Marina Quays

[keifsmate]

Didn't think it would be long.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/opposition-to-marina-quays-housing-bid-1-5682747

The end result will certainly be better than it is currently.

 

[batrabill]

"Like the Berlin Wall"??

"Huge and overpowering"?

To be honest, I don't know the spot well so maybe they have  case, but it REALLY sounds like they are just against everything.

[dnks34]

The same thing is happening in Southwold.  

An action group fighting change. 

I find it infuriating that I live amongst these nimbys. 

If it was a development that actually would cause permenant disruption to existing dwellings then they would have my sympathies but 9 times out of 10 its down to pure selfishness and I find that infuriating. 

I am suprised anything gets built these days because as soon as anyone tries to do anything new they are met with the predictable Im alright jack brigade every time. 

 

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

Have not seen the plans,however what there is now is a mess and something needs to be done.Not a good advert to Gt Yarmouth when on the river I am sure if plans are done right it can only brighten the area

[keifsmate]

"Like the Berlin Wall"??

I saw the Berlin Wall when it was one year old.

What a load of tosh being talked.

I suspect the "journalists" encourage such hyperbole.

[VetChugger]

I've read the article in the EDP about the "protest group". Seems to me they need to identify some clear issues if they want to mount a meaningful campaign. At the moment it is just a group of generalisations without detailed specific objection.

[Hylander]

These people are concerned about a footpath and extra traffic.    Do they really realise that they live in Great Yarmouth for heavens sakes.   Anyone who can be that fussy would not be living there in the first place.      If there has always been a footpath then no doubt a footpath of some description will remain.   Would these folk really prefer to see slum conditions remain,  anti social behaviour remain,  for heavens sakes this will enhance the area 100 fold and probably make their properties even worth more than they are.     I think some people should wake up and realise how lucky they are and stop moaning.

[grendel]

There are some people who will always moan about change, I would think you are right when you say a reduction in the anti social behaviour will enhance their properties value, a footpath of some description will have to remain, after all the BA reserved moorings are at the far end of the development, and they will require access as will the residential moorings and visitor moorings, OK the one road access will be a little busier, but I see they went round 300 properties canvasing- there certainly are not 300 properties along that road that will be affected by more traffic, plus how much more traffic will 8 houses generate.

[grendel]

looking at the plans available on the BA planning site, there are 6 chalets, with the bedroom on a gallery landing (so barely 2 floor) and two full houses, of all of these only 1 chalet could remotely be considered as impeding the view of one of the existing 9 houses, and that will be hidden behind their garage which blocks their view in that direction anyway.

[Cal]

There are always people moaning about planning applications regardless of where they are located. Unless the complaints are valid ones, which in this case they would seem not to be, then the planners will just glance over them and dismiss them.

[Bexs]

These types of articles with daft ‘Berlin Wall’ comments, always make me shudder at the lack of intelligent thought people use.

You wouldn’t think it possible would you?


Sent from my iPhone using Norfolk Broads Network

[smellyloo]

45 minutes ago, Cal said:

There are always people moaning about planning applications regardless of where they are located. Unless the complaints are valid ones, which in this case they would seem not to be, then the planners will just glance over them and dismiss them.

You are quite correct and our planning system is designed to allow those with objections to make them known.

I am not very familiar with this bit of Yarmouth but to me the development looks like it will improve the site whilst adding extra facilities for boaters which is a plus.

I'm sure the planners will examine all the comments that have been officialy made and then come to a conclusion.. I think it a little unfair to brand the local objections as "moaners" as their observations are an important part of the planning process.

[Vaughan]

I find it rather ironic that the new "River Walk" housing development where one of these objectors lives, is actually the site of the old Smith's Crisps factory!

[Cal]

9 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

You are quite correct and our planning system is designed to allow those with objections to make them known.

I am not very familiar with this bit of Yarmouth but to me the development looks like it will improve the site whilst adding extra facilities for boaters which is a plus.

I'm sure the planners will examine all the comments that have been officialy made and then come to a conclusion.. I think it a little unfair to brand the local objections as "moaners" as their observations are an important part of the planning process.

Unless they have a valid objection, which in this case it appears they don't, then they are just moaning.

But the planners will be used to that. They get it with every application!

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Cal said:

Unless they have a valid objection, which in this case it appears they don't, then they are just moaning.

But the planners will be used to that. They get it with every application!

It is important that everyone is allowed to have their say. Please remember that as boaters who may look to moor and use any developed facilities you have as much right to comment as anyone else. Therefore you can always show your support for this project by commenting here,

https://planning.broads-authority.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=PD2PV5TBH5L00

Personally having taken the time to have a proper look through the plans and associated documents, I think its a good project that will be a big improvement for the area. I'm sure there are some hurdles to overcome and tweaks to be made, but on the whole a good positive start.

[JennyMorgan]

The problem today is that far too often developers bang in an application for a saturation development knowing full well that they'll get consent for half that. In the meantime objectors do what is expected of them! 

All that aside I would imagine that the groundwork required at that particular location will dictate what is eventually built. 

[MauriceMynah]

I sort of agree with Peter (JM) but for different reasons. It seems to me that property developers are not above putting in reasonable plans which get through, then amend things until they build what they had in mind in the first place.

As long as what is built is what the current plans say will be built I'm sure it's a good thing overall.

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

I sort of agree with Peter (JM) but for different reasons. It seems to me that property developers are not above putting in reasonable plans which get through, then amend things until they build what they had in mind in the first place.

Now which concern does that remind me of I wonder?! 

[grendel]

I do note that the chalets are the river side of the flood barrier at that point, which might be my only concern over their location, and that the ground inside is at a lower level, so they will stand high from the river walk viewpoint, but that said I think it will improve the area, provide more moorings and generally be a benefit. Not too sure how they will get power and other utilities to the chalets through the flood defences though.

[Hylander]

4 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

It is important that everyone is allowed to have their say. Please remember that as boaters who may look to moor and use any developed facilities you have as much right to comment as anyone else. Therefore you can always show your support for this project by commenting here,

https://planning.broads-authority.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=PD2PV5TBH5L00

Personally having taken the time to have a proper look through the plans and associated documents, I think its a good project that will be a big improvement for the area. I'm sure there are some hurdles to overcome and tweaks to be made, but on the whole a good positive start.

I have just added my support to these plans.      There seems to be a lot of objectors.    It really does need to be balance by a few more supporters.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, Hylander said:

I have just added my support to these plans.      There seems to be a lot of objectors.    It really does need to be balance by a few more supporters.

I fully agree, its interesting though because some of the objections are not valid reasons for objecting to a planning application and will be ignored. Its also plain from others that they haven't read all the associated documentation fully.

For instance more than one person has made reference to one of the properties having its view of the river blocked, but there is no such thing as a right to a view in planning, and therefore it could never be turned down on that point. That is just a nimby point. Other make reference to the business relationship between the two parties who are developing the site, again with all due respect that is their business and not valid reasons for turning down an application.

Much has been made about the view being obstructed from the Bure Park. Putting to one side as already mentioned that there is no right to a view, in reality where the houses are planned to be built they infringe very little on the view from the park. The BA mooring and the residential moorings being the facility that directly lie in front of the park. 

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, EastCoastIPA said:

For instance more than one person has made reference to one of the properties having its view of the river blocked, but there is no such thing as a right to a view in planning, and therefore it could never be turned down on that point.

Really?

Tell that to the pair of individuals who succeeded in seducing the BA planning dept, despite several appeals, that their view over the river from their new apartment block was being impaired by the mooring of boats in an off-river basin, which had been built with planning permission long before their apartment was ever built, itself.

The apartment block, incidentally, was built on the site of the original Jenners boatyard in Thorpe, so there is a similarity here. Do these objectors want the site to remain abandoned, vandalised and frequented by assorted "creatures of the night" or would they prefer to see a pleasant riverside housing development, which will not obscure their views over the Breydon Marshes and will in fact, become the same sort of pleasant place that they now live in themselves?

Even though they are living on what used to be the Smith's Crisps factory?

One could, of course, always apply for permission for a "visitor centre"?

 

 

[Meantime]

9 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Really?

Tell that to the pair of individuals who succeeded in seducing the BA planning dept, despite several appeals, that their view over the river from their new apartment block was being impaired by the mooring of boats in an off-river basin, which had been built with planning permission long before their apartment was ever built, itself.

The apartment block, incidentally, was built on the site of the original Jenners boatyard in Thorpe, so there is a similarity here. Do these objectors want the site to remain abandoned, vandalised and frequented by assorted "creatures of the night" or would they prefer to see a pleasant riverside housing development, which will not obscure their views over the Breydon Marshes and will in fact, become the same sort of pleasant place that they now live in themselves?

Even though they are living on what used to be the Smith's Crisps factory?

One could, of course, always apply for permission for a "visitor centre"?

 

 

Whilst I see the similarities, I think the following web page describes it far better than I could, especially the nuances of there being no legal right to a view, and it being possibly protected by a restrictive covenant, which I believe in the case you are referring too was the case, freely entered into by the developer of the site in Thorpe.

https://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/property-owners-right-view/

In my supporting views for the marina development at Yarmouth I am assuming there is no such covenant or protection implied to the home owners that might lose part of their view of The Bure.

Right to a view is something I am very aware of as a result of a neighbour who wanted to build an extension next to my house right up to their boundary that would have been less than a metre from my kitchen door and window and left my kitchen in semi darkness constantly. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat and in my case I found out that whilst you do not have a right to a view, windows do gain a right to light over time. So if you have a certain level of light coming into a window or door for a sustained period, years normally, that right has to be maintained. This helped me tremendously in my case. Whilst the planning department do not have to take it into account when determining a planning application, in my case informing my neighbour that I would if necessary defend my right to light, persuaded them not to build the extension. Infringement of right to light means seeking redress via a court which can order the building to be pulled down, alterations made to let the light back in again, or monetary damages in full settlement of any loss of light.

Anything that is more than a few metres away from the affected building is unlikely to affect the light to a big enough degree to warrant a claim under right to light, so I don't think applies in the Great Yarmouth application.

[JanetAnne]

9 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I find it rather ironic that the new "River Walk" housing development where one of these objectors lives, is actually the site of the old Smith's Crisps factory!

I had that conversation last week. I couldn't remember where Smith's was in relation to AC Delco's. It seems they were further up than I thought 

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, JanetAnne said:

I had that conversation last week. I couldn't remember where Smith's was in relation to AC Delco's. It seems they were further up than I thought 

It is difficult to remember but I am pretty certain it was on that bend just after the POY Marina. It was always the last landmark where you lowered your mast, before coming to the yacht station. Remembering that just around the next left hand bend was the "Iron Bridge", which took the M&GN Railway over the river on its way from Yarmouth Beach Station to the Breydon Viaduct.

All pulled down a long time ago!

I still contend, however, that residents of a new housing development called River Walk which is, itself, on the riverside (the clue is in the name) cannot complain about a development which, like theirs, is also on an abandoned commercial site and cannot possibly obstruct their own view?