“Sorry the links are wrong, but you get the idea!”

“Welsh building champion, Design Commission for Wales said a lot more than 'significant', and google would give you a link to the full story very easily, well worth a read.
http://tinyurl.com/3cfqxyc
Also the home page is at http://tinyurl.com/3nkk3ww


'WE NOTED THAT THE HEADLAND BUILDING COULD BECOME EITHER A HOTEL OR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BLOCK, AND IN VIEW OF THE SENSITIVE LOCATION WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE A COMMITMENT TO ITS PROPOSED USE AT THIS STAGE

On the pier website they have backing from bussinesss leader to build a hotel, but they are really building another block of flats.”

“Andrew, Mumbles.
There is no residential development, nor hotel involved with The Grand Pier in Weston. It's a Pier, pure and simple, and the privately owned Pier is determined to make a profit, and continue for ever, as a Pier. Clevedon Pier has received grants, yes, but has also gone out into the community to generate money. If you walk along the Pier, you can't help noticing the memorial brass plates that people have paid for, to remember past relatives, some of whom met or courted on the Pier, it works.
I suspect you have mistaken the residential aspect with Birnbeck Pier, which is a mile or so up the coastline from the Grand Pier, Weston. Birnbeck has been in decline for many years, was closed to the public due to safety concerns some years ago, and was purchased by a company called Urban Splash about 4 years ago, at the height of the property boom. They thought they would make loads of dosh, as they had made in Manchester, and other developments up North. Unfortunately, they made an error of judgement, and bought at the wrong time. Their proposal was dependant on a hotel, loads of flats etc,to be built on the Island to make the deal work. It soon became apparent the their plan was unsound. The boardwalk, means of accessing the Pier, had a weight limit of about a ton, or so. This meant that should a resident on the Island be taken ill, particularily during bad weather or at night, no ambulance would be able to drive onto the boardwalk. Some of the new ambulances weigh in at over 4 tons ! Therefore, imagine walking or being trolleyed, when your gasping for breath, in a howling gale on a dark night. Sorry, no thanks. Birnbeck Pier is now so bad, that most Weston residents expect it to fall into the sea.
With regard to planning permission for mumbles Pier, Swansea Council are under extreme pressure to give planning permission. Many developers nowadays are not put off if the Council turn down their proposals. they can always appeal, and they have a good chance of winning the appeal. It's a bit like poker, he or she who hesitates, is lost. The developers hold a very strong hand, and they know it. Actually, if you have been in the property game, like me, it's comon or garden stuff !
Nothing innovative on this one, seen it all before !”

“@Kelly:

"I need to firstly say that I support the development at Mumbles Pier so I may well be biased." I support development too - I don't think your position is biased.



"But is seems to me that Andrew in answering questions whilst others are offering opinions." The problem is that Andrew has made unsubstantiated comments and personalised the debate. His comments are just as much opinion as anyone else's comments.



"No problem with that but asking the same question over and over again in the hope that you are going to get the answer you like seems just a bit pointless." Which question?



* "The DCW (whoevet they are) don't like the designs" - the DCW is an internationally-recognised design consultancy funded by the Welsh Assembly so it does have a valid perspective on this issue. Many local people don't like the design either. Personally I like modernist buildings and I think with the right scale and materials this design would fit in well.



* "the pier is becoming dangerous" - the pier has become dangerous over many years as it hasn't been maintained - it didn't happen overnight. The problem is that it's neglect appears to be a bargaining chip to steamroll through a planning application.



* "money is needed to repair it" - money is needed, but that doesn't mean that it is a suitable development? Money is an issue because it is not publicly owned same as any other business, apart from banking.



* "the pier owners want to redevelop the foreshore to raise the cash" - redevelopment is fine as long as it it suitable.



* "the RNLI needs a new lifeboat house at the end of the pier." no doubt but are there other options? It is claimed that the RNLI cannot speak on this matter as it would jeopardise an ongoing application but it appears that people who support unspecified development do have access to RNLI info? In terms of an open debate that's a little underhand.



Initially I wasn't interested in this issue at all but I noticed that people who reasonably objected to unsuitable development were subject to personal comments and veiled threats from a specific group of posters.



To find the common ground you suggest proponents of development (myself included) need to accept that if someone has a reasonable objection to development they are not responsible for all the ills of the world. This is a complex issue and it has been presented in a very two-dimensional manner so far.



@ Andrew: "The owners are not developers. They will not be building the flats or the hotel. It is the scale of development that is important because if this is restricted to one or two storeys then sales proceeds will not be enough to restore the pier."


So a solution to this could be to scale back the development to a suitable size and purpose, and put the pier into public ownership where it would be eligible for funding.”

“Agree with the positive, constructive view Steve, Mayals.

How many fingers are in the planning process?

Swansea council planning committee, Mr Chris Holley, Paul Smith council 'chief exec' or Phil Roberts regeneration head or Welsh Assembly planning overseeing appeals.

Whichever way, the city and it's decision makers have an uncanny knack of fast-tracking the self destruct option. Example - Mumbles train.

The city centre remains a sorry state as bus lanes and road improvements look top focus for our council's 'planners' and power brokers.

The council have a chance to kickstart some regeneration here in Mumbles. No confidence in a fast or ambitious outcome though”

“Well what a spratt to catch a mackerel iff you dont give me my development the pier will close due to public safety,because the structure is not safe and the decking is deteriorating, It has been like that for years and now all of a sudden the planning is going slow on the propposed development so up pops a good idea just like it did some years ago lets call peoples bluff and close it. Come on the pier is just as safe as it was 10 years ago, think again Ameco and wait for the out come in propper business manner and stop scare mongering.”

“I need to firstly say that I support the development at Mumbles Pier so I may well be biased. But is seems to me that Andrew in answering questions whilst others are offering opinions. No problem with that but asking the same question over and over again in the hope that you are going to get the answer you like seems just a bit pointless. As I see it -
- The DCW (whoevet they are) don't like the designs
- the pier is becoming dangerous
- money is needed to repair it
- the pier owners want to redevelop the foreshore to raise the cash
- the RNLI needs a new lifeboat house at the end of the pier.

I take it that this is common ground so why not start from there?”

“@Andrew: "I did not keep the letter or copy it. It was among several recorded responses kept on file."

Well, at best then, all that can be ascertained is that the DCW is not opposed to development but opposed (as detailed in their report) to unsuitable development - which is also my position.



"More to the point, please address the issue that the majority of DCW comments refer to matters which are not pertinent to an outline application."


Why are they not pertinent?”

“I did not keep the letter or copy it. It was among several recorded responses kept on file.

More to the point, please address the issue that the majority of DCW comments refer to matters which are not pertinent to an outline application.”

“@Andrew

Why not publish verbatim the content of the DCW letter in your possession?”