As posted by marvellous Michael on the other side of the isle, permission has been applied for to build on the Margate Caves site. To download the files from Uk Planning, you will have to navigate to:
And search directly for planning application 10/0546 because the links keep changing from TDC.
The design and access statement states that advice has been sought from conservation and planning officers and it was decided to take design cues from the neighbouring application for Capital House that had at the time just been submitted.
The amount of dwellings proposed is 7. They state 'the land to be developed is to the south of the caves and does not encroach on land above the caves or preclude to the reopening of the caves in the future....The land above the caves will be secured with fencing and access retained from Trinity Square.'
In my opinion, these are truly uninspiring designs in very close proximity to one of Margate's main heritage sites and possible future attraction if it could be reopened in the future. It's an extremely sensitive site and deserves to be fully debated.
Here is the Archaeological Survey document from 2008
If you have an opinion or background information please comment here and also add comment to TDC planning for the application.
Apart for the uninspiring drawings TDC has drawn up in order to give themselves planning permission, to increase the land value ready to be flogged on to a developer, my main concern is the Caves site.
ReplyDeleteThe Caves were an attraction and an important part of Margate's heritage. They tell the story of the smugglers and are possibly very, very old.
As Margate gets back on it's feet, shrugging of the "dole by the sea image", the Caves could be part of an itinerary including the Shell Grotto and the Tudor House.
The plan shows there were 2 entrances to the caves, one of which will be built over.
Were the two entrances used?
I know the Shell Grotto has only one entrance, but wouldn't two entrances be safer in case of an accident? Most fire authorities require a secondary
exit.
Have TDC commissioned a health and safety assessment to establish the viability of reopening the Caves would not be compromised by building over the second entrance?
As the caves are very old, a proper archeological survey should be carried out on the land before anything gets approval.
Sometimes it is easy to forget that this is our land and that TDC act on our behalf.
I would like the Caves protected for future generations to enjoy. There are lots of places to build flats, not to mention the 870 empty dwellings in Margate Centre and Cliftonville West.
The proposed houses could be worse.
ReplyDeleteThe approach of copying the designs of property developers, who also copied other developers designs doesn't leave much room for good contemporary design.
Shouldn't Planners be setting the example for cutting edge design?
It is just a box-ticking, rubber-stamping, money-grabbing exercise. Not in the common interest.
What concerns me most here is that I am not certain that the alternative entrance proposed in the plans would really be viable for reopening the caves.
ReplyDeleteTo me it looks like a rather weak and unworkable palliative to get the plans passed without opposition.
In terms of the rather ghastly looking development, I think the problem here comes down to what happens in our conservation areas. By this I mean most of the people who I talk to want the new buildings in our streets built in a similar style to the existing architecture. In Thanet for the most part this is Georgian to Victorian semi basement terraced houses, meadioca modern designs mostly set in the period when the individual architect did his training, just don’t work.
For the most part most people want their own front door and don’t want to access the outside world through some sort of shared lobby, our traditional local building style facilitates getting the most separate houses into the space available.
Where I think the council have gone wrong is looking to our main leisure sites and tourist attractions as saleable assets to help finance the day to day running of the council. They seem to have forgotten that the very reason that they came into council ownership in the first place was to protect them from being destroyed by commercial enterprises because they aren’t usually economically viable.
The damage done to our towns because the council don’t seem to be able to grasp that not everything in the Thanet towns will show a profit is incalculable, here in
Ramsgate our main leisure site has been derelict for twelve years now, while the council try to profit from it.
So keen on developing our leisure sites as residential sites are our cabinet, that last year they voted against the recommendation of the council’s director of finance to pursue this folly on this Ramsgate site, putting the council in what appears to be a very risky position where they could easily have to find even more than the £1m that they have already spent on this project. So although they say when asked that this is about saving us money, I am not sure that this is the case.
These are the comments I have just left on the UK Planning site.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this proposal does nothing to safeguard the Margate Caves and almost completely extinguishes any prospect of them re-opening as a tourist attraction.
In addition, the houses proposed are of poor design, and would represent a discordant and derivative addition to the built environment immediately adjacent to a conservation area.
Many millions of pounds of public money have been invested in Margate’s future as a tourist resort, both at Turner Contemporary and Dreamland. We stand on the brink of a bright new future for the town, but tourism experts speak of the need for a ‘broad offer’ ie a range of attractions for the visitor to enjoy.
This proposal removes all of the Caves’ roadside presence, thus rendering them invisible from the highway. More importantly it takes any land that might be utilised for ancillary uses, such as a gift shop and café. It is generally accepted that secondary spend is vital to a tourist attraction’s viability, often accounting for at least 50% of turnover. The removal of land for this purpose effectively renders the Caves unviable as a business proposition. (The damp conditions in the Caves themselves preclude the creation of an underground shop/café.)
The proposal sees the loss of the original access tunnel (created in 1914 by tunnelling from the cellars of the Vicarage for incumbents to gain safety during air raids). Indeed it suggests that this tunnel is infilled. There is a suggestion that Forsters Entrance could be brought back into use, but details as to how this might be achieved are completely lacking.
Forsters Tunnel was filled with rubble and sealed off after the bombing of Holy Trinity Church and Northumberland House. Research suggests that it was last used in 1941, so we cannot know – without extensive surveying – whether it represents a suitable alternative entrance.
Crucially, there is no assurance that Forsters Entrance will be opened before the existing entrance is closed.
There is no provision for testing the ground under the proposed development for any unknown caves/voids. There are known caves across Northdown Road under Flint House so it is not inconceivable that there may be something south of the Vortigern Caves, under the proposed development site. Also it is known that there was at least one WW1 'dug-out' dug somewhere near the Caves – however, the exact location is unknown.
Adam Single, the Archaelogical Officer at Kent County Council, has reported that there is potential for iron age and Romano-British remains on the site. This is, therefore, a potentially important historical site even without considering the Vortigern Caves.
Lastly, this proposal flies in the face of the results of TDC’s own Margate Caves Consultation (2009). Over 90% of respondents opposed the sale and development of the site. Specific concerns voiced included infilling of any part of the Caves and the potential loss of a tourist attraction for the town. Representations included one from Margate Civic Society and a petition of 2,592 signatures.
The Margate Caves are an important and fascinating part of the town’s tourism offer. Their potential worth is far greater than that of seven poorly-designed houses.
These are (some of!) the comments I have just left on the UK Planning site.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this proposal does nothing to safeguard the Margate Caves and almost completely extinguishes any prospect of them re-opening as a tourist attraction.
In addition, the houses proposed are of poor design, and would represent a discordant and derivative addition to the built environment immediately adjacent to a conservation area.
Many millions of pounds of public money have been invested in Margate’s future as a tourist resort, both at Turner Contemporary and Dreamland. We stand on the brink of a bright new future for the town, but tourism experts speak of the need for a ‘broad offer’ ie a range of attractions for the visitor to enjoy.
This proposal removes all of the Caves’ roadside presence, thus rendering them invisible from the highway. More importantly it takes any land that might be utilised for ancillary uses, such as a gift shop and café. It is generally accepted that secondary spend is vital to a tourist attraction’s viability, often accounting for at least 50% of turnover. The removal of land for this purpose effectively renders the Caves unviable as a business proposition. (The damp conditions in the Caves themselves preclude the creation of an underground shop/café.)
The proposal sees the loss of the original access tunnel. Indeed it suggests that this tunnel is infilled. There is a suggestion that Forsters Entrance could be brought back into use, but details as to how this might be achieved are completely lacking.
Forsters Tunnel was filled with rubble and sealed off after the bombing of Holy Trinity Church and Northumberland House. Research suggests that it was last used in 1941, so we cannot know – without extensive surveying – whether it represents a suitable alternative entrance.
Crucially, there is no assurance that Forsters Entrance will be opened before the existing entrance is closed.
Lastly, this proposal flies in the face of the results of TDC’s own Margate Caves Consultation (2009). Over 90% of respondents opposed the sale and development of the site. Specific concerns voiced included infilling of any part of the Caves and the potential loss of a tourist attraction for the town. Representations included one from Margate Civic Society and a petition of 2,592 signatures.
The Margate Caves are an important and fascinating part of the town’s tourism offer. Their potential worth is far greater than that of seven poorly-designed houses.