Topic ID 3872
Image Insert:
[img]http://www.wareonline.co.uk/haveyoursay/uploaded/JudieT/2009116123213_musle.JPG[/img]
7.3 KB
This is, I have to admit, a topic very close to my heart, so I am entirely biased.
Today I noticed Planning Notices displayed on the lamp-posts outside the school and see that the application that was granted previously for the development of this site has to be renewed. I objected at the time, but only found out about it too late to generate any support from others.
I have three main objections:
1) The proposed extension is entirely modern and out of keeping with the existing building and will dwarf it.
2) 17 car parking spaces for a hall that can hold 200 is ridiculous and will result in on street parking in an already congested area.
3) Having a community hall on this site with the associated traffic in the vicinity of the junction with Homefield Road is simply short-sighted.
I have other objections, but these are, I feel, the main ones. At the planning meeting Councillor Copping expressed his concern at the number of parking spaces and it was noted that ONLY 55 residents had been consulted.
Also the following points had been registered but I don't believe much consideration has been taken of them:
- Inadequate kitchen facilities for the proposed use
- Exacerbate existing on street car parking problems
- Noise and disturbance
- Proliferation of religious establishments
- Possible disturbance of bats
3/06/1581/FP and 3/06/1580/LB
- Design out of keeping with the architectural style of the listed building
- Adequate community facilities are already available in Ware
- Loss of trees
- Possible damage to listed gates and Fives Court.
- Unacceptable increase in traffic
- Impact on existing services
I apologise for the length of this post, but am very keen to find out if there is any more support to objecting to this planning application and hope that I have given enough information for others to make up their minds.
The planning application renewal references are 3/06/1580/LB and 3/06/1581/FP and you can see them online at http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPSEARCHRES.displayResultsURL?ResultID=364325&StartIndex=1&SortOrder=APNID:asc&DispResultsAs=wphappsresweek2&BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E.
I'd like to know whether it's just me that thinks this is a very poor way to utilise this lovely old building or is there anyone else out there who'd like to see it used for the Education of the People of Ware - which is, after all, what it was bequeathed to the people of Ware for when it was built.
Reply ID 43741
I've said before that it's a cryiong shame that the place is just rotting away and ben assured that it could never happen. And yet time goes by... My fear is that an exceptable plan won't appear and it will become a danger and be demolished. At that point they have a clear path to develop the site afresh. I hope I'm wrong but it's the way these things tend to happen. Hence plans being proposed that are almost certain to be rejected and so the decay continues.
Reply ID 43744
This is in The Mercury as 'New lease of life for school site'!
Reply ID 43746
Thanks for the sentiments Pat, but the building is listed and as such should not be allowed to fall into such decay as to be demolished. The plans were approved in 2006, this is a renewal after three years and is perhaps the only chance there is to stop it. It is owned by a Charity associated with Presdales School, they inherited it from Ware Grammar School, it was left in trust to the people of Ware for their education. If it is left to rot it is purely a reflection on the charity and Presdales School. It has not been marketed as a possible site for a nursery, 6th floor study centre, educational research centre or other educational purpose. There was only ever this deal to swop it with the proposed community centre at the Trinity Centre, possibly because more money could be generated by building houses on the Trinity Centre than by providing a Community Centre? Call me a cynic if you want, but when one planning application to build on a school site is approved because it is providing a Community Centre and then that Community Centre is not built, but swopped with space at Musley School, then it makes me wonder how many more bits of school property are going to be developed.
Reply ID 43747
Of course it shouldn't be allowed to rot listed or not. But what has the last 3 years done for the fabric of the building? What will the next 3 do? The 3 after that? I think it's disgusting and shabby that 3 years plus on and it's no closer to being restored to it's former glory. I have little faith that listing status will protect it. Play the "game" right and it won't be possible for it to survive and I'm sure many hands will be wrung at the regret that a fine building becomes too expensive to be viably restored. But maybe I'm just a cynic...
Reply ID 43748
So who is going to pay for it's restoration? Should Presdales take the money out of their school budget? As far as I can see most of the suggested uses will cause the same problems. Bits of school land are being developed all the time - it is the only way to raise enough money for vital works. It will go the way of others, it will gradually fall apart and in a few years there will be an unfortunate fire. Listing only works if the owners have the will and the funds.
Reply ID 43752
quote:If you take on, accuire, purchase, take responsibility for a building or site then you are responsible. I have no interest in how they fund it. That was there concern it taking it on. My only concern is we had a viable, looked after, resource, being used for the good of the community as a school. The presence of the building in the road enhanced the town. When the school was closed we were given assurances that the building would be preserved and those promises should have been transferred to the new "owners" All I ask is that those promises are kept and such a fine building is returned to it's former state.
Originally posted by spear
So who is going to pay for it's restoration? Should Presdales take the money out of their school budget? As far as I can see most of the suggested uses will cause the same problems. Bits of school land are being developed all the time - it is the only way to raise enough money for vital works. It will go the way of others, it will gradually fall apart and in a few years there will be an unfortunate fire. Listing only works if the owners have the will and the funds.
Reply ID 43758
I live quite close to Musley School and would welcome it being turned into a community centre. The people I know who live even closer (in Sandeman Gardens) have been sent letters about the latest plans. I hate seeing the building just sitting there not being used and the plans are keeping the existing building but with adding new bits. I think we should be looking forwards things can not always stay the same forever, to be honest even if the building was demolished and rebuilt in a new form I wouldn't have objections I just want to see work started.
Reply ID 43761
Lets not see it demolished for lack of imagination on how to sue what it offers. Nice looking buildings are few and far between. I'll lay money that anything they put in it's place will look far less attractive.
Reply ID 43763
quote:So far as I am aware there are no new owners the same people have owned it all along, I doubt Presdales ever really wanted it, it is just a millstone around their necks - there is no way a school can divert money from education to do up a building they can't use. You can ask all you like without the cash it won't happen. You say Musley was viable but from what I recall it was one of the most expensive schools per capita in the County.
Originally posted by Pat-Hquote:If you take on, accuire, purchase, take responsibility for a building or site then you are responsible. I have no interest in how they fund it. That was there concern it taking it on. My only concern is we had a viable, looked after, resource, being used for the good of the community as a school. The presence of the building in the road enhanced the town. When the school was closed we were given assurances that the building would be preserved and those promises should have been transferred to the new "owners" All I ask is that those promises are kept and such a fine building is returned to it's former state.
Originally posted by spear
So who is going to pay for it's restoration? Should Presdales take the money out of their school budget? As far as I can see most of the suggested uses will cause the same problems. Bits of school land are being developed all the time - it is the only way to raise enough money for vital works. It will go the way of others, it will gradually fall apart and in a few years there will be an unfortunate fire. Listing only works if the owners have the will and the funds.
Reply ID 43764
quote:By viable I referred to the fact that the local authority owned it and it was serving a community service and providing a pleasant building as part of town. There is always lots of demand for space for community activities and it's a shame it wasn't able to do more towards that. So yes it was a viable building, far more than it's been for the last 3 years. But I guess there will be those that feel the cost saving in boarding it up outweighs the loss of having a derelict building rot away. Sadly.
Originally posted by spearquote:So far as I am aware there are no new owners the same people have owned it all along, I doubt Presdales ever really wanted it, it is just a millstone around their necks - there is no way a school can divert money from education to do up a building they can't use. You can ask all you like without the cash it won't happen. You say Musley was viable but from what I recall it was one of the most expensive schools per capita in the County.
Originally posted by Pat-Hquote:If you take on, accuire, purchase, take responsibility for a building or site then you are responsible. I have no interest in how they fund it. That was there concern it taking it on. My only concern is we had a viable, looked after, resource, being used for the good of the community as a school. The presence of the building in the road enhanced the town. When the school was closed we were given assurances that the building would be preserved and those promises should have been transferred to the new "owners" All I ask is that those promises are kept and such a fine building is returned to it's former state.
Originally posted by spear
So who is going to pay for it's restoration? Should Presdales take the money out of their school budget? As far as I can see most of the suggested uses will cause the same problems. Bits of school land are being developed all the time - it is the only way to raise enough money for vital works. It will go the way of others, it will gradually fall apart and in a few years there will be an unfortunate fire. Listing only works if the owners have the will and the funds.
Reply ID 43768
This has become such an eyesore - just being left to rot - that any progress on sympathetic redevelopment has to be welcomed. Car parking space for 17 cars in a 200 capacity venue is a worry though. I live around the corner in Trinity Road and car parking is pretty difficult as it is (especially as many of the newer houses on the East side have doubled the width of their driveways). The longer it's neglected, the more likely it is to be demolished to make way for more flats.
Reply ID 43771
quote:No-one said anything about not looking forward and wishing for things to stay the same forever. The joy of seeing children playing happily or knowing that your children had the best possible start to their education was lost forever when they closed the school. I'd love to see the building used, for almost any purpose, but THINK about the parking if you don't share my view on the aesthetics! If you live in any of the roads nearby you'll already know how hard it is sometimes to manoeuvre around parked cars. If you come up the hill on the bus you'll already know how difficult it is sometimes to get up and round the corner into Homefield. Imagine all that with a public car park on the hill just yards away from the cross roads and cars tightly parked on the surrounding streets with 200 odd people looking for somewhere to park!
Originally posted by kate darcy
I think we should be looking forwards things can not always stay the same forever, to be honest even if the building was demolished and rebuilt in a new form I wouldn't have objections I just want to see work started.
Reply ID 43773
Judie T is right about the parking and traffic. I come along Homefield Road and across Musley Hill every day. It is very very hard already to get across, as visibility is always impaired by parked cars. The building needs to be used, but on a scale appropriate to the area it is in. There is no point building something there to attract a couple of hundred people if they will dramatically increase car use around that junction - it will cause crashes.
Reply ID 43782
quote:I don't think the local authority have ever owned it. I presume that by viable you mean it could be kept going with large sums of money which would be more effectively spent elsewhere? Musley was no longer viable and was dying - the big problem was that it had no link to a juniors so if you sent your kids there you could not expect a place. The other schools were filling from their own nurseries, the plan to link to Christchurch came to nothing which more or less spelled the end. I can't see there is any use which will not increase traffic and parking. I doubt there is any practical use which will be acceptable to the local residents.
Originally posted by Pat-Hquote:By viable I referred to the fact that the local authority owned it and it was serving a community service and providing a pleasant building as part of town. There is always lots of demand for space for community activities and it's a shame it wasn't able to do more towards that. So yes it was a viable building, far more than it's been for the last 3 years. But I guess there will be those that feel the cost saving in boarding it up outweighs the loss of having a derelict building rot away. Sadly.
Originally posted by spearquote:So far as I am aware there are no new owners the same people have owned it all along, I doubt Presdales ever really wanted it, it is just a millstone around their necks - there is no way a school can divert money from education to do up a building they can't use. You can ask all you like without the cash it won't happen. You say Musley was viable but from what I recall it was one of the most expensive schools per capita in the County.
Originally posted by Pat-Hquote:If you take on, accuire, purchase, take responsibility for a building or site then you are responsible. I have no interest in how they fund it. That was there concern it taking it on. My only concern is we had a viable, looked after, resource, being used for the good of the community as a school. The presence of the building in the road enhanced the town. When the school was closed we were given assurances that the building would be preserved and those promises should have been transferred to the new "owners" All I ask is that those promises are kept and such a fine building is returned to it's former state.
Originally posted by spear
So who is going to pay for it's restoration? Should Presdales take the money out of their school budget? As far as I can see most of the suggested uses will cause the same problems. Bits of school land are being developed all the time - it is the only way to raise enough money for vital works. It will go the way of others, it will gradually fall apart and in a few years there will be an unfortunate fire. Listing only works if the owners have the will and the funds.
Reply ID 43783
You're probably right Spear about the traffic. But then some strong measures would need to be taken to make it safe, like putting double yellow lines down around the site, taking down the fence around the big house diagonally opposite the school and maybe other measures. Also, anything that goes on the site would need to be small enough not to dwarf the school building, otherwise yo might just as well knock it down, it'll be ruined anyway. Nothing like that horrendous piece of (at)(at)(at)(at)(at) Fletcher's Lea. God alone knows how that was allowed.
Reply ID 43786
St. Mary's school was converted to other uses quite sucessfully without building huge extensions and taking up half the playground for housing. Conversion to offices would seem to be more sensible than a community hall, office workers would be requiring to park in the adjacent streets between 0900 and 1700 when local residents would be at work anyway. A community hall which, presumably, would be used in the evenings, would cause parking chaos.
Reply ID 43801
Think also of the loud music into the night should it be used as a community centre. And, with Fletcher's Lea completely underutilised, we hardly need another one, do we?
Reply ID 43809
quote:Why would there be loud music into the night? in any case FL is not a community centre.
Originally posted by villager
Think also of the loud music into the night should it be used as a community centre. And, with Fletcher's Lea completely underutilised, we hardly need another one, do we?
Reply ID 43810
Assumingly it would be used for parties??
Reply ID 43811
quote:FL was supposed to be a community facility building, at least that's what it says on the planning application. (I know, another topic)
Originally posted by spear
In any case FL is not a community centre.
Reply ID 43812
It is another topic Craig, but it matters. Why build a community centre when we have one that is poorly used already?
Reply ID 43814
quote:FL isn't poorly used because of lack of interest, it's just that wedding and conferences take priority over community bookings and it's not that affordable to community groups (unless you get funding from the town council to be able to pay the rent to the town council. It happens). You've also got the restriction on use of the kitchens in FL which limits the target audience somewhat. (I know, another topic)
...when we have one that is poorly used already?
Reply ID 43815
Fair enough, now we are on to another topic!!
Reply ID 43818
Fletchers Lea cannot be hired for functions without using their in-house caterers. I made an inquiry about using it for a kids birthday party - they were not interested. Weddings and big sit down meals only. Who benefits from this cosy arrangement between the council and the caterers which has eaten up over £1M of our council tax? Hope the Musley School development results in something of genuine benefit to the community, rather than lining the pockets of a few individuals.
Reply ID 43819
Affordable venues for local groups are hard to come by. FL can't win, if they let to local groups it has to be heavily subsidised and people moan it makes a loss if they take better paying bookings they moan it isn't for local groups. The rent increase demanded when the Place House lease ran out would have meant a huge increase in the charge to use it which local groups said they couldn't afford. No use for Musley will meet the approval of local residents and it will probably end up another white elephant - better to knock it down now before huge sums wasted on it. There is no point listing buildings for which there is no use and no money to keep up.
Reply ID 43820
As this seems to have completely gone off topic I'd suggest trying the Drill Hall.
Reply ID 43821
quote:I totally disagree with you Spear, ten years the District Council tried to sell off the Drill Hall; everyone thought that would become a "white Elephant" but a group of dedicated people got together and saved the place so that it remains a part of the Ware Commumity. The trouble with Fletcher's Lee is that it was commissioned to become an alternative venue but someone decided that anyone who uses the place has to also use the extremely expensive catering facilities. If you get rid of that restriction then the place will be used more often. If Musley School is used as a public hall for that end of town, then all the better.
Originally posted by spear
Affordable venues for local groups are hard to come by. FL can't win, if they let to local groups it has to be heavily subsidised and people moan it makes a loss if they take better paying bookings they moan it isn't for local groups. The rent increase demanded when the Place House lease ran out would have meant a huge increase in the charge to use it which local groups said they couldn't afford. No use for Musley will meet the approval of local residents and it will probably end up another white elephant - better to knock it down now before huge sums wasted on it. There is no point listing buildings for which there is no use and no money to keep up.
Reply ID 43823
There were catering restrictions in place at the Priory long before FL - so far as I am aware it is normal when you have on site caterers. So far as I can see from here the residents don't want MS used in that way. Who will run it anyway? In my experience no one wants to know, yes they might use it if it is handed to them on a plate and cheap but will they lift a finger to help - no. Most people don't even know the various listed buildings exist let alone care what happens to them and Ware has more than most. I would expect people on here to show more interest than most, so a short survey. These are some of Ware's "prize exhibits" do you know a) where they are (yes or no) b) what their original use was (yes or no) c) what century they were built d) when you last visited them 1) the Priory 2) Scott's Grotto 3) the gazebos 4) Place House
Reply ID 43827
quote:1) the Priory: yes, yes, 14th, this year 2) Scott's Grotto: yes, yes, 18th, last year 3) the gazebos: yes, yes, 18th, always assumed private property 4) Place House: yes, no, no, this year
Originally posted by spear These are some of Ware's "prize exhibits" do you know
Reply ID 43828
I'm impressed - the gazebos are private but the Ware Society organises a visit each year for members - Sept or Oct I think.
Reply ID 44187
mb1 - When you say yellow lines, I am surprised....... like we don't have enough of the bleedin' things already! :)
Reply ID 44203
quote:No! there are plenty of places where they should be but are not.
Originally posted by louise12
mb1 - When you say yellow lines, I am surprised....... like we don't have enough of the bleedin' things already! :)
Reply ID 44652
and also pleanty of places where they shouldnt be, and are!
Reply ID 44665
Maybe we could swap them over one night [:)] Sounds like a job for after the WOLf Meet [8D] FB
Reply ID 44669
There aren't enough double yellows around the top of Musley Hill and Homefield Road. vehicles park far too close to that junction to be able to cross safely. There needs to be more parking restrictions there.
Reply ID 44699
haha FB that sounds like a fab idea, count me in!