Bulbourne Yard - Proposed changes.

[LEO]

Hi,

 

Plans have been submitted to Aylesbury Vale Council for planning consent for changes to the Bulbourne Yard.

 

A more sympathetic approach has been adopted as there are a number of buildings worth protecting.

 

Conversion of some and renovation of others will result in 35 residential units being created.

 

The Blacksmith will be re-located, this will be interesting as the mixture of 'smithing' and residential is not an ideal mix.

 

Not sure if the lovely small rail unit for handling heavy goods will be retained.

 

A new pedestrian bridge will be built over the canal (like the one at Marsworth) and some moorings created (non-residential, short term).

 

Car parking will be limited and property owners will be limited to one car?-------------not sure how this will be policed - a new kind of Enforcement Officer perhaps.

 

I have not seen the plans and have no reference numbers.

 

L.

[koukouvagia]

Does this development include plans for the abandoned house adjacent to the yard?

 

Lets hope that the inappropriate shiny steel blacksmith's sign doesn't feature in the new design.

[Tuscan]

It's a real shame that CRT didn't take the opportunity of turning this into a heritage site using the abandoned house at the end, used to be envious of their garden years ago. The problem with developing the site previously I thought was the difficulty of road access.

[LEO]

More information, including updated plans are available on

 

http://www.marsworth.org.uk

 

Or Google - Marsworth News, click on Planning News.

 

Proposals are good, car parking has been increased and it is proposed to renovate the detached house at the end (Yard Captain's House). Some short term moorings are included.

 

A 'dig' round on the site, takes one to an article providing a history of the yard area, with some interesting maps dating from 1811.

 

There are also planning notes on the White Lion, Marsworth, with consent to turn the main building into 2 units. The car park would be retained for further development.

 

A friend 'snuffling' through the junk stand at Shakerstone unearthed a good photo, approx (10x9) of the Yard Captain's House and Garden taken about 1990, looks good - yours for a tenner (proceeds to Charity).

 

L

[CDS]

Sadly where land with canal frontage is involved its more often than not

all about the residential aspect.Milton Keynes though without the same

heritage apects as Bulbourne is another example with Newlands just south

of Campbell Park being zoned for " Executive Housing "none for Social Needs.

This is down to the Parks Trust rather than CRT meanwhile the Milton Keynes

Labour administration who borrowed heavily to acquire the meadow on the

opposite bank have in conjunction with Crest Nicholson more proposals for

yes you guessed it more executive housing.How long before we have some prat

with 2.5 company BMW,s complaining about the smoke from the squirrel and we

will have the situation at Giffard Park once again.

[LEO]

Sadly where land with canal frontage is involved its more often than not

all about the residential aspect.Milton Keynes though without the same

heritage apects as Bulbourne is another example with Newlands just south

of Campbell Park being zoned for " Executive Housing "none for Social Needs.

This is down to the Parks Trust rather than CRT meanwhile the Milton Keynes

Labour administration who borrowed heavily to acquire the meadow on the

opposite bank have in conjunction with Crest Nicholson more proposals for

yes you guessed it more executive housing.How long before we have some prat

with 2.5 company BMW,s complaining about the smoke from the squirrel and we

will have the situation at Giffard Park once again.

 

I can see your point, but here I think protection of the buildings is an important factor. To achieve this a high quality/Value development has to be undertaken.

 

From a social housing point of view this development is well way from any amenities and the frontage to the canal, possibly without secure fencing would put off families with children, making the site unsuitable.

 

Smoke from Squirrels and Beamers - tricky, owners of both are prats if the situation cannot be resolved without negotiation, as said the important thing here is to protect these important canalside buildings.

 

Watch out for them in Call the Midwife next year ......

 

L

[BlueStringPudding]

Sadly where land with canal frontage is involved its more often than not

all about the residential aspect.Milton Keynes though without the same

heritage apects as Bulbourne is another example with Newlands just south

of Campbell Park being zoned for " Executive Housing "none for Social Needs.

This is down to the Parks Trust rather than CRT meanwhile the Milton Keynes

Labour administration who borrowed heavily to acquire the meadow on the

opposite bank have in conjunction with Crest Nicholson more proposals for

yes you guessed it more executive housing.How long before we have some prat

with 2.5 company BMW,s complaining about the smoke from the squirrel and we

will have the situation at Giffard Park once again.

Is the borrowing heavily relevant?

[billS]

Is the borrowing heavily relevant?

 

Who cares? It's a good rant...

 

Didn't even stop for punctuation!

Edited October 29, 2015 by billS

[CDS]

Glad you appreciated it Bill.

[Tisinca]

After selling off Marsworth Wharf which is near to Bulbourne here we go again.... the cheapest houses now built on that site are an unaffordable £515,000.. ..........Surely this is just another case of Asset stripping by the trust ???

[valrene9600]

This development has been public since 2012.

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=54462&hl=bulbourne+yard

Very sad to see another site dramatically change.

[ditchcrawler]

After selling off Marsworth Wharf which is near to Bulbourne here we go again.... the cheapest houses now built on that site are an unaffordable £515,000.. ..........Surely this is just another case of Asset stripping by the trust ???

I dont get this affordable statement. If someone buys it its affordable, it may not be affordable to you and me, but it is to someone. I know people where a £10,000 house is not affordable

This development has been public since 2012.

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=54462&hl=bulbourne+yard

Very sad to see another site dramatically change.

But what are they suppose to do with the sites?

Edited October 29, 2015 by ditchcrawler

[valrene9600]

I dont get this affordable statement. If someone buys it its affordable, it may not be affordable to you and me, but it is to someone. I know people where a £10,000 house is not affordable

But what are they suppose to do with the sites?

Unlike the Marsworth site that was just used very little by crt, Bulborne is at least earning some income and is used more by crt staff. Also used to adjust new lock gates and forward them onto local locks by boat. Surely they can't keep disposing assets until a time when they have to start renting premises.

[Tisinca]

I dont get this affordable statement. If someone buys it its affordable, it may not be affordable to you and me, but it is to someone. I know people where a £10,000 house is not affordable

But what are they suppose to do with the sites?

why can't there be some affordable housing for the local people in this development ....So a mortgage of £10,000 over 25 years at 4% works out at £52 a month...um

[Hawthorn]

Has anyone got a planning application ref no. I can't find anything on the AVDC website, under any search criteria; address, weekly or monthly lists, or a map search.

[LEO]

Sorry wrong post.

Edited October 31, 2015 by LEO

[beardshave]

There are public meetings tonight and tomorrow night (betwwen 5pm and 8pm at the yard) on the future of the works and proposed development.

http://bulbourneyard.co.uk/

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/views-sought-on-proposals-for-historic-bulbourne-yard

[alan_fincher]

Rather more detail in what CRT presented to Marsworth Parish council back around September.

 

I'm not sure if there are any detailed differences now between what wa presented then and the latest plans, but it rater looks to me like there are not.

 

Linky

[Hawthorn]

Just realised I was looking in the wrong place, its Dacorum Council. Still can't find it though, so presumable not actually gone to planning yet.

[OldGoat]

Just realised I was looking in the wrong place, its Dacorum Council. Still can't find it though, so presumable not actually gone to planning yet.

If it's anything like here darn sarf - the developer have to have this sort of "consultation" presentation before they apply for PP.

In some ways a bit daft as you're not called on to approve / disapprove of anything at the time.

Some developers go to great lengths to give you a lot of information. There's a bundle of 450Kv (?) cables from a wind farm passing 400yds away from here and the developer has been at great pains to answer all questions. Most impressed.

[WotEver]

If it's anything like here darn sarf - the developer have to have this sort of "consultation" presentation before they apply for PP.

In some ways a bit daft as you're not called on to approve / disapprove of anything at the time.

Some developers go to great lengths to give you a lot of information. There's a bundle of 450Kv (?) cables from a wind farm passing 400yds away from here and the developer has been at great pains to answer all questions. Most impressed.

OT: Amazing contrast against a developer who wanted to put 150 houses on a field close to us. When asked how they would deal with the EHV cables and the pylon which sits to one side of the field the response was that "those sorts of details will be looked at in due course". Planning approval was not granted.

 

Tony

[alan_fincher]

Just realised I was looking in the wrong place, its Dacorum Council. Still can't find it though, so presumable not actually gone to planning yet.

 

I'm confused now!

 

Bulbourne is in Herts, so I would expect it to be Dacorum, but equally Marsworth Parish council also looks after Bulbourne, and Marsworth is in Bucks, and planning there comes under Aylesbury Vale.

 

I don't understand the very first post in this thread that suggests plans were submitted to AVDC in September, because materials at tonight's meeting at Bulbourne Yard suggested a planning application will only be made following the current consultation exercise.

 

I thought I saw AVDC referred to in respect of planning, but I may simply have imagined that, because until I thought about it, that is what I would have assumed it would say (!)

[LEO]

Hi,

The county boundary is the canal at Bulbourne running down to Marsworth, so the buildings are in Bucks and hence the application should be referred to AVDC.

 

The boundary turns east at the bridge so Pitstone is also in Bucks, the Grand Junction is in Hertfordshire.

 

There was some confusion back in September with a Marsworth PC meeting reported in the local paper (Bucks Herald) and after the problems at Marsworth, CaRT want to get this right, so as has suggested by 'OG' extensive consultation with the public is entered into before any application is submitted. Then planning consents are hopefully forthcoming.

 

This looks a good scheme.

 

It is noted that several of the completed houses at the Marsworth development remain unsold - they are priced in the region of £500,000

 

Hope this helps.

 

L

[alan_fincher]

This looks a good scheme.

 

From the point of view of trying to keep an operational BW yard and crane in a housing development, and with three housing units actually proposed on top of part of that operational yard, I'm struggling to see it that way, even if you ignore absolutely every other consideration.

 

I got the impression with Marsworth Wharf that what was initially presented to us was to get most of the objections out the way, before the submitted a plan that looked far more sympathetic, by which stage many of the objectors didn't fancy a "round 2", and hence it went through.

 

To me Marsworth Wharf has ended up very disappointing, as much emphasis was placed on appropriateness of materials, and matching to the village, etc, but the actual result is horribly stark, and quite out of keeping with the site and the nearby village, (in my view,obviously). It is modern housing that would be fine somewhere else, perhaps, but sits very uncomfortably there, (to my eye).

 

I do wonder if they are doing the same at Bulbourne. They know they will get a lot of objections, but a modified scheme will then appear to appease enough of the objectors that they are able to get it through.

 

I think there will be significant issues if what was presented to us tonight actually goes ahead unaltered.

[Mike Todd]

 

I'm confused now!

 

Bulbourne is in Herts, so I would expect it to be Dacorum, but equally Marsworth Parish council also looks after Bulbourne, and Marsworth is in Bucks, and planning there comes under Aylesbury Vale.

 

I don't understand the very first post in this thread that suggests plans were submitted to AVDC in September, because materials at tonight's meeting at Bulbourne Yard suggested a planning application will only be made following the current consultation exercise.

 

I thought I saw AVDC referred to in respect of planning, but I may simply have imagined that, because until I thought about it, that is what I would have assumed it would say (!)

Not sure how things operate in those authorities but here in Cornwall the current arrangement is that informal - free - advice from planning officers to potential applicants is not longer available. It has been replaced by a paid-for system of Pre-App. This allows for the submission of general information in order to get such advice but it does, generally, put the matter into the public domain. Only later is a Planning Application made. In general, much of the consultation takes between these two stages..