O/T We'll fight them on the prom

[Keith]

Truth, this marina that would bring more money in to the town than building homes for above average wage earners, tell us more about your proposal...

For starters, where would you put it? In my mind, I can see two possibilities. Firstly a road to Barrow, making a huge hydro electric dam, with water in the bay 24/7. Environmentally sound while an ecological disaster. Clean energy at the expense of cockle beds for example? Not sure where the money for such a project would come from but I'd guess it was slightly outside US's pockets. But as all they did was coordinate grants, without risk to themselves, perhaps you could take on the role yourself? Think of the profits you could make! It's been talked about for long enough, probably the only project in Morecambe that's been talked about for longer than people have talked about doing up the Winter Gardens!

Or, it could be a traditional smaller marina around the stone jetty? Have you noticed something about Morecambe Bay? It's easily missed if you aren't paying attention... when the water goes out, it goes out a long way... and it stays out for a long time! This second idea would mean that boat skippers would have to come in on the tide and go out on the tide, unless you are looking only to attract little tidlers? So what would attract the thirty or so boat owners to come to a tidal marina (apart from the high class shops, bars and cafes that the town currently has? Oh, and the view from the Winter Gardens restaurant, unspoiled by US development... also unopened of course...)

And if a marina were to be built... atracting £1,000`s of pounds worth of watercraft - each mostly in excess of £30,000 most likely - where are the owners likely to shop - hitchins and woolworths? - I think not
That is where the new development comes in surely.
Upmarket shops,restaurants, hotels and entertainment venues to either attract or service existing well healed clientele.

Chicken and egg here. Exactly my point. Build the marina first then that creates the commercial viability for the shops, restaurants, hotel etc. Building the marina is investment in Morecambe but US dont appear to want to do that. Why not?

BUT... It's not 'chicken & egg'... The marina would enhance an area that is already developed in a high class way. The marinas on the Mersey & Manchester Ship Canal came AFTER the high quality housing, and general area improvement, not before it! Picture yourself as an entrepreneur, looking to invest to create a high quality restaurant. Would you want to put it in one of the cheap clothing emporiums that currently fill units on the prom? No (if you've any sense) because there isn't the clientèle available to make it a success. If there was a marina with a maximum of thirty very expensive boats moored, would you then? Still no, because your clientèle remains very limited, of the thirty perhaps three will have people on board at any one time, except at weekends when you might have ten because most rich people who have a big boat also have a big house that they actually live in.

If you, as that entrepreneur see a development of hundreds of high quality flats being built within walking distance, then your consideration for investment probably changes. You have a year round pool of potential customers within easy walking distance. Those customers don't currently exist in Morecambe, if they did, the investment in quality would already be there. Most people who live in Morecambe go to Lancaster for a night out. If I want to go for a meal when I'm in the area, I can think of possibly two places that I'd consider in Morecambe, and one of those is 'cheap' (but good).

So, you can build your marina, which because of the lack of quality in the rest of the town and the hassle of getting in and out, will sit three quarters empty, and then you can watch the councillors all trying to distance themselves from another project that eats into the area's council tax as it loses money year on year. Why does your proposal breaks the 'chicken & egg'? How will your marina fill the town with wealthy boat owners in February? How can Morecambe be prosperous by returning to a time when people were attracted to visit the town instead of Morecambe being prosperous by attracting people to live in the town?

Can explain why I'm seeing this completely wrong?

And lastly, now then Mr S...

Either tell us what we have got wrong or shut up about it.

Truth is as entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else!!! Unlike him, I don't think we should place restrictions upon people expressing an opinion!

[Phoenix]

Keith, when someone claims I have posted "disinfo" I would appreciate being told what disinfo I or anyone else has posted. Truth hasn't backed up the claim so far and that's what I was referring to.

I suggest that you read this weeks letters page in the Visitor Phoenix, and before you make any further allegations on a public forum please make sure its true.

Anything in particular I am looking for? I do not think the local papers are failing and the council can't have failed yet because the plans haven't even been considered. Truth, did you not see Evelyn's headline re Promenade Development? The headline itself is the title of this thread. You call that failing?

and before you make any further allegations on a public forum please make sure its true.

That's quite an accusation and you haven't offered any detail. Rather than hint I've done something wrong perhaps you could remind me what it is I need to check my facts about.

[Truth]

Anything in particular I am looking for?

Read the letters to the ed page in The Visitor 16/7/ edition. Maybe its on the Visitor website!

I do not think the local papers are failing and the council can't have failed yet because the plans haven't even been considered. Truth,

Well if they are not failing tell us whats the full content of the Partnership agreement between the Council and US. Ask your local councillor if they can reveal the content and come back and reveal its content particularly the extent of residential land use that it permits. As I have stated previously why is the Agreement not on the site?

did you not see Evelyn's headline re Promenade Development? The headline itself is the title of this thread. You call that failing?

I suspect that headline was composed by the Visitor not Cllr Archer!

If there are any professionally qualified local Chartered Surveyors reading this who are local ratepayers and care about the area could they inform the community here what the approximate land valuation of the public asset (owned by us ratepayers) re: the Central Promenade area is with planning permission for 500 plus residential units?

[Truth]

Truth is as entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else!!!

Thanx for that Site Admin appreciate the level playing field here!

Unlike him, I don't think we should place restrictions upon people expressing an opinion

I've placed no restrictions and stated anything otherwise unless you can produce evidence to show otherwise.

What I have stated is:-

1. the ratepayers of Lancaster/Morecambe comprse the electorate of what happens to that land.

2. opinion needs to be based on the full facts and truth.

Unlike him

??????

[Phoenix]

What I have stated is:-

that we are spreading disinfo yet you still cannot tell us what disinfo we are spreading.

Thanx for that Site Admin appreciate the level playing field here!

I like the level playing field as well, something my councillor can't give me.

As I have stated previously why is the Agreement not on the site?

Just because we live in the internet age, doesn't mean everything has to be online. Have you asked your councillor?

Not being in town this week, I didn't buy the Visitor. The main reason for buying it is to find out whether there's anything to do this weekend. By the time my feet had landed back in Morecambe, my weekend was decided so I saved the cash, and a bin full of car & house ad paper to recycle.

[Phoenix]

OK, I've read 4 letters on the visitor web site and they give a balanced opinion of the development, for & against. I agree with the editor's reply to one of them that implied they were biased towards an in-favour vote. The Visitor appear to be staying neutral, not sure about the Citizen

The 3 main points I have had lectured to me so far are;

1) The view will be ruined. I have an online gallery of "views from the promenade" which some people claim will be ruined - it was put online within days of the visitor headline. Like I said earlier, the view a councillor claims will be ruined is not a view us mortals have seen. It's the view from a restaurant which neither exists nor has planning permission from the top floor of a theatre that has been closed for 31 years and still has no proposed opening date.

2) The road will be narrowed restricting emergency access. Yes, it will be narrowed. As narrow as the council has made the rest of the promenade.

3) There will be two-way traffic on the promenade. Yes, there wil be, just like we have already.

If people are going to object to the development, the least they can do is get their facts right and present them in an open manner.

Truth, one thing we seem to agree on is that our councillors are not exactly being honest and open about a lot of things. I'll concede that one

[Keith]

I've placed no restrictions and stated anything otherwise unless you can produce evidence to show otherwise.

is owned by the ratepayers of Morecambe and Lancaster so isurely its the majority decision of this group that should decide on how the land is developed if US has not purchased it, not out of town Morecambe FC supporters.

Unlike him??????

oops, 'him or her'...

[Phoenix]

At least my MP has left me voicemail assuring me she will make sure my opinion is heard.

You still waiting Keith?

[North Stand Shrimp]

Well what a juicy thread to join in with for my first post on the new forum!
Now that Question Time has finished for it's current run I know where to come for some lively debate!

I must admit when I first saw the artists impression for the next phase of the US development of the prom, I thought oh dear what about the view! I, like Evelyn, would have argued that putting a 3-storey building on the seaward side of the prom would endanger the greatest assett of Morecambe, the unbroken view of the bay and the lake district beyond. However after actually going down the prom to the kite festival and seeing for myself the "View" that would be "spoiled" I have to agree with Pheonix, there isn't much of one from the Winter Gardens and that reservation has completely gone in my mind.

I think US have to be forgiven for trying to make some money out of this project, after all they are not a charity and to even be contemplating building housing in this climate is a massive risk. Sure land of this size, location and with planning consent in theory has a massive value to a housing developer. What has to be considered though is this;

a) If it wasn't for US would the Midland still be falling apart and at risk of being lost forever?
- Most probably
b) would US have redeveloped the Midland without an agreement to also be the redeveloper for the old Bath's area?
- Most probably not.

Therefore, if you don't want US to develop anything on that land you are also saying that you wanted the Midland to remain a crumbling eyesore.

You can argue till the cows come about whether or not the view will be spoiled, thats a matter of opinion and focal point, and you can bicker about the deals that were done or not done and finances of the project but what it comes down to is this. If US do not get the go ahead for doing something that is financially worth their while a bitter taste will not just be left in their mouths but a black mark will put against Morecambe for all future redevelopments.

I think our councillor, Evelyn, is going about things the wrong way. She needs to take a step back and look at the wider picture and what the ramifications are for the resort if she gets it the way she wants. I put this to her, instead of saying NO NO NO, why not try and meet US half way and put forward some comprimises.

a) instead of one big block of a 3-storey building why not sugest to space out a few blocks of 2-storey buildings.
b) sensitive landscaping to encoporate the buildings into its surroundings.
c) a better residential to recreation and hosipitality percentage.
d) a commitment to set aside some space for future festvals etc.

It worries me emensely that we have a councillor who is so biased. I don't disagree that we need people like her to protect our best interests, but surely our best interests are for further redevelopment of Morecambe that takes the local peoples needs and wants into consideration. By being so biasd and against US she is isolating herself from any involvment in the project if it gets the go ahead. This leads me to think that she does not have the best interest of everyone in Morecambe in mind but the interests of the Winter Gardens, a few NIMBYS and her own political agenda.

[Phoenix]

North Stand, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. Have you used the council's planning site to make your feelings known to the planning office?

I still drive down the prom on my way to work (well out of my way but I enjoy it) and I keep looking for a view that would be spoiled. Haven't found one yet that won't be replaced.

Someone's commented on facebook that it's becoming apparent those in favour are at the younger end of the scale and those against at the older end. True?

The full title is Evelyn Archer, cabinet member with responsibility for regeneration in Morecambe

[campdave]

The "view" is already "spoiled" by the presence of the Midland Hotel. Those arguing about the "view" being broken never seem to mention that.

I fail to see how it will be further degraded by the addition of other buildings of architectural merit. Those wanting to sample the "view" will just have to walk a couple of hundred metres down the prom to enjoy it.

[North Stand Shrimp]

Someone's commented on facebook that it's becoming apparent those in favour are at the younger end of the scale and those against at the older end. True?

I'm 28 and in favour, my parents are in favour and my grandparents are in favour. I'd say there is more of a wider demographic that support it and a narrow demographic of the older generation that are against it. The problem is, and I really don't want to offend anyone here but the older generation, maybe retired with time on their hands are the ones that put the time and effort into making their voices heard and so the younger generation have to put up with decisions made for them based on the opinions of a very narrow demographic! I wish I had the time to stand in the arndale all week and canvas for support but I have a job! unless both sides of an arguement are represented equally and you have a balanced and fair debate in the open your not going to get anywhere.

[Posh]

I find the tone of 'Truth's' comment incredibly negative and actually makes me support the scheme even more. If Urban Splash can regenerate a key part of Morecambe and make money out of it then good on them. No other company has been willing or able to so I'm all for it.

BTW has Morecambe FC paid back that ten year £200k interest free loan given by Lancaster City Council ratepayers for Christie Park ground improvements yet?

This takes the biscuit though.

As I understand it, from MFC's annual report the loan has been re-paid in full two years ago.

So that means.

MFC - £200,000 City Council loan re-paid in full
Winter Gardens - £180,000 loan not a single penny paid and loan written off in full

Urban Splash - Bought site, raised funds, hotel completed in three years
Winter Gardens - Derelict still with little funds after 31 years and just a jumble sale inside

I know who I'm backing and it ain't the amateurs tinkering with Morecambe's future.

Finally, Evelyn Archer should be sacked as the cabinet member with responsbility for regeneration. If she openly campaigns against the largest single private sector investment in Morecambe without engaging in dialogue and only attacks them then she shouldn't be in her role.

[Phoenix]

In the world of politics, who are we supposed to believe? On one hand we get

Hopes for Term in Office: To encourage private enterprise into Morecambe I would like to see work on the M6 link road started, which is important to encourage private enterprise in Morecambe and is vital for its encouragement. I would also like the Winter Gardens and the Midland to become viable propositions, and I hope that Morecambe can become a respected town once again and not a dumping ground for all the undesirables. Most of all I hope to see all the Councillors working together for the good of the beautiful area in which we live, instead of allowing party politics to get in the way.
http://committeeadmin.lancaster.gov.uk/ ... sp?UID=911

and on the other

For the motion that Lancaster City Council should reject the northern link.

Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barnes, Budden, Burns, Chapman, Coates, Dennison, Farrow, Gerrard, Greenall, Heath, Kay, Kerr, Knight, McCulloch, Marsland, Plumb, Stamp, Taylor, Trolinger, Wade, John Whitelegg, Maia Whitelegg and Woodruff.

All current 11 MBI members of the council are in that list, what a coincidence.

[Joel Ninety]

Someone's commented on facebook that it's becoming apparent those in favour are at the younger end of the scale and those against at the older end. True?

I am 23, and spent 19 years living in the town. The other 4 were in Liverpool at university, in a city that has eventually managed to finish building something in the centre despite the genetic laziness of Scousers (joke).

The way I see it, the objectors are most likely the older generations soon to expire. If they object to any future developments that may revitalise the town and then die the day we are left with a festering dump for the rest of time. It is the younger people that will have to live in the town in years to come, so why hold them back? Where are the jobs going to come from? Not everyone wants to work in a burger bar or as a telemarketer? There is no industry here anymore except for the power station, but what happens when they are decommissioned? Since Storeys and Lansil closed there have been a lot of people struggling to find work. Where are the jobs going to come from? Retail parks? Someone who has worked in a factory for 20-30 years is not going to want to work as a shop assistant in Next.

We need the link road, but one way or another that is not going to happen.
The result - Morecambe is difficult to access.

We need Urban Splash or some other nationally/internationally respected design and architecture firm to help regenerate the town and make it interesting. But this gets knocked back.
The result - Nobody wants to move to the town, there is no interest in building more industry and jobs. The people who want good careers move away.

Let's think about what brings people to the town: the sea, the view, it is near the Lakes, the Midland Hotel (now), the Eric Morecambe statue.

All of these are constants except the latter. What happens when TV stops showing Morecambe and Wise re-runs? What happens when all the people who are fond of or remember His work kick the bucket? It becomes just another statue in a small town. Sorry to blaspheme but it is true. Now, I quite like Morecambe and Wise and appreciate its charm, but tastes do change. I'm sure eventually (I sincerely hope) that the bourgeoisie will realise that Ricky Gervais and Russell Brand are talentless schmoes peddling guttertripe to braying morons and stop paying them so much money to be on TV. Will Reading and Grays respectively put up statues in their honour? Also with regards the Winter Gardens, when/if the restoration finishes is the plan to recreate the 1930s style entertainments or push things forward? Vaudeville is so over darlings.

I imagine this diatribe will be taken the wrong way, but I am offering an opinion. I like Morecambe, and if there was something for me I would have stayed, and maybe one day will move back. I don't expect it to become akin to the Futurama or the 1939 New York Worlds Fair, but I would like some progress.

One thing I will say, though, is that Urban Splash should integrate a better system in association with the RNLI Lifeboats for accessing the water with the hovercraft. If we are to have a marina we'll need to be able to save the rich people when they fall of their yachts.

[Phoenix]

I imagine this diatribe will be taken the wrong way, but I am offering an opinion.

Excellent opinion and realistic. I'm very fortunate enough to be employed by a company founded on Storey redundancy money over 25 years ago and still going strong, bought out recently but still based in the heart of Lancaster.

Plans are already under way for the hovercraft to be based on the promenade and not reliant on a truck to get it to the water.

[shrimper]

[
We need the link road, but one way or another that is not going to happen.
The result - Morecambe is difficult to access.

I wouldn't bet against the road happening.


"Ricky Gervais and Russell Brand are talentless schmoes"

Ricky's a comedy superstar... Brand, I agree with you

One thing I will say, though, is that Urban Splash should integrate a better system in association with the RNLI Lifeboats for accessing the water with the hovercraft. If we are to have a marina we'll need to be able to save the rich people when they fall of their yachts.

http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecambe-news/New-home-for-Hovercraft-step.3088824.jp

[Joel Ninety]

I can't agree with you about Ricky Gervais. He's a fat, sweating monkey with no talent. He is Stephen Merchant's puppet.

And excellent news about the hovercraft, that's sorted then.

[shrimper]

We'll have to agree to disagree - fair enough.

[Joel Ninety]

Yes we will. Now that was a very civil disagreement wasn't it?

[Truth]

Has anyone managed to successfully navigate the Councils Planning applications and digest the detail in the associated documents yet?

The two applications 07/01810/OUT and 07/01811/FUL were submitted to the Council on 21/12/07 so why at the eleventh hour is the detail only just appearing (and incorrectly) in the local press?

The deadline for receipt of objections is the 4th August.

The site area is 6.57 hectares.

Check out the drawings on page 4 & 5 to see the extent of the high rise and the application form on page 4 for the land use details. Theres very little detail on leisure and retail. Its basically a high rise high density promenade housing estate.

The six flat blocks with small retail units on the ground floor each get steadily higher as they approach the prom. All start at five storeys high. The three nearest the Midland reach a maximum of six storeys, the fourth a maximum of seven storeys and the fifth and sixth a maximum of eight storeys.

The complete outline application (i.e all phases completed) indicates the a total number of 533 units comprising:-

live/work units:- 22
1 bed flats/maisonettes:- 246
2 bed flats/maisonettes:- 91
bedsit/studios:- 174

In this weeks Visitor (page 6/7 it shows the masterplan but gives no information on the extent of the high rise development and states:- the entire dvelopment consists of 381 flats, 130 additional rooms in a possible Midland Hotel 2, 22 beach houses, 8 commercial units and 616 car park spaces 493 of which are private.

The Visitor also reports that US intend to start on site at the end of 2008 and finish in 2016.

Theres a bit of a discrepancy in the Visitors figures. Its disinfo, why?

On the site there is a lower floor (basement) to accomodate the car parking.

On page 4 of the application Urban splash have responded as follows to the following questions:-

Is the site within an area of known flooding? The response: "yes"

Will the proposal increase the flood risk elsewhere? The response: "unknown"

Proposal to connect to existing sewer? The response: "unknown"

If these proposals are what the majority of local ratepayers want for this publicly owned asset lets put the land up for sale strictly for the proposed use accepted and invite all local and national propert developers to submit their highest bid. At least ratepayers would then get something back and maybe this would give us a relief from the consistent inflation busting council tax rises and service cuts from the Town Hall.

We )local ratepayers) have been conned.

Peace & truth

[Phoenix]

Nitpicking at it's best.

Truth, if you're expecting the local papers to carry the planning docs in their entirety, forget it. They tend to leave detailed planning details to the planning office. Has anyone navigated the planning docs - Do you not read anything I type? You do but you choose to ignore some of it for your own purposes.

You've failed to respond to any questions put to you simply choosing to ignore them and move on to other issues. Now you're attacking the visitor, a fairly pathetic attempt to cover your own disinfo.

If you want to give out the detail, why fail to mention the lower buildings, choosing only to highlight the larger ones?

Take a wander down sandylands promenade and see what the council have already allowed to be built on the promenade and check out the houses whose view across the bay has been lost. Precendent?

Flood plain? My house is built on a flood plain, the boundary for which was defined long before it was built in 1946. The government are happy to allow property built on flood plains because of all the recent work to turn them into dry plains, like morecambe promenade. It's a non-starter as an objection.

Take a look at the online planning apps you mention, take a look at some of the mass-produced objection letters. It takes some time to find any with a bit of detail or fact.

If you want the real truth, how about this. The majority in favour aren't bothered that the visitor got something slightly wrong. They're not bothered just how tall the tallest building is. They're not bothered a family of pink newts might have to move house. They're not bothered a bit of rarely used grass will be dug up. They want to see some development in the town, something to give this town a future. They even want a bypass.

What the majority don't want are councillors promising one thing and delivering the opposite. They don't want disinfo from a councillor.

[North Stand Shrimp]

Has anyone managed to successfully navigate the Councils Planning applications and digest the detail in the associated documents yet?

Yes.

The two applications 07/01810/OUT and 07/01811/FUL were submitted to the Council on 21/12/07 so why at the eleventh hour is the detail only just appearing (and incorrectly) in the local press? The deadline for receipt of objections is the 4th August.

11th Hour? is 2 weeks not enough time to read few extra pages?

Its basically a high rise high density promenade housing estate.[/b][/u]

The six flat blocks with small retail units on the ground floor each get steadily higher as they approach the prom. All start at five storeys high. The three nearest the Midland reach a maximum of six storeys, the fourth a maximum of seven storeys and the fifth and sixth a maximum of eight storeys.

I think this is an area that needs contending, but that can be done with carefull negotiation instead of turning the whole application down, let them come back with some ammendments.

The Visitor also reports that US intend to start on site at the end of 2008 and finish in 2016.

I admit a building site on the prom for 8 years doesn't look brill but, the egyptians put up with a building site on the doorstep of Cairo for 25 years and look what they have now! just how much money do the Pyramids bring in?

On page 4 of the application Urban splash have responded as follows to the following questions:-

Is the site within an area of known flooding? The response: "yes"

Will the proposal increase the flood risk elsewhere? The response: "unknown"

Proposal to connect to existing sewer? The response: "unknown"

I don't quite get what your trying to point out here? It's the sea font and anything within 500 metres is in a known flood plain because of historic storm flooding but the sea defences have been inproved. I would sugest that these are standard questions on a planning application that are more to do with river flood plains. the answer "unknown" is justifyed because the question isn't really relevent.

If these proposals are what the majority of local ratepayers want for this publicly owned asset lets put the land up for sale strictly for the proposed use accepted and invite all local and national propert developers to submit their highest bid. At least ratepayers would then get something back and maybe this would give us a relief from the consistent inflation busting council tax rises and service cuts from the Town Hall.

I would completely agree with you here if it wasn't for the fact that US have already completed Phase 1 of what was always going to be a 2 phase development. This concern should have been raised long ago but people were more than happy to be getting the Midland done up and didn't bother thinking ahead. Whats done is done and as I pointed out in my earlier post US would not have done up the Midland without that 2nd Phase being a given!

As far as inflated Council tax bills, we have only the central government to blame! 3/4 of council funding comes from central government and only 1/4 is raised through council tax. councils were told to make £3Bn in efficiency savings and managed to save £6Bn. What do the government do in response? They reduce the centralised funding, which means our council tax stays the same or has to go up because the council are receiving less from central government, And they offer a below inflationary pay rise to all it's employees. if this was a private business all the Shareholders, Us, would get a dividend and the employees a bonus! The Government are a disgrace.

[Phoenix]

I would completely agree with you here if it wasn't for the fact that US have already completed Phase 1 of what was always going to be a 2 phase development. This concern should have been raised long ago but people were more than happy to be getting the Midland done up and didn't bother thinking ahead. Whats done is done and as I pointed out in my earlier post US would not have done up the Midland without that 2nd Phase being a given!

A very important point often ignored, glazed over or forgotten to be mentioned by the critics. I think I put it slightly more bluntly much earlier in this thread, if my actual words haven't been edited

[maggy]

The independents did have concerns years ago when cabinet let urban splash take the prom site it was the independents who called the decision in. also Archer did not vote in planning for the midland to be redeveloped and Kerr was the only to abstain
expressed concern about `the bigger picture'. Cllr David Kerr said: "It will look absolutely fabulous and I love the proposal but there is no reference to the Morecambe Action Plan and the overall project, which concerns me because we need to think about the whole area."
However, not everyone was happy about the plans.
"It looks absolutely superb but we're not hearing anything about what will be developed on the site beside the hotel and what the total cost will be," said Coun David Kerr who abstained in the vote.
"This is probably the most expensive land in the area. The problem is if we grant permission today but refuse their future plans - will they just abandon the whole thing?"