Ludham Bridge, What Do You Think?

[Paladin]

5 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Two weeks ago there was standing water about 4inches deep exactly where the proposed building will be 

Was that due to heavy rain and poor drainage, or the river over-topping?

[CambridgeCabby]

TBH don’t know for certain , river levels were exceptionally high hadn’t rained for a few days but not certain for actual reason , there is a small bridge over a stream between the river and the cafe so my best guess is  that breached 

[marshman]

I believe the "ditch" is an IDB drain which runs down from the How Hill area and is pumped out into the river - there is a pump I believe behind the boatyard. I shouldn't think that it is particularly prone to flooding but at that time the Upper Ant did have flood warning out and was probably some overtopping in some places.

Hence probably the stilt arrangement for times like we had.

[JennyMorgan]

I suspect that the architects are considering two main factors, one being the overall height of adjacent buildings and the other the predicted flood levels over the next so many years, maybe fifty or whatever. Pragmatism is thankfully now alive and well in planning and building on the floodplain is generally allowed provided the habitable part of a house is above the maximum predicted water level by whatever it is deemed to be, hence raised buildings are now accepted. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

I suspect that the architects are considering two main factors, one being the overall height of adjacent buildings and the other the predicted flood levels over the next so many years, maybe fifty or whatever. Pragmatism is thankfully now alive and well in planning and building on the floodplain is generally allowed provided the habitable part of a house is above the maximum predicted water level by whatever it is deemed to be, hence raised buildings are now more likely to be accepted. 

 

[SteveO]

Hats off to the folks who are prepared to invest in the future of this area whilst preserving at least some of the local amenities. 

[BigFrank]

Just to put people minds at rest I will note a few points based on fact and not assumption.

1. The roof is metal because the BA insist it be that way. It wouldn’t be the owners first choice. 

2. The property is on stilts because any new property has to be 1.77m above standard high water. This is an EA regulation and not done through choice. 
 

3. The owner Norfolk born and bred and is perfectly aware that boats go by, noisy or otherwise. Because of the elevation of the property it will become a feature and not a hindrance. 
 

4. The existing buildings are very old and due to the building materials have a very limited life. The owner is making a huge financial obligation to improve the area and create jobs. 

5. the investment being made is for the long term and will take many years to pay back. People who are prepared to make such investment should applauded and not criticised. 

[Ray]

Good luck to them, I hope it's a great success!

[Polly]

Yes agreed.

[JennyMorgan]

8 hours ago, BigFrank said:

People who are prepared to make such investment should applauded and not criticised. 

Welcome to the forum, Big Frank. By and large it does appear that your project is generally approved of. 

[Claire]

Has anybody got the name and contact details for the new owner please?
Thank you !Claire

[CambridgeCabby]

On 15/01/2021 at 08:58, Claire said:

Has anybody got the name and contact details for the new owner please?
Thank you !Claire

Pm sent 

[Natasha]

The application has been re-submitted with a new design according to planning comments by a local Ludham based architectural firm under reference: BA/2021/0145/FUL who are keen to ensure the area remains a great standing in the community. 

If anyone would like to discuss any aspects of the design or application, they are welcoming calls on 01603 389422 to speak to their project lead at WT Design Ltd. 

[JawsOrca]

https://planning.broads-authority.gov.uk/PublicAccessDocs/planningdocs.aspx?appType=Development Control&appNumber=BA/2021/0145/FUL

My views for what irrelevance they are worth.

I kinda prefer parts of the first plan! The second building just looks too big now and too commercial, but it's hard to judge I guess.

Ludham bridge in my view is a bit of dump and certainly needs work, it did go through a stage of being a bit trendy with little pop up shops and a bar I think but they next time we went back it all seemed gone? So I'm all for improvement of this place..

I totally feel for any developer as it's impossible to please anyway and it's clear to see the BA typically have little clue what on earth they are doing. 

Here's what I'd do I think.. Fishing place and little shop stay for sure, Riverside cafe (clearly not helped by the bank, but terraced platform for the cafe). Personally I think the broads are being overrun by holiday lets, I don't like them personally, but how about a hotel or B&B instead, surely these bring more to the community?, or as mr speedtriple some neat log cabins (somewhere),although I guess space is tight :(.  It seems the sticking point will be the holiday lets which I can kinda see and these taking up the riverside area I think is what's not keeping with the area as I think it will give the appearance of urbanising that part of river (albeit slightly) although the BA's acle bridge plan has kinda destroyed that idea too (has that been scrapped now?).

Good luck all involved. Nice to have some redevelopment on the broads though!