I guess if I was responsible for this one I
would want to build in the rest of the Granville in the same style as the
existing parts, using similar materials.
I also guess the choice is pretty stark,
either the thing I don’t like very much or a carry on with the mess and the
hole in ground.
Anyway below are some pictures from the
planning application, the documents on the uk planning site seem particularly
reluctant to open, big pdf files, if your computer is up to here are the references
and instructions.
28 Jan 2013 L/TH/12/1019 LAND ADJACENT GRANVILLE HOUSE, VICTORIA
PARADE, RAMSGATE, CT11 8DF current
28 Jan 2013 F/TH/12/1018 LAND ADJACENT GRANVILLE HOUSE, VICTORIA
PARADE, RAMSGATE, CT11 8DF current
The TDC planning website is one of the most
bizarre websites I have ever come across in as much as the web addresses of the
pages on it change after a few hours so you can’t publish links to them. If you
want to look at any of the applications you need to go to the site and enter
the application reference in the search box, this link takes you to the site http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet
Next some related pictures, what was there before and so on.
credit David Carr photography
Here is the link to the book I publish
about The Granville http://michaelsbookshop.com/catalogue/the_granville_hotel___the_story_of_the_granville_hotel_ramsgate_1869_2012.htm
I am fairly certain that Planning permission was granted for the demolition of the former theatre and circus hall on 7/4/1982 and it has remained derelict ever since. This plot of land was sold in 2006 by Oakleigh Developments to Granville Court Limited for £1,700,000
I am fairly certain that Planning permission was granted for the demolition of the former theatre and circus hall on 7/4/1982 and it has remained derelict ever since. This plot of land was sold in 2006 by Oakleigh Developments to Granville Court Limited for £1,700,000
I will endeavour to write some more about
this, perhaps a cup of tea first.
I would prefer to see the facade of the old building copied to the proposed new build. At least in style if nothing else.
ReplyDeleteAll a bit sad isn’t it John, our architects seem to have got themselves in a 1980s time warp when it comes to designing most modern buildings. I guess the underlying problem is the lack of features – twiddly bits – to rest the eye on.
DeleteI can’t, didn’t get as far as working out which set of pictures represented what they are going to build, however there seem to be two distinct lots of 80s ghastliness and I doubt they are offering a choice.
As far as I can see there is nothing in planning law to ensure that they fill in the hole they made with something in keeping with the rest of the Victorian structure.
An awful mess - we need to sack our town planners (who replaced Brian White?) if they cannot preserve our heritage. The drawings/computer mockups are very good though in showing just how awful these plans are for a Conservation Area.
DeleteThe Grange RD vandalism destroying Caffneys Garage is equally awful and like Arlington needs pulling down and starting again.
For 13 years I lived in Docklands. Where the modern architecture reflects the great days when these were the largest docks in the world. As an example, some of the apartment blocks retain the look and feel of the victorian and earlier Godowns that they replaced. I do not see why the Granville cannot be developed with a similar TLC.
DeleteMy erstwhile dockland home of 13 years stands on the bank of the Thames. The reliable story goes that it was built to wash money stolen in the Brinks Mat robbery. It is a shame that we cannot find a similar benefactor for Pleasurama.
I have a feeling that the Arlington will be listed simply because it is so awful. This has already happened with a couple of buildings in central London. There is a logic to this, I suppose.
DeleteNight drawing in Gramps. Off to bed. Thanet's pensioners have failed us. Manston. Thor. MODFire. Arlington. Dreamland. Pleasurama. KCC Tobacco, Gun and Booze investments.
DeleteI like the way the default is to blame the council and the 'town planners' - I don't thunk TDC are the ones putting together these plans !
DeleteOf course the default is to blame the council and town planners. They are funded and have the responsibility to approve or reject plans such as these. They also should be working against a cohesive town plan rather than random developments from any builder or estate agent that fancies his chances for a quick buck.
DeleteOr does it work some other way? Like the TDC bung culture.
Could not have put it better myself Anon at 6.04
ReplyDeleteAll the sites you list say more about our inept TDC than any individual could imagine.
Well said Chuck but our councillors and civil servants think they are excellent - although inept. How many should be sacked?
DeleteUtter shAt plans: Madeline Homer is responsible for this? Which councillor?
ReplyDeleteThis site was sold at auction to a Home Counties based developer for around £200K a few months ago at auction. It previously had planning permission for a similarly disgusting block from the early 2000s to about 2008, so this is not really a surprise. Whatever is put here will probably be an improvement on the hole in the ground we have had for 30 years, but yes, of course, like the new corner that was erected in 2004, it should really be in the style of the rest of the building.
ReplyDeleteI expect the "new" Granville could be built in the same pattern as the old, at greatly increased cost but I wonder who would be prepared to pay for the privilege of living in it? As for a mixture of architectural styles it is not unusual to see for example a Tudor house with a later Georgian extension.
ReplyDeleteAt least someone looks like they believe Ramsgate has a future...
Pat M,
ReplyDeleteI disagree that imitating the Pugin facade could be done only at prohibitive cost bearing in mind modern building techniques and materials. The existing modern corner extension, Granville Court, built around 2003 is an example of how this can be done. These flats were not expensive; my Mother bought one.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe you believe that the proposed developments are beautiful. I do not.
I accept that the developer exists to make money, and that there is no inherent fault in that. But maybe he should pause to think of another developer, Pugin.
They are horrible. I agree that there needs to be some ornament - modern architecture needs to be more self confident. I do not agree that they should do another Puginesque repro like the new west wing facing the sea - it is just annoyingly wrong in it's detail - too many floors, etc. I would like confident modern architecture that balances with, rather than copies or is overawed by, the existing in terms of scale, line and detailing; not cheap, utilitarian, lookey-likeys to all the old people's developments nearby. Also, all the new plans seem to have residential flats with windows straight onto the pavement - who wants to live there? Surely it should be commercial, small offices, etc; or it should be set back from the pavement.
ReplyDeleteAnon 6:04 .. we know who you are .. and update his on your blog ' standing for directly-elected Ramsgate Mayor and MP, 5th May 2011'
ReplyDeleteReading through the comments above I am struck by several instances where the commentator seems to have completely missed what the post is about.
ReplyDeleteThis post has nothing to do with some failing of the council officers or councillors, but about a planning application submitted to the council, the council haven’t decided whether to approve or reject the application yet.
At the moment we are in the time period where members of the public can submit comments to the council which will effect the council’s decision.
Personally I don’t like the proposal very much and would prefer either an iconic contemporary building or something in the style of the rest of the building i.e. late Victorian, what I don’t want and what appears to have been proposed is 1980s economy architecture with minimal features or anything that would in any way add to the cost of the development.
I don’t think there is a hope in hell of getting a good modern design and can’t see how one could produce any grounds that fall within planning law towards achieving this.
This leaves us with trying to get something in the style of the rest of the building, late Victorian.
My thoughts on this are that as the seaward facing part of the building, that was destroyed by a bomb in the war, has recently been rebuilt in the style of the rest of the building, there must have been some incentive used to make the developer do this and perhaps this can be used with the rest of the building.
My 10 year old could have designed a better looking building in Sims. Maybe that's who the developers' architect is?
ReplyDeleteAlso, only 19 parking spaces for 10 x 1-bedroomed flats and 28 x 2-bedroomed flats in an area that is already becoming difficult for on-street parking, seeing as most of the Victorian properties around there have no space for off-street parking and never will have. That must be addressed, surely?
BTW, I bunged my £3 into the Land Registry website and this popped out:
Title Number : K902531
Address of Property : land adjoining Granville House, D'este Road,
Ramsgate
Price Stated : £160,000
Registered Owner(s) : JASON GILBERT HOUGH of 2b Broadmead Avenue,
Worcester Park, Surrey KT4 7SW.
Lender(s) : None
And here is Jason Hough's profile on Linkedin:
Jason Hough
Interestingly, he states that he has: 'English Heritage experience whilst undertaking Grade II building reinstatement (E.W. Pugin Architecture Circa 1830)'
So one might have expected his plans to be a little more in keeping with the surrounding millieu!
Pip pip!
Anonymous 5:01PM
DeleteThank you. This is interesting.
Re: price of £160,000.
DeleteThat's sounds pretty low to me for a plot of that size. This would work out at a land cost of about £4,200 per flat.
Given the bargain price the developer appears to have got the land for, there should be scope for a high quality design to match the Granville Court re-build at the front :-).
“English Heritage experience whilst undertaking Grade II building reinstatement (E.W. Pugin Architecture Circa 1830)”Aan interesting notion this 5.01, E.W. Pugin was born in 1834 making me especially interested in the buildings he designed around 1830.
DeleteOh yes. He was a bit a of a whizz with his Lego, that Pugin.
DeleteAt -4 he was already a prolific architectural genius!
DeletePopped out of Mrs Pugin along with a scale model of the Granville and several ecclesiastical buildings.
DeleteWhat an awful design, totally out of keeping with the surrounding Victorian architecture.
ReplyDeleteThe proposed development is considerably higher that the previous structure.
Surely Prince Charles would have something to say about this monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant, Grade II listed building in a conservation area?!?!!
ReplyDeleteCarbuncle is right- time for a proper conservation area and cancel Pleasurama, Dreamland housing and demolish Arlington.
ReplyDeleteI really think that making a pastiche of the old building would be pretty dire. Mock buildings are tacky. However the new drawings are pretty mediocre. There is an opportunity to make a rather fine contemporary addition to this building, but I feel this isn't quite there get.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12:00AM,
ReplyDeleteI for one was not suggesting a pastiche or a mock design. The expression I would use is, in the style of. Which is something quite different; and which would become apparent if you took a stroll around the London Docklands. Docklands contains some fine modern architecture which is in keeping with what went before.
I agree. I wouldn't want to see a Prince Charles-inspired (inspired?!) pastiche here, but I would like to see more effort on the part of the developer. A better design, better materials, more thought. And I would put in a plea for it to be no taller than what was there before. Currently it's at least a couple of floors higher. A man-made, New York style canyon is not what we need round here - it's windy enough already!
ReplyDeleteIt will eclipse the benefits of sunlight on the existing houses and for some residents already living in the Granville. There is car parking saturation at night already in this area - this will get worse. This design is city planning not for a small seside town. It neither respects the building it is part of or the low rise dwellings nearby. It is cheap and designed to create maximum return for the property developers and return in council tax for TDC. More greedy bastards!
ReplyDeleteAll this said, the architects, Canterbury-based Clague, are pretty respectable and have been responsible for quite good developments (IMO) at the Horsebridge in Whitstable and The Tannery in Canterbury. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you, "just saying"? If you do not mean what you say then you should say so. Or are you apologising for commenting?
DeleteTrue, Clague have good conservation credentials - but those designs all stink. Since we won't get an iconic modern building sadly (and which many people would probably hate) we ought to press for compatible materials (i.e. proper yellow london brick, not that ghastly 80's plasti-brickwork, lime mortar etc) and decorative details identical to the Pugin - as some one said, if the land is only costing £4,200 per flat, there's plenty of money for high quality materials, a decent design - and maybe even a couple of levels of underground carpark!
ReplyDeleteAs the application is evidently just for outline permission the facades will be subject to any planning requirements and quite likely be a little different to the initial options proposed by the developer. At least they give an indication of their thinking.
ReplyDeletePersonaly I hope there will be an improvement on the current design...a little bland for my taste, and the flats end up being occupied by outsiders willing to spend their income in Ramsgate oh and pay a good slice of Council Tax too. Ramsgate needs people with money to spend. A cash strapped council,a DHSS economy and its downhill all the way.
Sorry Michael I've drifted slightly off topic...high horse and all that.
Pat I think that perhaps an absence of decoration should be grounds for a planning objection, I know a few twiddley bits on a building cost a bit more, but one does need somewhere to rest the eye.
DeleteBut yes get on your high horse and do what I am going to do which is object to the plans because they are not in keeping with the rest of the Victorian structure, lets hope some of the other commentators do too.
watever they do ittle be better than looking at a hole in the ground go and moan about somthingk else wate a sad bunch of people little tirants
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteyou lot must have sad and lonely lifes
ReplyDeletethe back of the granville still the same from when the bomb was dropted
ReplyDeleteanonymous February 11 4:35, 4:54 & 4:58
DeleteYour comments have been an immense contribution to the debate on this subject
You have got very confused here 4.58 the bomb was the front bit that has been rebuilt, the back was the result of a fairly recent demolition as shown in the picture above. Perhaps you will concede that demolishing part of a listed building albeit with the consent of the council can be a bad idea
Deleteyes michael your right but the back of granville house is an eye sore
ReplyDeleteI have seen from ukPlanning.com that the plans have been passed. It would have been nice to see something with a nod to Mr Pugin but,time moves on. I'm not keen on what they are doing but, the plot has been derelict for so long it needed something done. It would seem not enough people objected to the plan so it was passed.
ReplyDelete