FENCRETE RE-DEVELOPMENT
Most recent entries appear on top
AVDC Development Control Committee approved the latest scheme on 30th June, but the nature of the conditions to apply is yet to made public. This is now expected soon.
The latest BW plans for block B are now on the AVDC website. (Ref: 10/01336/APP). The block B proposal is now for a two floor rather than a two and a half/three floor building. The design and access statement is not yet on the website but should be within the next few days.
The application is likely (but not certain) to go to Development Control Committee on 30th June. The parish council and public will have speaking rights at this meeting as at previous meetings.
Development Control Committee’s decision 31/3/11:
Application No, Nature of Application and Location
10/01336/APP, Erection of 12 dwellings, conversion of former workshop to dwelling, upgrade of boaters facilities, refurbishment of crane, associated access, parking and landscaping and 10/01344/ACD, Demolition of buildings and structures, including lean-to extension of former workshop, Marsworth Yard British Waterways, Church Lane, Marsworth.
Reason for Deferment
To enable Officers to negotiate a reduction in the height of Block B and for British Waterways Board to discuss highways issues with Buckinghamshire County Council. The application to be brought back to Committee for determination.
Proceedings at Development Control Committee Meeting Thursday March 31st:
Following strong representations from both Marsworth PC (Ray Brown) and County Councillor Avril Davies there was a motion on the table to refuse planning but the committee was talked out of it by the legal adviser on the basis that it had not been refused at earlier hearings and would fail on appeal. It would appear AVDC have woken up to the scale and impact of the proposed scheme, but rather too late. It was observed that the revised scheme had not reduced the height of block B, but merely lowered it into the ground, so it has been sent back to BWB to rethink the block.
Marsworth PC response to revised planning application lowering Block B
27 Mar 2011
Dear Sirs,
REF: 10/01336/APP, 10/01344/ACD
Marsworth Parish Council have further discussed the revised planning application for Marsworth Yard and our opposition remains unchanged. The proposed development is far too dense considering the surrounding area, it will cause serious traffic related problems, and is totally out of keeping with the Conservation Area in which it lies.
However, since this proposal was first tabled, your council, lead by Councillor Sue Polhill, has formally approved a policy relating to Conservation Areas in Aylesbury Vale District – The District Wide Strategy, Conservation Area Management Plan – which is diametrically opposed to this development. That document quotes the Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991-2011, which was adopted on 23 March 1996, and specifically states:
HE1: Protection of key sites and features
Permission will not be given for any development which would endanger, or have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance and/or setting of any of the following:
Listed Buildings
Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other important archaeological sites;
Historic Parks or Gardens;
Conservation Areas
Proposals which would lead to the enhancement of any of these features will generally be encouraged provided there is no significant conflict with any other relevant policies in this plan
This proposal has a significant adverse effect on both the neighbouring listed building and our Conservation Area.
The District Strategy document goes on to state:
5.4.1 The two main themes of the plan are sustainability and accessibility.
This is one of the least accessible sites in the county, bounded by 2 severely weight restricted bridges and extremely narrow roads, which will constrain construction activity and cause extreme disruption to the whole village during the building phase, if allowed to go ahead.
Furthermore, the AVDC adopted policy states:
5.4.4 Policy GP.53 is a comprehensive summary of the importance Aylesbury Vale District Council gives to its designated conservation areas:
‘GP.53 In Conservation Areas the Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special characteristics that led to the designation of the area. Proposals for development will not be permitted if they cause harm to the character or appearance of Conservation Areas, their settings or any associated views of or from the Conservation Area. Proposals for development or redevelopment must respect the historic layout, scale and form of buildings, street patterns, open spaces, and natural features in the Conservation Area that contribute to its character and appearance.
Proposals for alterations, extensions and changes of use must respect and complement the character, materials and design details of the structure and site concerned and its neighbours.
This development has a layout, scale and form which is utterly alien, not just to our village, but to almost all villages in the District. Zinc roofs don’t meet this materials policy guideline, and there are no 3 storey buildings nearby.
The arguments stated by AVDC Planning dept against the recent planning application 10/01522, some 100 yards from this site, apply in far stronger measure to this application, namely:
‘The setting of the listed double lock that marks the beginning of the Aylesbury Arm of the canal and the setting of the listed canal side building adjacent to the lock known as Bridgeways will be adversely affected by the proposal as it will take away from the rural character of their wider surrounds through the construction of an extension of inappropriate form and appearance relative to the sensitive character of the locality.’
‘policy GP.35 states that new development proposals should respect building tradition, ordering, form and context. The local plan also notes that the development of land adjacent to a Conservation Area (CA) can have a material effect on the character of the Conservation Area and as a result such proposals need to respect its setting in terms of design even though they are outside the designated boundary.
Further to the above the proposal is seen as an incursion into countryside causing development to extend beyond the built up limits of the village (para 10.48). This expansion of development into countryside will have a negative effect on the rural character of the canal-side environment as the Council recognises the amenity potential of the canals in its area and seeks to protect their amenity (para 4.206).’
Interestingly, BWB have commented on application 10/01522:
‘one of our concerns would be the potential impact of this development on the views from the towpath and the canal itself.’
These arguments strongly support opposition to this proposal from the very people who have recommended it to your Committee.
AVDC’s Leader John Cartwright has stated publicly on 3 Counties Radio , when accused of not always listening to local opinion on planning matters, that the assertion was ‘most unfair, we always listen to the views of the people’. This planning application has no support from anyone in our parish, and huge opposition evidenced by the volume of objections, so why isn’t AVDC listening?
The height reduction in this revised proposal is 0.75m, only 7% less than the previous application, it is insignificant.
If you are still minded to approve this scheme then we raise again our mitigation proposals, which we strongly feel should be set as planning conditions at the cost of the developer, since Bucks CC has no funds:
a) It is preferred to close Watery Lane, except for pedestrians, horseriders, cyclists and wheelchairs, either at the Aylesbury Arm canal bridge or between there and the entrance to the site. The consensus is that a 1 way system would encourage speeding and increase the danger risk.
b) The speed limit de-restriction signs on both Church and Watery Lanes should be replaced with 20mph limits
c) Additional, more prominent, signs should be placed at the remote entrances to Church and Watery Lanes to emphasise both the road closure and/or the bridge weight restrictions, especially during the construction process.
d) Church Lane should be added to the gritting route during winter, it was impassable over recent weeks and would prevent ordinary vehicles from leaving the site in snow.
e) Particular measures should be taken to ensure that, during the construction phase, vehicles do not block the route or cross the bridges at illegal weights. Villagers have already committed to mount an observation campaign with digital cameras to report and publicise violations. We particularly feel that a condition should be imposed on BWB that most of the heavy materials taken to and from the site during building are done so by barge.
f) The proposal if approved will set a precedent for redevelopment of every commercial site in a conservation area in the county.
Yours Faithfully
Robert Kennedy
Chairman, Marsworth Parish Council
Marsworth PC response to second planning submision:
Marsworth Parish Council
Mrs Dawn Slade, Clerk to the Council
Miswell Farm, Tring
Herts HP23 4JT
01442 824138,
parishclerk@marsworth.org.uk
17th Jan 2011
Dear Sir,
REF: 10/01336/APP
Please be advised that Marsworth Parish Council discussed the revised planning application for Marsworth Yard at the meeting held on 10 Jan 2011. Councillors are aware that the plans vary slightly from the previous application but remain extremely disappointed that their main concerns, and those of many residents, have still not been taken into account, and therefore object for the following reasons.
The reduced height of Block B still leaves it, along with the rest of the proposed buildings, as a major eyesore and over-intensive development within the village’s Conservation Area. The arguments raised by AVDC Planning dept against planning application 10/01522, some 100 yards from this site, apply in even stronger measure to this application, namely:
‘The setting of the listed double lock that marks the beginning of the Aylesbury Arm of the canal and the setting of the listed canal side building adjacent to the lock known as Bridgeways will be adversely affected by the proposal as it will take away from the rural character of their wider surrounds through the construction of an extension of inappropriate form and appearance relative to the sensitive character of the locality.’
‘policy GP.35 states that new development proposals should respect building tradition, ordering, form and context. The local plan also notes that the development of land adjacent to a Conservation Area (CA) can have a material effect on the character of the Conservation Area and as a result such proposals need to respect its setting in terms of design even though they are outside the designated boundary.
Further to the above the proposal is seen as an incursion into countryside causing development to extend beyond the built up limits of the village (para 10.48). This expansion of development into countryside will have a negative effect on the rural character of the canal-side environment as the Council recognises the amenity potential of the canals in its area and seeks to protect their amenity (para 4.206).’
Furthermore BWB have commented on application 10/01522:
‘one of our concerns would be the potential impact of this development on the views from the towpath and the canal itself.’
We do not accept that AVDC Planning or BWB are being consistent in their approach to this development.
The issue of traffic hazard has still not been sufficiently addressed and there is nothing to mitigate the risk to pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists travelling along Church Lane. Our previous contention that the TRICS based analysis, which was used to justify the scale of the development, is flawed because TRICS presumes a normal roadside location rather than the exceptional canal-side site, has not been re-examined at all.
Our criticisms that the over-dense development of the site relative to its neighbourhood and futuristic/industrial style of the new dwellings aren’t in keeping with the surrounding area or the nearby Listed Building have also been ignored. Whilst zinc roofing material may be used on Listed Buildings in industrial areas a more sympathetic roofing style is right for this location and there are no examples of zinc roofing in any other local Buckinghamshire village.
There is a new Localism agenda now, under which Parish Councils and local communities are to have more power to determine how their area will develop, and not have schemes imposed on them externally. Should this scheme be approved it will fly in the face of the strongest opposition from Parishioners and their Council as evidenced by the volume of objections.
If the Development Control Committee determines that this scheme should be approved then we most strongly insist on the following mitigation measures, having had representations from villagers nearest the site:
a) It is preferred to close Watery Lane, except for pedestrians, horseriders, cyclists and wheelchairs, either at the Aylesbury Arm canal bridge or between there and the entrance to the site. The consensus is that a 1 way system would encourage speeding and increase the danger risk.
b) The speed limit de-restriction signs on both Church and Watery Lanes should be replaced with 20mph limits
c) Additional, more prominent, signs should be placed at the remote entrances to Church and Watery Lanes to emphasise both the road closure and/or the bridge weight restrictions, especially during the construction process.
d) Church Lane should be added to the gritting route during winter, it was impassable over recent weeks and would prevent ordinary vehicles from leaving the site in snow.
e) Particular measures should be taken to ensure that, during the construction phase, vehicles do not block the route or cross the bridges at illegal weights. Villagers have already committed to mount an observation campaign with digital cameras to report and publicise violations.
f) There is a history on the site of use of contaminants and these should be fully removed before development takes place.
Yours truly,
Dawn Slade
Clerk to the Council
8. AVDC Report to MPC Meeting December 13th – Cllr. C. Cashman reported that:-
• Marsworth Junction planning application is to be brought back to Development Control early in the New Year following further discussions between AVDC and the developer. Comments can be forwarded to AVDC for consideration
A Councillor raised concerns about the Development Control system in that representations and objections by the Parish Council and local residents seem to have been disregarded. Only the developers and BCC Transport Dept. are in support of the application. This development would be in a Conservation Area yet applications by residents with a view of the Conservation Area have been refused. It would appear that the views of the Parish Council are not listened.
Cllr Cashman replied that concerns by boaters to the original application had been taken into account and there had been no objections to the current plan. This is a brownfield site and as such, has different criteria from a new build. The Development Control Committee has to balance different opinions and comments within the legality of the situation. Engagement was the key to the first plan being withdrawn and the development was considered important enough to be considered by Development Control not just decided by AVDC and British Waterways.
The matter is now referred to AVDC's Development Control Commitee Meeting on 25th November. There is no further right for anyone to speak. The material to be laid before that meeting follows:
After hearing presentations from all parties the Development Control Committee deferred the decision until the next meeting following agreement for members to undertake a site visit on monday November 8th.
The planning decision has been referred to AVDC Development Control Committe for a decision on 4th November at the Oculus, Gatehouse Rd, Aylesbury. AVDC Planning Dept's Report to that committee follows, with conclusion to broadly accept subject to minor variations.
The plans were reviewed at the 12th July PC Meeting and an objection letter is being framed. Beacon Villages Society have notified the Council of their letter of objection.
BWB/H2O have now submitted their revised planning applications under reference nos. 10/01336/APP and 10/01344/ACD. These should be visible on the AVDC website www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk. The plans have been received by the Parish Clerk and will be discussed at the Parish Council Meeting on monday July 12th at 8pm.
Press Release – Marsworth For publication in the Bucks Herald on Wednesday 30 June
Improved Plans for Marsworth Yard
British Waterways has submitted revised plans for Marsworth Yard following the withdrawal of a previous application for the demolition of all buildings on the site to be replaced with 14 new homes. The new planning application has been comprehensively revised in order to respond positively to the concerns that were raised about the previous application. It proposes 13 residential units and improves on the previous submission by:
· Retaining and refurbishing the historic carpenter’s workshop and converting it to residential use
· Refurbishing the operational crane and retaining it in its current position.
· Reducing the number of units from 14 new houses to 12 plus the conversion of the workshop.
· Reducing the proposed floorspace by over 13% (a reduction of over 15% compared to existing structures on the site).
· Retaining and upgrading the existing boater’s facilities, including the provision of new pump out facilities.
· Creating a sense of openness along the main canal frontage and retaining the wharf facilities.
The revised scheme has been submitted following discussions with English Heritage and officers at Aylesbury Vale District Council. British Waterways has also engaged with Marsworth Parish Council and held two exhibitions in April to enable the local community to view and comment on the emerging proposals.
Aiden Johnson-Hugill, British Waterways Development Manager, said: “The amended proposals respond positively to the concerns that were raised with our previous application. The revised scheme will regenerate an existing, unsightly brownfield site with a high quality development that would enhance the character and appearance of the Marsworth Conservation Area. The redevelopment of the site would also generate much needed revenue for British Waterways to reinvest in the canal network”.
As expected a revised Planning Application has now been submitted. We are not yet aware of its content but will report after the next Parish Council Meeting
Corry Cashman has informed us that it is very likely BWB/H2O will submit a fresh planning application in the period 15th June to 15th July. It is not known to what extent, if any, this may differ from the proposals at their recent 'consultations'.
The Parish Council meeting on May 10 was attended by a deputation from British Waterways to discuss the outcome of the recent public consultation in the village about the revised proposal for 13 homes with 34 car parking spaces at Marsworth Yard.
The Parish Council were pleased that the carpenters' workshop has been retained in the revised plans, but were particularly unhappy about the number of homes still in the plan, and the proposed zinc roofs.
The British Waterways team responded that fewer larger houses would be "difficult to market" and that they would be "progressing with the existing approach."
The timber cladding of western red cedar has now been changed to the more "indigenous" black stained larch, which would "provide a stronger contrast with the white brick", especially with the split between the floors. BW felt that zinc roofs would look better now with the black stained larch and that zinc gave a light feeling to the buildings, made the homes more marketable and was not a cheap option.
However, Parish Council Chairman Bob Kennedy expressed a strong opinion in favour of slate as a roofing material, backed by other members and asked why zinc roofs should be "foisted on us", especially if they were not cheaper.
The discussion then moved to traffic and the fact that Church Lane is the route to the recreation ground. There was concern that the people living on the development would treat the lanes as suburban roads and would be using the lanes when pedestrians would also want to use them.
The last survey had been biased in British Waterways' favour, the Parish Council felt and Evan Kempster referred to the fact that an application for a marina off Watery Lane was rejected on the grounds that '20 vehicles/week would be too many'.
The BW team said that the departure of British Waterways from the site would reduce heavy traffic, but the Parish Council did not feel this was significant.
The Parish Council stated they were in favour of development, but reiterated that fewer, larger houses would be more acceptable. The BW team said they did not think planners would accept such a scheme, so it was felt that the meeting with BW had ended in something of an impasse.
GKA/BWB arranged a public meeting in the Village Hall on the afternoon of saturday April 17th, repeated in the White Lion on tuesday 20th. The next 2 pages summarise the revised proposed scheme and the 3rd page is a comments sheet for interested parties to make comments either by post or e-mail.
On Thursday March 11th GKA met with Parish Council representatives and outlined their next scheme for consultation. Key aspects of that scheme were:
No retention of any BWB presence on the site, all residential new development.
The old stone building would be retained after conversion, as would the crane, but zinc roofs are still preferred by the architect..
Smaller amount of built area but still 14 dwellings and associated parking spaces.
Canal user disposal facilities retained and linked to mains drainage.
The PC advised their strong preference for 4-6 larger dwellings which would generate less traffic, but still be financially attractive for BWB - they will re-evaluate.
No-one from Marsworth liked zinc roofs
BWB have now appointed GKA of Aylesbury to formulate their revised planning application and consultations are to take place during March 2010 with the Parish Council, and subsequently the public in an open meeting in late March - date to be advised.
A number of residents have got together to form the “Marsworth Junction Interest Group”, with the objective of entering into discussions with British Waterways and/or their developers regarding the development of the Marsworth Yard / Fencrete site. Their next meeting will be at Horseshoe Cottage on Church Lane, in the evening of March 17th. Everyone is invited, please contact John White, Bob Knight, Sandra Costello or Richard Booth for further information.The former Fencrete and BWB site by Watery Lane at the junction of the Aylesbury Arm and Grand Union Canal was the subject of a Planning Application by H2O, agents of BWB. The proposed scheme, which lies within the Village’s Conservation Area, constituted 14 dwellings with 40 car park spaces for scheme residents, and involved the re-routing of a footpath. It also removed the existing water supply and sewage disposal facility for canal users. Full details of the application can be seen on AVDC’s planning website
http://eplanning.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/applications/planning_details.htm
09/01945/APP is the planning application reference. Click on the Related Documents tab to see detailed plans and drawings. The scheme was discussed at the Parish Council’s next meeting on Monday December 14th and the Parish Council sent in an objecting response taking into account the views of the majority of villagers. There were over 130 other objections from individuals, canal users and local groups. Following AVDC's advice to BWB that their application would be refused BWB withdrew it and will re-submit after further consultation with local parties.