Ludham Bridge, What Do You Think?

[JennyMorgan]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/ludham-bridge-stores-planning-application-demolition-redevelopment-1-6457880?fbclid=IwAR3ewn8lBq5j4r6XB9DkLALJzyf7QuT_qF1zHZGIG6zveniEADyIUbBa3uw

[Polly]

Well, it is due for a facelift, good luck to them.

[Ray]

It would be useful to see an artists impression of how the finished project may look but it seems OK on the face of it. In some ways we never want places we love to change but eventually some things have to be renewed.

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, Polly said:

Well, it is due for a facelift, good luck to them.

My thoughts exactly. It will be a hard one for the BA to refuse, that is if they want to. Consider the epic development that they want for themselves at Acle Bridge. 

[MauriceMynah]

Peter. What would you approve of the BA doing, or are they damned if they do and damned if they don't?

Personally  I'd love to see more made of the place

 

[CambridgeCabby]

The Ludham Bridge site was purchased by the owner of my former moorings , Nick , and if he develops it and finishes it to anything like the standard of his other numerous sites around Broadland then I can only state as I have found and that is it will be sympathetic to the surrounding area and finished to a very high standard .

He has already tidied the site up considerably although annoyingly the electric post has been removed .

Unusually for someone in his position he is a very much hands on type of guy , in fact in the summer when Kate and I stopped on  the moorings he was in a cherrypicker clearing and cleaning the gutters .

Too often village and parish councils object to any developing of existing sites and facilities preventing them from being economically viable which inevitably leads to them being lost totally .

The current buildings are outdated , ill suited to modern demands and imho not especially attractive to the eye , if redevelopment brings more facilities to these busy moorings then it can only be a good thing.

 

footnote : I have mentioned lack of electric posts and have been assured that this is being looked into .

[Vaughan]

So long as they don't do another Hunsett Mill!

[CambridgeCabby]

8 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

So long as they don't do another Hunsett Mill!

Agreed , although Hunsett Mill was a stunning vista before the abomination not so Ludham imho

[Paul]

plans/ elevations etc are all here, sadly no artists impression which are not required by planners

 

https://planning.broads-authority.gov.uk/PublicAccessDocs/planningdocs.aspx?appType=Development Control&appNumber=BA/2019/0361/FUL

 

[Boatingman]

I think the layout is ok but not a profiled metal roof

 

Ray

[Paul]

Whilst I appreciate that Broadland is a developing landscape and infrastructure rather than the content of a time capsule the answer to your question Peter is whether you agree that an investor should be allowed to dramatically alter the nature and appearance of a part of it for their own individual profit. I am strongly opposed to that. 

I am not opposed to the profit bit, but it should be in keeping with the surroundings which these carbuncles are clearly not. 

[JennyMorgan]

I'm not unhappy with the design, nothing dreamatice, startling or out of scale with its surrounding, well done them, hope that it's passed.

[NorfolkNog]

The BA Planning Portal is not the easiest to navigate. However from what I can make out and looking at the objections it seems the 'holiday lets' are more of an issue. I don't think the replacement of the shop would do any harm but I'm not sure about the flats. Developers always go for houses/flats as this is where the big bucks are made. Could just be me being cynical of course 

[marshman]

Its not a question of "going for big bucks", but if you are to make an investment, surely you can not deny them the right to make some money out of it?  If indeed you do not allow them to make money, then they will not invest and without investment, the Broads will surely die? Its no use saying that the shop can be redeveloped because my guess is that you just would not get any return whatsoever - who would use it? OK a few would pop in to buy something they were missing, but why not wait if going upstream to get what you want and cheaper at Stalham?

If it requires the holiday lets, then so be it but even that is a dodgy market with few guarantees - its certainly not a place I would go and rent a property for peace and solitude, right next to a fairly busy road and above a busy public mooring!

Good luck to them I say and will it be a success I ask? Possibly marginally but I doubt if anyone is going to to make big bucks, or what I call big bucks!!

[woodwose]

The building in question is not really all that old. The attached photo shows you what the site used to look like. The existing building is made of asbestos and is certainly in need of some TLC.

I think it is probably the holiday lets that are the biggest concern as they look quite high and imposing.

A refresh of the buildings is a good idea, and although these plans lack a bit of ambition  (and detail) they are a way forward.

Nigel in quaint but forward looking Ludham

[VetChugger]

Points raised elsewhere include the fact that there is no real indication that there is a need for further holiday lets in that particular area. Call me cynical if you wish, but it was also pointed out that if the letting idea failed, after 12 months application could be made to change the designation to residential which would hugely inflate the value!

[Paul]

9 hours ago, VetChugger said:

Call me cynical if you wish

perish the thought. Furthermore they could be sold on as private holiday / second homes without any change of use requirement 

[rightsaidfred]

While it would be fine for the shop and café to be improved and the site generally tided up reading through the application there does appear to be legitimate reasons to be concerned over the proposals, development is fine when sympathetic to an area and with existing properties not to sure this application complies with that in its existing form given the reservations expressed.

It has become all to familiar these days for development and in particular anything to do with housing of any description to ride roughshod over any other considerations to the detriment of the existing population and character of the area, this applies regardless of location be it city or rural, the London suburbs are a good example of this.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

Regarding holiday accommodation when riding round the northern rivers the number of empty existing holiday homes during peak times makes you wonder why you would see a need for more especially at Ludham Bridge.

Fred

[Tempest]

I wish them well with this development which would bring improvement to a much loved site and additional opportunities to those who wish to stay in this wonderful area

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[JennyMorgan]

21 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter. What would you approve of the BA doing, or are they damned if they do and damned if they don't?

Personally  I'd love to see more made of the place

 

Something rather more modest that doesn't impinge on the river nor the open marshes too much. Indeed a  great deal less vanity would go down well, at least with me.. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

Regarding holiday accommodation when riding round the northern rivers the number of empty existing holiday homes during peak times makes you wonder why you would see a need for more especially at Ludham Bridge.

Fred

Peak period over pricing might have something to do with it!

[rightsaidfred]

25 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Peak period over pricing might have something to do with it!

Not really even  more empty off peak.

Fred

[CambridgeCabby]

Simply just permitting a refurbishment of  the shop and cafe on this site is a sure fire way of losing these facilities , the added income from holiday lets is necessary for the site to be financially viable .

In my area two pubs over the last year applied unsuccessfully to add letting rooms , by converting outbuildings , it was objections by villagers in both cases that was the deciding factor .

Both pubs are now boarded up , one has been purchased by the coop who are wanting to bulldoze it and build a store the other is being sold as a potential building site for housing . 

 

[batrabill]

I live in Ludham and was dissapointed that the Parish Council came out against it. 

There's a fine line between "character" and being a dump. In my view Ludham Bridge is a bit of dump and the development seems a sensible way to proceed. Change is the law of life.

I completely support CambridgeCabby's view.