What Do We Want At Acle Bridge?

[JennyMorgan]

Just now, MauriceMynah said:

Yes you do !!!   :-)

Oh no I don't!

[MauriceMynah]

Do  

[JennyMorgan]

Just now, MauriceMynah said:

Do  

Don't, and I could prove it!

[MauriceMynah]

Yes you do and no you can't, and My dad's  bigger than yours and you smell of doggy poo and, and, and... I'm telling my mum of you. nerrrrr 

[MauriceMynah]

The NBN. Where you can come for reasoned and adult debate.

[JennyMorgan]

20 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

The NBN. Where you can come for reasoned and adult debate.

Oh no you can't . . . . . . . . . 

 

[JohnK]

Ironically this is far from the worst

[JennyMorgan]

10 hours ago, JohnK said:

Ironically this is far from the worst

Hardly relevant to the debate.

Morris Mynah John has had his bit of harmless fun so back to being serious.

On the surface this looks to be an ambitious plan but is it right for Acle Bridge? 

Might Whitlingham be more suitable?

Apart from dayboats other boats have toilets and most have showers aboard. The existing toilet block on site has been abandoned presumably because of a lack of demand thus do we really need onshore facilities? Nice to have, yes, but really necessary? 

Catering, once again, is it really necessary when the Bridge PH is near and handy? Indeed is catering really an Authority duty?

Education, surely this is down to the schools themselves. However if we accept the need then is it really the right place? Might Whitlingham be more suitable, especially as it is near to Norwich and in itself has a greater facility to get children outside to explore the Broads environment rather than just moving them from one classroom to another?

A statement destination, a landmark building. Well, if I read the maps correctly the proposed location is outside the Acle Improvement Area so, until now, the site has not been earmarked for such a development thus there would have to be a change of policy by the Authority to accommodate its own ambition.

It is a fact of history that the Authority planners have already turned down nearby tourist developments yet they intend to build one of their own, draw your own conclusions.

Being practical, if you were an a architect, with just a two month  deadline, with only the possibility of winning a thousand pounds and with no guarantee that the project is to go ahead be enough to tempt you? 

The Authority's history when it comes to dealing with public works and projects is hardly exemplary. For example a three quarter of a million pound development at Trowse where the workshop has sadly proven unfit for purpose thus a 'portable' shed has had to be erected to make up the shortcomings hardly fills me with confidence, does it you? Then there was the issue with the 'yellow post' on Breydon that cost many tens of thousands and ended up by being installed by a company that the Authority had rejected at the tendering stage, a story that you can't make up! I'm not going into any depth on the Dragonfly House Saga that wasted not less than a million, or the over the top piling and bank protection at Potter Heigham for the Information Centre that never was.

Information centres have been closed as a means of saving money yet another one is proposed whilst we are lead to believe that by selling cups of tea that those costs can be offset. Does that sound remotely feasible or even sensible to you? 

Is there a need for this rather pompous development? I doubt it.  Were it at Potter, or Whitlingham, then I could see the logic of it,  but on a cramped site up against a bridge on a main road with few other attractions nearby for people to enjoy hardly justifies the proposed spend.

As for the dreaded National Pike, research will show that I have only posted links when i have agreed with the general point that he/she is trying to make. Those with which I don't agree I have tended to ignore. 

[JennyMorgan]

When I opened this thread I asked what did we/you want at Acle. Inevitably we have gone beyond the ideal and some of us are now asking questions. For example, has the Authority itself given JP the go ahead? Here is a copy of the officer's report at the March meeting of the full Authority:

“At this very early stage in the development of this project it is recognised that there are many unknowns associated with it and risks that will have to be identified and managed. The Authority will need to have a full understanding of the capital costs and sources of funding before proceeding, along with realistic figures for income and expenditure.”

That was March yet by April the competition was announced,  budget set, specification decided, non of which appears to have been presented to and approved by the Authority members. Someone more wise than me might be able to find when the full Authority gave JP the mandate to proceed with this 'vision'. Lots of unanswered questions!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Hardly relevant to the debate.

Morris Mynah John has had his bit of harmless fun so back to being serious.

On the surface this looks to be an ambitious plan but is it right for Acle Bridge? 

Might Whitlingham be more suitable?

Apart from dayboats other boats have toilets and most have showers aboard. The existing toilet block on site has been abandoned presumably because of a lack of demand thus do we really need onshore facilities? Nice to have, yes, but really necessary? 

Catering, once again, is it really necessary when the Bridge PH is near and handy? Indeed is catering really an Authority duty?

Education, surely this is down to the schools themselves. However if we accept the need then is it really the right place? Might Whitlingham be more suitable, especially as it is near to Norwich and in itself has a greater facility to get children outside to explore the Broads environment rather than just moving them from one classroom to another?

A statement destination, a landmark building. Well, if I read the maps correctly the proposed location is outside the Acle Improvement Area so, until now, the site has not been earmarked for such a development thus there would have to be a change of policy by the Authority to accommodate its own ambition.

It is a fact of history that the Authority planners have already turned down nearby tourist developments yet they intend to build one of their own, draw your own conclusions.

Being practical, if you were an a architect, with just a two month  deadline, with only the possibility of winning a thousand pounds and with no guarantee that the project is to go ahead be enough to tempt you? 

The Authority's history when it comes to dealing with public works and projects is hardly exemplary. For example a three quarter of a million pound development at Trowse where the workshop has sadly proven unfit for purpose thus a 'portable' shed has had to be erected to make up the shortcomings hardly fills me with confidence, does it you? Then there was the issue with the 'yellow post' on Breydon that cost many tens of thousands and ended up by being installed by a company that the Authority had rejected at the tendering stage, a story that you can't make up! I'm not going into any depth on the Dragonfly House Saga that wasted not less than a million, or the over the top piling and bank protection at Potter Heigham for the Information Centre that never was.

Information centres have been closed as a means of saving money yet another one is proposed whilst we are lead to believe that by selling cups of tea that those costs can be offset. Does that sound remotely feasible or even sensible to you? 

Is there a need for this rather pompous development? I doubt it.  Were it at Potter, or Whitlingham, then I could see the logic of it,  but on a cramped site up against a bridge on a main road with few other attractions nearby for people to enjoy hardly justifies the proposed spend.

As for the dreaded National Pike, research will show that I have only posted links when i have agreed with the general point that he/she is trying to make. Those with which I don't agree I have tended to ignore. 

Whitlingham has the added advantage that visitors can also participate or be taught in boating activities; sailing, rowing, canoeing etc.. Acle is unsuitable for this.

[Minifer]

Whitlingham already has a visitor centre.    This competition is only looking for a design concept, it's really a feasibility study in my view - from the costings it's not going to be huge, they are asking for a sustainable building that can cope being on a flood plain and I have nothing against a visitor centre actually being on the Broads.  They own the site, it is in a good location, so suggesting other sites not owned by the BA that have gravel pits seems a bit pointless to me.  A seasonal shop on its own will not be profitable and they have to put something there that could be used by many tourists and locals- not just boaters - that is sustainable to make it worth it.  Serving the boating community alone will not.

[johnb]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

The existing toilet block on site has been abandoned presumably because of a lack of demand thus do we really need onshore facilities? Nice to have, yes, but really necessary? 

While I'm on this earth, there can't be enough! Without opening another subject, the early closing of some public toilets and the total closure of others has caused me much discomfort in the last few years! I suspect this has nothing to do with lack of demand, rather diversion of funds.

[Bound2Please]

4 minutes ago, Minifer said:

they have to put something there that could be used by many tourists and locals

What is wrong with what has been there for years, just updated.... A decent Coffee shop/tearoom with a small shop for boaters etc. It could become a destination venue for boaters, walkers etc etc .. We always used to stop there for a coffee on returning from the boat until it closed, as well as by water when out.  That is all thats needed to make it PROFITABLE.

[johnb]

But can you spend £750,000 on a small coffee shop etc? It's got to be a LANDMARK building! Not necessarily and USEFUL building. They may use all the building materials, but not necessarily in the right order!

[vanessan]

JM I wish you would stop sitting on the fence and then tell us what you really think! Seriously though, it is useful to be reminded of the crazy money that has been unsuccessfully spent over the years. But we must also remember the good works the BA do and hope that common sense will eventually prevail, whatever that may be. I do agree that Acle doesn’t seem to be the most ideal place for a visitor/educational centre. Something like the BA kiosk at Whitlingham with a cafe and shop would be quite sufficient. If you want to educate visitors and school parties about the Broads, imho it needs to be where you can hire out canoes, kayaks, rowing boats and do tours on electric boats up dykes and rivers etc inaccessible to anything larger. All supplemented/complemented by indoor visual and audible aids. Acle is definitely not that sort of place. 

[Timbo]

Look...I can't resist it. I've named the project and the coffee shop!

^{Drum Roll.......}

The Acle Bodge Visitor Centre and the National Perc Coffee Shop!

^Cymbal!
Thank you! Thank you! Once again....hI hThankew!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Philosophical said:

Whitlingham has the added advantage that visitors can also participate or be taught in boating activities; sailing, rowing, canoeing etc.. Acle is unsuitable for this.

Not only boating activities but also field craft, bird watching, angling and worthwhile walks for example.

[Timbo]

Just now, JennyMorgan said:

Not only boating activities but also field craft, bird watching, angling and worthwhile walks for example.

And let's not forget history and archaeology!!
A bit like The Museum of The Broads?

[marshman]

I wonder what that great champion of Broadland Lana Hempsall thinks of this??

Glad to see the anti BA brigade going forth at full throttle!!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, marshman said:

I wonder what that great champion of Broadland Lana Hempsall thinks of this??

Glad to see the anti BA brigade going forth at full throttle!!

I don't think that what the BA is proposing for Acle is a good idea, however that doesn't mean that I am against the BA

[grendel]

56 minutes ago, Timbo said:

And let's not forget history and archaeology!!

Ah you mean the grand estuary origins 

[grendel]

12 minutes ago, marshman said:

Glad to see the anti BA brigade going forth at full throttle!!

and the Pro BA lobby revving up at the lights.

seriously, I have seen some good ideas (and a few not so good) put forward so far on this thread. 

It seems to me the BA are a victim of their own choices, when they do something well - they do it very well, but when they mess up, they also do that very well.

the staff on the ground are without doubt their biggest and best asset, its just that at the higher levels (like many companies with great staff) the upper management seem to be out of touch with reality, at least some of the time.

[Minifer]

2 hours ago, Bound2Please said:

What is wrong with what has been there for years, just updated.... A decent Coffee shop/tearoom with a small shop for boaters etc. It could become a destination venue for boaters, walkers etc etc .. We always used to stop there for a coffee on returning from the boat until it closed, as well as by water when out.  That is all thats needed to make it PROFITABLE.

Because the kind of money that would have to be put in would not make it profitable.  It has to offer other functions to make it worth the outlay.  There is a reason there are not a lot of small seasonal shops on the Broads, and pubs change hands all the time. I would like there to be a shop facility there too - I'm not against that. I still think it unsuitable as a teaching base - but looking at the competition pdf earlier I could see a bit of marsh and dyke behind it so yes they probably can offer a reasonable teaching opportunity, but when you have How Hill down the road why bother competing.   Whitlingham already offers educational opportunities, has a visitor centre, cafe and is already successful, I would not be surprised if that success is not in the back of their minds.  If it was some body other than the BA opening a cafe and multifunction room there I doubt there would be quite so much squit on here!

[vanessan]

25 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I don't think that what the BA is proposing for Acle is a good idea, however that doesn't mean that I am against the BA

Exactly and a lot of people agree with that. I sometimes think that some posts are not read properly or just part taken notice of - the part that suits.

[vanessan]

11 minutes ago, Minifer said:

If it was some body other than the BA opening a cafe and multifunction room there I doubt there would be quite so much squit on here!

I think there may be a strong possibility that anyone else would be refused planning permission. I may be quite wrong but.................