups lobbying BW to reduce visitor moorings, or the time allowed on each mooring within the area of the properties. Boats spoil the view, make noise and, at times, are considered undesirable when moored within the vicinity of such properties.
-   I know of examples where BW has capitulated to strong lobbying, and has then imposed restrictions on moorings near residential areas.
-   BW have a duty to ensure that the interests of the licence payer are upheld and, as custodians of the canal system, they must ensure parts of our heritage do not become highly desirable and expensive areas but “no go” areas for boaters.
-   A close eye needs to be kept on BW as it strives for its financial independence, otherwise the true cost will be the loss of the systems and its use as we know it.

This shows that if the planned development goes ahead we run the risk of losing not only the mooring spaces on the side of the canal alongside the new houses, which would inevitably be lost as they would adjoin the gardens of the proposed houses, but also those along the towpath on the opposite side of the canal – that is assuming boaters wanted to moor there at all, just a few feet away from the new houses.

The Marple Locks Heritage Society has said “We are concerned about the loss of amenities for boaters, in particular the loss of the sluice, water supply and waste disposal area. The removal of these facilities will impact on the business and local community as boaters will be less likely to stop in Marple.”

A privately-owned plot of land at one end of the wharf, adjacent to bridge no. 2 - which previously housed a car repairs garage - was sold in 2004 and an outline application was submitted to Stockport MBC by the new owners to build three houses.  British Waterways wrote to the Council in August 2004 with their comments, which, interestingly, included:

-   The Canal is designated as a Conservation Area, recognising its considerable environmental and heritage value. It is also adjacent to the Marple Yard complex of Canal Buildings, comprising two listed canal cottages, the listed boathouse and associated buildings. It is also adjacent to a listed canal bridge. The Church Yard Garage is therefore located in a sensitive area in environmental and heritage terms and any development on the site needs to be mindful of this setting.
-   The Canal is also designated as a “Strategic Recreation Route” within the current UDP (Unitary Development Plan). Indeed, the Canal at this point forms part of the Cheshire Ring, making it attractive to recreational visitors, both land and water borne. The garage site is therefore highly prominent to a large number of visitors and it is important that any development on the site does not prejudice the high quality corridor to which the UDP aspires. Likewise, the garage site offers a unique opportunity to provide a local landmark and identity of the whole of the Canal side area between Lockside and Church Lane.

The letter continued in a similar vein for three pages.  It is disappointing that BW have not taken these very same principles into consideration when preparing the own current proposals for the adjoining site.

Stockport MP, Andrew Stunell, who is also Vice President of the Macclesfield Canal Society, has been approached by residents regarding the issue and is following the matter closely.  The subject has also been raised in March 2009 at a Marple Area Committee meeting, a forum which gives the public the opportunity to hear matters which affect the lives of the local residents discussed by councillors.  The Manchester Branch of the Inland Waterways has contacted Marple Civic Society for further details, and has expressed initial concerns.
Other local associations, groups and individuals are still becoming aware of the proposed development and further reservations and objections can be expected.
Views on the proposed development may be posted on the forum on The Marple Website (www.marple-uk.com).

(The attached photos are reproduced with the kind permission of The Marple Website)

[Dave]

It's unfortunate that the Civic Society should be adopting such an uncompromisingly negative position.  The scheme may have its shortcomings, but I think we need to be more constructive. 

The letter complains because this proposal would mean that this stretch of canalside would not have public access, but there is already ample public access to the canals in the immediate vicinity.  What we have between Top Lock and Church Lane is the last bit of really run down canalside in Marple, and we should be pleased that BW want to develop it at last.

We need to bear in mind that Defra are cutting BW's funding at the moment - they haven't got any money, and unless there is housing to fund any scheme, then there won't be any development.  What we should be doing is engaging constructively with BW.  For example, we could try to persuade them to restore the old office as a public amenity, using the new housing as an 'enabling development' to cross subsidise.  As Mark has pointed out, the old building, sympathetically restored, could make a really nice cafe/information/visitor centre.

Buut we won't get anything, I fear, if we are as negative as this.   

[admin]

Follow the link below to see a copy of the letter sent by Marple Civic Society to H2O Urban regarding the development proposals:

http://www.marplecivicsociety.org.uk/BW%20Warehouse%20Marple%201.pdf

For more about Marple Civic Society, see http://www.marplecivicsociety.org.uk

[admin]

I was sent this copy of a letter from BW to Stockport MBC regarding the planning application for development of the plot at the Church Lane end of the Marple Wharf area. It was sent 4 years ago in response to the outline application for the site where the garages used to be and it is interesting to note BW's comments about the importance of the whole area in terms of it being a "strategic recreational route" and its heritage value. So why are they proposing to get rid of the facilities for boaters now?

www.marple-uk.com/pics/BWletter.pdf

[Dave]

To me the proposals for Marple Wharf are all take and no give. I would be much happier if BW were meeting a few more of their objectives and critera that they brag about on their web site.

Good point Mark.  I wrote in an earlier post 'No housing = no improved canalside', but if the new houses are being sold for 250K it it would surely be possible to make the scheme financially viable through the new-build houses alone, while restoring the old office building as a public amenity.