With the original Planning Applications for the two adjoining sites along Riverside Road being withdrawn earlier in the year due to "forthcoming" election reasons, a slightly revised scheme was submitted to Great Yarmouths' Planning Department.
This revised scheme still did not address the main issues of it being out-of-character with its residential surroundings in both height and architecture, and with this being the case the residents of Gorleston, headed by Mr Harrison, started a campaign to make sure that this development only went ahead on the terms of the residents wishes -ie. at most 3 storeys high.
The battle lines had been formed, and so many letters and articles were published in the local press, see below.
With this unhelpful barrage of publicity the two developers Scroby Fayre and Halls Group decided to instigate a market research campaign in and around the Gorleston High Street, and by strategical only gaining the opinions of the people in favour of the scheme came up with some interesting results. They then followed this with a glossy leaflet drop stating that this development would provide;
This project was always going to be controversial but the way it has gained permission is a farce until itself . . . . . .
ADVERTISER 21 OCTOBER 2004
CAUSE FOR CONCERN
Dear Editor
In response to the front page article about Mr Hall's Riverside Housing development, I live on Blackwall Reach and I am very worried about the effects that this development will have.
Firstly, the current site lies on a flood plain. Mr Hall uses this in his argument fir not expanding his own business here. He states that he is worried about the high risk of flooding and the damage this would cause to his stock. What does he think would happen to the future tenants' property? Would their possessions not he at risk?
Next there is the never ending problem with the sewers and drains. Everytime there is heavy rain the drains at the bottom of Blackwall Reach by Somerfield cannot cope. This results in the sewers overflowing. In Mr Hall's last lot of plans, submitted in May. the sewers were a major concern. The report stated that the current drains would not be able to cope with usage from an extra 600 plus people. There was no drainage report with the latest plans even though the amount of people living on the estate would be roughly the same.
This new development offers nothing to Gorleston. There are no garden areas, no children's play area and unlike the other plans there's no community centre. Gorleston already has an over-stretched infrastructure. Local doctors, dentists and schools have no vacancies. The new housing estate by the James Paget has already added to this problem.
Traffic is on the increase with Blackw all Reach constantly being used a shortcut route through to the High Street and Riverside Road. It is oniy a single lane road with barely enough passing room. It is already dangerous to pedestrians and bikes. With Mr Ilall suggesting that Riverside Road could become a one way system I fear more cars will be using Blackwall Reach.
Lastly, my biggest concern is the possible structural damage to the properties on Blackwall Reach, Riverside Road and Ice House lull. In the structural engineer's report they say that the Hall's site is a poor area in terms of load hearing capacity'. All new structures would have to be supported from 'Piled Foundations' to approximately 15 metres. The vibrations from this piling could cause substantial damage to neighbouring buildings i.e our homes! We would have to put up with the noise and pollution of a building site fir three ears as this is the length of time it would take to demolish the existing buildings and rebuild Mr Hall's housing estate. Also, one of the buildings to be demolished has a roof made of asbestos.
Mr Hall's building yard is rather shabby looking and it would he nice to look out on something different. Something which would benefit the whole of Gorleston though and not just Mr Hall's bank balance.
Wendy Hunt
Gorleston
Dear Editor,
Regarding the regeneration plans; sorry Mr Hall but I am one of many local people that in spite of your urge to 'see the merit of the proposed scheme to build 319 ness homes along Riverside Road' fails to do so.
The latest proposal for a four storey development is no less offensive than the recently turned down six storey one was. It is still completely out of character with any existing architecture and historic interest of the locality.
After studying the artists impression in The Advertiser I was amused by the comment regarding creating a space between those two towering edifices for river views. Can you honestly envisage future sight-seers taking it in turn to squint through this gap to view something that has been historically been open to the residents of Blackwall Reach and all that care to stroll that way? I also question the remark about the 'shabby industrial area' surely it is the responsibility of the owners of shabby industrial areas to see that they are cleaned up. Also, Mr Hall, by which authority can you tell us of the possibility of Riverside Road becoming a one way system, a future possible decision for the council to disclose not a proposed developer.
It is still the general opinion of the people of the area in question that, should any proposed development of the riverside take place, it should be done in a manner that is sympathetic and in harmony with existing landscape and architecture. The latest proposal falls very short of this criteria.
Sorry, Mr Hall, if you really do have any interest in 'drumming up public support' I humbly suggest you return to the drawing board.
J R Baker
Gorleston
ADVERTISER 4 NOVEMBER 2004
POSITIVE FLATS POLL
PLANS for the controversial Riverside flats in Gorleston have been given public backing - according to the developers. In the light of recent controversy surrounding the Gorleston Riverside flats, the developers commissioned a survey to gauge public opinion.
The research was called for by Halls Group and Scroby Fayre, who have jointly submitted plans for the 319 new apartments overlooking the river. The plans have been met with objections from some local residents who were mainly concerned about the height of the buildings, loss of view and increased demand from services such as sewage and schools.
In view of this, the companies asked market researchers to interview shoppers in Gorleston during the last month.
Terry Hall, managing director of Halls Group says that 600 people were asked what they thought of the development and that the majority of them were in favour. He said: "Over 51 per cent of those interviewed even signed a petition requesting the council give the project a green light." According to Mr Hall, 22 per cent were against the project and 27 did not want to comment or had not made up their minds.
A public meeting took place last night at Great Yarmouth Library, where people were able to give their views, and councillors are due to decide on whether to approve the scheme at Great Yarmouth Borough Council's development control meeting next Thursday.
GOLDEN GORLESTON
Dear Editor,
Regeneration: A golden opportunity for Gorleston. Well, what does it mean, regeneration?
To many locals it means lottery grants for things that happen in London like the refit of Covent Garden's Opera House. No, it does not, it means making a better environment for your offspring with cleaner towns, safer streets, less crime and an attractive, safer place to reside. It can also mean less unemployment, more job opportunities, a better education and a brighter future looming ahead. This is achievable in Gorleston. Allow regeneration and investment to happen.
Too many times I've heard about projects that didn't happen because of objections and a lack of focus in the town's future. Remember the Outer Harbour failure? Remember plans for duelling the A47? Remember plans to develop Great Yarmouth's seafront? Now it's the Halls Group's rundown, noisy industrial site which is under the objectors' cosh as they submit plans for a brighter future.
Plans for 319 new dwellings and a massive £40 million investments along the Riverside must be a blessing for the town. Will we succumb to a small minority of objectors yet again? What would you prefer? More investment in Gorleston? More homes for people, tree planted community with lawned area and a pedestrian Riverside walkway? An investment which encourages more businesses to re-invest in the town? Less HGV vehicles trundling up and down Riverside Road and Gorleston's High Street?
In a few years the whole area could be transformed into a wealthy, vibrant community and one which we would be proud to be a part of. I know what I and all my customers want to see. I hope the council and its plaimers won't once again miss an opportunity to build for the future. We should (hopefully) toast their visionaly judgement on a golden opportunity for Gorleston.
P Watson
Gorleston
PROPOSED BUILD GETS FLAT RESPONSE
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank Mr Brian George for attempting to answer comments made by both Mrs Hunt and myself through the letters page a couple of weeks ago. However, after carefully reading his letter I am more confused than I was at the time of writing. First we are told by Mr Hall of a possible future one way system on Riverside Road, now Mr George states no change to the present two- way system. Mr Hall said that the present plan was to develop four storey flats as opposed to recently turned down six storey ones. Yet Mr George now talks of proposed four and a half storey flats as opposed to rejected five storey ones.
On Thursday October 14 this year an artists impression of the proposed flats was printed in The Advertiser, it clearly displayed two huge towering eyesores with a narrow gap between - for river views? Yet in Mr Hall's recently distributed glossy brochure, guess what? The two towering eyesores suddenly grew into four towering eyesores. Surely with so much at stake for all concerned a little more honesty would not come amiss?
Mr George's final sentence reads "Although, in strict planning terms the right to a particular view cannot be retained, it was felt that separation between proposed buildings will reduce the impact when viewed from both within the site and from Riverside Road." This must really be confirmation that those four proposed eyesores will indeed have a very great impact on the existing skyline, present architecture and historic interest of the locality.
Should planning permission for these proposed follies ever be granted, it will be a blow to dear old Gorleston from which it will never recover.
J R Baker
Gorleston
Gt YARMOUTH MERCURY 5 NOVEMBER 2004
PROTESTERS VOICE FLATS PLAN ANGER By AMY LYALL AND STEPHEN PULLINGER
TEMPERS flared at a public meeting as Gorleston residents gathered to discuss the height and scale of a flats development on the riverside.
Developers say the meeting was a success - but protesters are holding out for a favourable planning committee decision on Thursday.
David Tattersall, spokesman for co-developer Terry Hall, attended the meeting on behalf of Mr Hall who was unable to attend because of international business commitments.
Speaking the next day, he said: "The meeting gave us a chance to take everyone's views on board. There were a lot of vociferous people there and a lot of opinions were raised."
And David Fish, managing director for Scroby Fayre, Mr Hall's partner in the project, said yesterday: "I think it went absolutely brilliantly. I was impressed by everyone's willingness to discuss the issues. I really feel the time is coming for this development."
Protester Ted Heath said: "I think it was worth having the meeting because it gave everyone a chance to express their views. Now all we can do is wait and hope the council takes the objections in our letters on-board."
During the meeting on Wednesday at Gorleston Library, Mr Heath, who lives near the proposed 319-home Docklands-style scheme in Riverside Road, said a newsletter distributed by one of the joint developers had been "grossly misleading" in its headline that the apartment blocks would be four-storeys.
He said the 15m height of the blocks - four storeys with penthouses in the roofs - was almost equivalent to an earlier six-storey scheme rejected by Yarmouth Borough Council in the spring.
A woman who lives yards from the edge of the planned development said her Riverside Road semi would be dwarfed by buildings twice the size.
Another local resident accused Mr Hall of going for a development on that scale to fund the move of his builder's merchants' from Riverside Road to Gapton Hall industrial estate.
Rodney Mills, of Blackwall Reach, said: "No one objects to the three storey town houses built by Badger further along Riverside Road. Why should we finance businessmen to move elsewhere?"
Another local resident said: "They should be honest. This is a £40 million scheme and they are in it to make money. It is not about having a social conscience."
Mr Tattersall said the initial motivation for the project was because Halls had outgrown its site and had to move to protect employment of its staff.
Mr Fish said his part of the scheme would also allow businesses such as First Furnishing, leasing units from him on the site, to move and grow. Relocating them would cost around £3 million, and he defended the development as a way of securing the jobs and creating new ones.
Roger Palmer, a former resident of Blackwall Reach which overlooks the site, told the meeting: "It is all about infrastructure. The schools are full, the dentists are full, the doctors are full and the sewers are full. "I had two buyers drop out when they first heard about this project."
Another local resident added: "There could be 600 children living there. We are already saturated."
Mr Fish responded that he was marketing the flats in his part of the development at older people wanting to live in a gated community, so there would not be many children.
Brian George, the scheme's architect answered that the education authority had assured them there would be sufficient school places. And he said a drainage engineer had calculated there would be 22 per cent less drainage into the sewers because the development would involve less hard surfaces than the present industrial yard, allowing water to be absorbed into the ground.
Mr Tattersall said an independent survey of 600 shoppers in Gorleston High Street, had found 51 per cent in favour of the proposal and only 22 per cent against.
The borough's development control committee, decide on the plans on Thursday.
TOWN PROSPERITY HANGS ON MEETING
AT 10am next Thursday at Great Yarmouth Town Hall, a decision will be made by the building control committee that could change the face and heart of Gorleston affecting the lives of people who live and work there and their children's future. Under discussion will be the proposed major plans by evelopers who want to build 319 flats up to five storeys high along Riverside Road to add to the five storey blacks of flats to be built on the east side of Somerfield car park, with far-reaching consequences for the rest of the Riverside Road area.
The future prosperity of Gorleston along with its heritage and history hangs in the balance without any council-organised public debate, public display of plans and models or public input. However, the public is welcome to see democracy at work in deciding Gorleston's future at the above meeting.
Comments by letter on these major plans are still being accepted at The Maltings, Ref No 06/04/0854/F, although the original closing date for comments was October 8!
D SIMMONS
Gorleston
ADVERTISER 11 NOVEMBER 2004
NEW DEVELOPMENT SLAMMED BY PLANNERS
THE PROPOSED Riverside flats development in Gorleston has come under fire from planners at Great Yarmouth Borough Council.
Controversy has surrounded the development since its infancy, with residents complaining about the proposed height and the lack of local services.
A report to the development control committee states that the proposed 3 14 apartments scheme is: "simplistic in the extreme and unwelcoming in that it will in practical terms present a wall of development five storeys high - blocking views from much of the historic core of Gorleston."
The report goes on to say that the proposals go against the Local Plan, which sets out where new developments should take place. It states: "As submitted this scheme must be refused."
Further criticism comes as the findings of the planners call the scale of the flats "frightening" and the design "disappointing" The report also calls for assessment to be made of the impact on local services such as roads and schools.
The plans have been submitted jointly by Scroby Fayre and Halls Builders, and managing director Terry Hall said that the plans were very much in their early stages and that he would be prepared to listen to the planners' comments and take on board any suggestions and criticisms.
The planning meeting takes place today at l0am, where councillors will have to decide on whether to approve the apartments.
Gt YARMOUTH MERCURY 12 NOVEMBER 2004
RIVERSIDE FLATS TO GO AHEAD - 7-4 vote in favour despite damning officers' report
By STEPHEN PULLINGER and ROB ALLANSON
A £40 MILLION Docklandsstyle scheme which will see five-storey blocks of flats lining Gorleston's riverside was given the go-ahead yesterday - despite a damning verdict from planning officers.
A packed public gallery at Yarmouth Town Hall watched as the borough's development control committee approved the plans for 319 homes by seven votes to four.
Conservative committee members George Jermany, Paul Garrod, Charles Reynolds, Brian Howard, Elizabeth Giles, Stephen Ames and David Thompson voted to approve the scheme.
Labour's Michael Jeal, Patrick Hacon, Penny Linden and Sue Robinson opposed the project.
Labour's Trevor Wainwright and Tory Shirley Weymouth abstained.
No ward members for Gorleston were present during the debate.
Joint developer Terry Hall, who will move his builder's merchant's from Riverside Road to Yarmouth's Gapton Hall Industrial Estate to make way for part of the scheme, said after the meeting: "This is a great step for Gorleston. It is refreshing the council has had the foresight and vision to endorse the regeneration local people clearly want, as shown by our recent High Street survey."
But Tom Harrison, who had spoken passionately on behalf of the objectors, describing the flats as a "huge curtain wall", said he was devastated by the verdict and would be exploring avenues of appeal.
Fellow objector Ted Heath said it was a "crazy decision", going totally against planning advice. Council officers in their report had described the scale of the Riverside Road flats as "frightening" and the design "simplistic in the extreme" and "blocking views of the river from Gorleston's historic core."
Residents against the new development left the Town Hall in dismay. Wendy Hunt, of Blackwall Reach, said she and her husband remained against the development and felt it would have an impact on their life.
"These things take up to five years to be built, and we are going to have a building site near us now. This will affect our quality of life." However, Mr Reynolds successfully proposed approval of the scheme subject to minor design amendments to be agreed with council officers. The scheme - which will also include a range of two and three-storey houses - must now be endorsed by the Secretary of State as it is for more than 150 homes, and contrary to the borough-wide Local Plan.
During the debate, Mr Reynolds enthusiastically embraced the scheme saying it was "exciting regeneration for Gorleston's town centre area". He said: "It involves building on a brownfleld site and moving industry to where it should be. "This will be the renaissance of the riverside and could lead to similar development all the way along the river."
However, several councilors raised concern over the height of the flats saying four storeys would be preferable.
Pat Hacon said: "A wall of flats along the main road would be intimidating and the development would change the whole aspect of the area."
He said the size would have an impact on the whole town, and it needed to be considered in the context
of a new planning brief for Gorleston and the riverside - something the local Labour Party advocated.
Penny Linden called for a more sympathetic design with lower blocks of flats, and said a development of just one and two-bedroom apartments was no good in a town where families needed rehousing.
Mr Harrison had emphasised in his address that height was the critical factor, with the 15-metre high apartment blocks dominating Blackwall Reach behind.
He said: "The huge curtain wall will be frightening for anyone who lives there or loves the area. Unique views will be lost forever and our heritage - a priceless asset - blocked off."
Architect Brian George, speaking for developers Mr Hall and David Fish, said as well as Hall's yard, businesses in riverside warehouse units owned by Mr Fish would also be able to move to Gapton Hall and expand. He said: "This will be the first substantial regeneration scheme in Gorleston and one that won't cost the council a penny."
Mr Fish said after the meeting: "This is brilliant for Yarmouth and Gorleston and I want to thank everyone who contacted us and the council supporting the scheme. "This will give impetus to lots of other people to take forward investment in the town." He said it was too early for a time-scale on when work could get under way.
The vote split the chamber, with Tory Shirley Weymouth of East Flegg ward, and Labour's Trevor Wainwright, of Bradwell North ward, abstaining;
FOR
Geogre Jermany (C) East Flegg
Paul Garrod (C) Yarmouth North
Charles Reynolds (C) Ormesby
Brian Howard (C) Bradwell South and Hopton
Elizabeth Giles (C) Southtown and Cobholm
Stephen Ames (C) Bradwell South and Hopton
David Thompson (C) Fleggburgh
AGAINST:
Michael Jeal (Lab) Nelson
Patrick Hacon (Lab) Caister South
Penny Linden (Lab) Southtown and Cobholm
Sure Robinson (Lab) Nelson
ADVERTISER 18 NOVEMBER 2004
KEEPING IN TOUCH
DEVELOPER Terry Hall has vowed to 'keep in touch' with local people about the proposed Riverside flats development in Gorleston.
Counciltors voted seven to four in favour of the scheme at a Great Yarmouth Borough Council planning meeting last Thursday, but the development will have gain further approval by Government body Go East.
The vote came despite criticisms from the planners, and Mr Hall said he would take into account any of their concerns and suggestions to make the project as pleasing as possible for everyone.
Mr Hall said he was delighted that permission had been granted to the project. and was keen to keep residents up-to-date with the building and design as and when it progresses. The website is currently being put together and people will be able to access it in the coming weeks.
The proposed residential deelopment will he built on the site of Hall's Builders Merchants, and Mr Hall confirmed that the business would be moving to Gapton Hall Industrial Estate by the end of next year.
Mr Hall would like to make it clear that the activity at his home, Valley Farm, Lowestofi Road, Hopton, is not housing or structural work of any kind. It is work being carried out to create a new driveway.
HEIGHT ISSUES
Dear Editor,
I am surprised at the height of the proposed Riverside flats development, these structures are to be 15 metres high. I cannot think of any building in Gorleston that approaches this height, except possibly St Andrews Church, and on top of this maybe a roof terrace, mobile phone masts and TV aerials?
On the other hand the Riverside area would benefit with a sensitive and imaginative development, but a 50ft high tower block does-seem rather excessive.
David L Skoyles
Gorleston
Gt YARMOUTH MERCURY 19 NOVEMBER 2004
AN UNDEMOCRATIC AND FOOLISH DECISION, OR THE START OF VITAL LOCAL REGENERATION?
"DEVASTATED," was Tom Harrison, the opposition spokesman's initial reaction to the decision of the planning conlmittee at last week's meeting to decide if it was right under the present plans to allow the Riverside development to go through.
I am sure this was also the reaction of the many Gorlestonians who care about their town and although aware that more homes were needed, wanted something better, more in keeping with the area and a more pleasant open area to give a better quality of life to potential residents.
The artist's impression on the front page of the Mercury with a perspective which has miraculously lessened the effect of the tower blocks to give an impression of open space I don't believe will be the reality. Having read the notes produced as guidance to counciflors, I cannot understand that anyone who knows the site, visited it and actually read and digested the comments could vote the way they did.
Councillor Reynolds seemed over the moon with the development and would indeed wish to see them spread the length of the quay but there again he represents Ormesby. I feel in honour of his obvious enthusiasm that when it comes time to name the development, "Reynolds Folly" would be appropriate.
I was astonished to note there were no Gorleston councifiors present on the planning committee. If there are any and they didn't attend this is an insult to their constituents. If there are in fact none representing us on the planning committee at all this is an insult to Gorleston itself and explains much.
They ignored damning statements by our own planning development officers why the development in its present form should not go through. Their final words were "as submitted this scheme must be refused." These people are experts paid to advise our council but it appears the committee's Conservative members, who voted for it almost en bloc, have their own superior knowledge or agenda. They ignored the Port Authority which was concerned that because it is opposite a working quay it might not be the best position for such a dense residential development, particularly if the outer harbour becomes a reality.
Could it be a noisy place to live in future? In fact environmental health stated there should he no bedroom windows overlooking the river because of this fact. They ignored the fact the Economic Development Unit was also concerned about the impact of this development on the 24- hour operation of the port. They ignored the fact the development is on a council- designated industrial site for which change of use is required. They ignored the fact the development goes against almost every one of the council planning guidelines. They ignored the fact that Norfolk Education stated there was "some" existing accommodation in local schools. without qualifying how much. They ignored the fact that Great Yarmouth Primary Care Trust is the only trust in Norfolk and Suffolk not open to new dental patients.
Do they realise there is also a shortfall in local doctors?
Do they realise the traffic congestion in the area without the extra traffic at peak times? Worse still a group of councillors, none of whom represent Gorleston, have gone against the wishes of most Gorleston residents.
Is this democracy in action Great Yarmouth style? Go-East has to scrutinise the council decision before it can become reality and as protesters we must look at what options we have to continue to oppose the present scheme.
DENNIS DURRANT,
Gorleston
HOW, oh how, could such plans be passed!
I would like to know why most Gorleston councillors did not attend or even vote by proxy, either for, against or abstaining, on a very sensitive issue in the area of the people who voted for them! Why did councillors ignore professional advice from planning officers who damned the proposal? Wheneven several coundillors raised concern over the height of the proposed flats they still go ahead and vote for them why?
And how is it that all the councillors who voted for the scheme are Conservative and all those against were Labour? All the councifiors who voted for the proposal are in wards detached from this area and are obviously happy to inflict "bed-sit land" in other areas.
Clearly a thorough investigation into the whole matter is required most urgently and I sincerely hope this is pursued.
MARY TAYLOR,
Gorleston
AN open letter to Councillor Bryan Watts in regards to the report on the Riverside flats acceptance: I have just read this week's Mercury and was astounded to read that the new flats at the Riverside were approved at the meeting, while no Gorleston ward representatives were present.
How could such a decision be made which affects our town without any of the Gorleston councillors being in attendance? Another town's officials have passed a really important decision on Gorleston whilst our town's representatives were not even there to voice the opinion of Gorleston folk.
I would suggest that this decision is illegal and no one has the right to pass a vote on the future of another town, without that town being represented by its own councifiors and I would hope that you would challenge this decision? Or are we already like the EU where Brussels passes laws, which govern Britain?
If our local ward coundillors were not at the meeting through choice, then I am disgusted and would certainly not support any local electionsin the future and I'm not too sure that I will in any event.
As democracy doesn't exist in Gorleston and Great Yarmouth can decide our future and there would seem to be no need for coundillors on this side of the river?
ROY BATLEY,
Gorleston
THE planning control committee discussing the application for the building of high-rise flats at Riverside, Gorleston, one of the largest vital issues to come before the committee and which could change the face of Gorleston what a farce.
The members of the committee apparently scarcely discussing and almost ignoring the sensible recommendations of the planning officers, no Gorleston councifiors attending the meeting, and more significantly no councifior from St Andrew's ward in which the land is situated. Where was he?
Gorleston residents, who appear to have had no say in the matter, should insist that the meeting be cancelled and reconvened when Gorleston can be represented, with the final decision being made by the full borough council.
CECILIA EBBAGE,
Gorleston.
HAVING last wrote last October pleading with the council and readers to see sense and support Scroby Fayre's and the Halls Group's Riverside development plans, I had to pass on my appreciation of the Conservative planning committee members' decision to say "yes." Councilliors finally sanctioned the go-ahead with a 7-4 majority, but with design amendments to be agreed between the planning officers and the developers.
This is great news for Gorleston. The town will be given a much-needed tonic in terms of a major boost to its local economy and an opportunity for more homes to be built on a local brownfield site.
Halls and other local enterprises will be relocated on to the Harfrey's and Gapton industrial estates and the 319 new dwellings built in the next two to three years will help stabiise the property market. (Like how? - none of these homes will be affordable, so no first time buyers will be after them. Mr Fish has already stated that he would like the more senior of the population to live in them, which will mean that they will all come in from outside the Norfolk area, and so will only push house prices up further! - Ed)
Riverside's industrial eyesores will be relocated and an attractive new neighbourhood beckons. It will make the whole area far more attractive and provide much needed housing. I do so hope that Riverside's approval will be the springboard for other developers to invest in our community and bring about a regeneration of this town.
It is also important that local people use the media to express their views and ensure constructive criticism is seen and heard by developers and the council alike.
I know that together talents can be focused to kick-start a regeneration programme which both our children and grandchildren will be grateful for.
Ms BS (Hmmm, smells funny?! - Ed)
Kings Road,
Gorleston
ADVERTISER 25 NOVEMBER 2004
SCHEME NOT SUITABLE?
Dear Editor,
To comment on the letter from Ms B.S of Gorleston in last week's Advertiser, I was also at the planning committee meeting which passed the Riverside Road development application.
However, I was extremely disappointed at the outcome as I feel the scheme submitted is not suited to the location, and an opportunity has been lost to design a complete Riverside residential area more in keeping with the surroundings and the heritage of this very special area, and with more facilities for the potential residents of the Riverside area.
Far more thought has been put into the Beacon Park development and I have not yet seen any sign of multi-storey apartment blocks there.
However, I agree with Ms B.S that it is important for local people to air their views in the media and also for residents to contribute their talents and ideas to the community to make Gorleston a vibrant and interesting place in which to live.
D R Feuell
Gorleston
CONCERNS FOR RIVERSIDE
Dear Editor,
Ms B.S of Gorleston has been a vocal supporter for the Riverside development plans. I'm afraid that many of us refuse to 'see sense' in her terms.
Of course we need more housing - it's happening south of James Paget and will happen on the old recreation ground allotments and Maltings site, I gather.
Of course Riverside Road could do with tidying up, to possibly include Concerns about Riverside housing on a key site. But how on earth do we begin her 'new era' and 'bring about a regeneration' if we meekly accept a scheme that our own local planners have slammed as 'frightening, unbalanced and a case of over-development fit only to be refused?
I feel that the glamorised 'pigeon's view' images of the scheme published recently will bear little resemblance to the actual experience at eye-level on Riverside Road.
But by then it will be too late!
Tom Harrison
Gorleston
LABOUR COPS OUT OF VOTE
Dear Editor,
It was very disappointing to read that Labour councillors from Gorleston wards were absent from the vote regarding planning permission for the Riverside Road development. What is the point of them being in office if they are not prepared to turn out?
Regarding the proposed development of Hall's industrial site, it is obvious that five-storey blocks of flats will be too high for that area. Anyone walking along Riverside Road will see that. Not only will they mar the view for the residents of Blackwall Reach but Riverside Road is just not a suitable area for a sprawling estate of the size planned by Mr Hall.
If Mr Hall was to tone down his plans, with fewer homes to a maximum of three-storeys, then his proposals might be more acceptable. Currently they are not!
N Williamson
Bradwell
COUNCILLORS VIEWS ON RIVERSIDE BY ROB ALLANSON
THE Gorleston Riverside planning row rumbles on despite full planning permission being granted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council.
The Mercury has since received many telephone calls and letters asking questions of Gorleston councillors about why they did not attend the development control meeting two weeks ago none are members of the committee.
Ten councillors represent the four Gorleston wards: Claydon, St Andrews, Gorleston and Magdalen, and as none serve on the planning committee they could not vote on the issue. They were, however, entitled to make the planning department aware of their views.
The Mercury approached all the councillors and asked them why they were not at the meeting, whether they supported the development, and if they had voiced their opinions before the meeting. Both St Andrews ward councillors. where the development will take place, were not at the meeting but had spoken to members to voice their opinions.
Bryan Watts (St Andrews, Conservative):
"I was not at the meeting due to personal reasons. I did make my views known verbally to the chairman of the committee beforehand that providing it was a sensible and reasonable development supported it. have attended several meetings about it, listened to arguments for and against and felt I would support it, but only on the grounds it was of the type we wanted in Gorleston. As the ward councillor I have been informed about the whole plans as I should be."
Gerry Cook (St Andrews, Conservative):
"I was not there due to personal reasons. I did voice my opinions to members of the committee beforehand. The only problem was the height on the flats, if this was reduced by one storey then they would not be a problem. Apart from the height, I am in favour of everything that was said and is going to happen. They will have a good effect on the economy. The development could help to reverse the trend in the High Street." (Somehow I doubt it, as most of the proposed residents will be driving to Tesco's or ASDA to get their weekly groceries! - Ed)
Tony Blyth (Claydon, Labour):
"I was not at the meeting as I was involved in interviews for the new top finance officer. We have to have priorities and this was booked in for a while my views on the development were that I supported the scheme but with three storey flats not five, but I did not make them known to the planning committee."
Bernard Williamson (Claydon, Labour):
"I was not at the meeting due to work commitments but received all the planning details.
"I am opposed to it because it will dominate the riverside. It is too large a development for Blackwall Reach and the old town. There is no community space or parking built in to the design and there is accommodation on the ground floor, which is against all the planning issues."
Bert Collins (Gorleston, Conservative):
"I was not at meeting as I was involved in interviews for the finance officer. I did not make my views known to the committee as I did not want to influence any decision that the planning department officers make (What are you elected for then?- Ed). I did inform the press of my views that I did want to see houses in the area as it is untidy, but only three storeys not five. I am hoping the new homes will get 250 to 300 people off housing lists. It will give people the chance to get on the housing ladder." (These flats will probably retail in the region of £150,000 - £200,000; how many of the local population can afford that! - Ed)
Pat Page (Magdalen, Conservative):
"I was not at the meeting, but I believe it will help with the regeneration of Gorleston and clean the area up. It will create more jobs for a considerable time, including builders, window cleaners and construction jobs. The development can only be good for Gorleston shops, and the small shops will benefit from more people. Most people do not like change but this will make a better riverside than it is now."
Jonathan Russell (Gorleston, Conservative):
"I was not at the meeting as I was at work. I have spoken to people on both sides of the argument and support the development in principle but the size was a problem."
Colleen Walker (Magdalen, Labour):
"I was not at the meeting for personal reasons, but at the end of the day I do not go to all committee meetings. I have not been approached by people on the Magdalen or where I live about the development.
I did not approach anyone on the committee to voice my views. I am not against a development going on this site and think the area needs sprucing up, but the size of it did matter. I do not think there will be a detrimental effect on Gorleston residents"
Brian Walker (Magdalen, Labour):
"I was not at the meeting due to work commitments, but had it been my area I would have taken the time off and made my views known. But it is not my area and I have enough in my own area to worry about. If I had been there, I would have voted for it. I look at it that we have to build 6000 houses here and I think we have to do the best we can with brownfield sites rather than green areas. I do feel more could have been done to try to reduce the height of the flats."
Julie Fitzgerald (Claydon, Labour):
Did not attend the meeting, and was unavailable for comment.
RIVERSIDE SCHEME 'DEMOCRACY'?
HOW can we judge others in how they do things when our elected representatives act like regimes that we as a nation have overthrown?
Why should I bother with planning applications when, from your paper's reporting, our planning office is irrelevant? I always believed in elected representatives using democracy in support of the majority that elected them into what should be a place of honour. It would not be so bad if those decision-makers did not treat us lowly electorate as idiots.
How can they say that another 250 houses/flats can be wonderful for Gorleston? Who are they wonderful for? They are for the developers and the few pubs in the area, and the shops may gain a few pounds. They won't be wonderful for the people who move into them, as in only a few years this approval will be Gorleston's future slums because of the overcrowding, vandalism, lack of doctors and dentists, schooling and social amenities.
There were many letters in last week's Mercury asking why no Gorleston councillors were speaking up for the wards that elected them. Well, I do not believe Gorleston has a voice. Look what happened with the Marina Centre. Joe Public was asked by our "democratic" council: "Where would you like the new water sports complex?" A resounding "Gorleston" was shouted! Where was it built? Yarmouth's seafront for the then-trade from the Midland miners.
I dare say these multi-storey flats will be built, and if they don't allow them to be built, by complying with the wishes of the multitude, they will be out of favour by those they believe know what is best for us humble peasants.
If the developers and councillors really want to help the residents of Gorleston and not themselves, let them stop treating us like fools or "non- persons", and instead of building flats and aggravating the congestion, vandalism and public health, turn that area into a Marina Centre for Gorleston. That way our boarding houses, shops and ratepayers can gain something for a change, instead of losing out all the time. Our swimming pool was taken from us, our beach disappeared, our skating rink is long gone, there is nothing for our children who are called yobs because they hang about street corners with nothing to do.
Our rates go on refurbishing Yarmouth's amenities it's about time that this side of the river, which provides the higher proportion of the rates, gets what we want for a change. Gorleston councillors, will you speak up?
JOHN L COOPER
Gorleston
YOUR front page headline on the Gorleston Riverside development report was too gracious by half.
The real headline was hidden in the body of the piece and it should have read: "No Gorleston ward members present."
There would seem to be two chances: either there is no Gorleston ward member on the development control committee or Gorleston is so represented. If the former is the case the committee is unqualified to pass the plan. If the latter is the case, is it too much to hope that some elected representative for Gorleston could have attended just to see what was planned for his backyard.
If there exists on that committee elected representatives from Gorleston, what useful purpose is being served in Gorleston people by their absence? Either way the situation leaves a continuing suspicion about our council affairs which needs serious consideration.
C J GRICE
Gorleston
IT must be 30 years since I attended a council meeting, and what's changed? Nothing! Here was democracy in action. It was the meeting of the planning development committee on November 11.
The main focus of the meeting was the proposed development of the Riverside at Gorleston. I was interested to hear a petition had been received, with 500 signatures supporting the proposals. Only those people in favour of the development were invited to provide their signatures. Democracy? A review of the whole issue was given, where we were entranced by a fictional view on a screen of Gorleston and the proposed development. It was called "a bird's eye view artist's impression". There were all the towers fronting the river but behind was not Gorleston; it was a semi-rural impression with what looked like farm buildings, grass and trees. Not only was it not Gorleston, the background was as big as the foreground towers, this making them look smaller and unobtrusive. This went unchallenged.
The proposed density of population was twice what would be the norm. It went by with hardly a murmur. The percentage of recreational space was a fraction of the accepted formula, but we were told the developers would pay for a patch of land somewhere else in Gorleston. Fantastic!
Planning officers had slated the proposals in very direct terms as reported in the Mercury, so too had Great Yarmouth Preservation Trust. There was hardly a mention of these, except to say their reactions were very emotive. This was followed by a speaker for the opposition to the proposed development, who put the case very eloquently and positively.
Following this, the developers' representative spoke. He spoke of the development having "maritime aesthetics". What's that? The only thing maritime will be when the river floods the ground-floor levels. He had the nerve to say the artist's impression was not necessarily what it would look like but was just to have something to give to the planning department. Nobody, but nobody, even questioned this.
Next came the debate, which was something of a misnomer; it was more an airing of ignorance and prejudice. Throughout the meeting there were concerns from both sides about the height of the tower blocks fronting the river, and yet it would seem that these will go ahead because the motion to approve the development with the caveat of "minor changes" was carried.
I hope those councillors on this committee are not typical, but I bet they are. Poor old Gorleston. The people there are always complaining about being left out. They will wish they had been left out this time.
BERNARD DUFFIELD
Harleston
ADVERTISER 2 DECEMBER 2004
POOR EXCUSE FOR DEMOCRACY
Dear Editor,
What a sorry lot of comments excusing absence from the committee meeting about the Riverside Development by the 10 Gorleston councillors in the local press last week.
Once again Gorleston residents and councillors have had no influence on Gorleston matters. It is not sufficient for counillors to inform a committee of their views. The decision will always be by a show of hands at the planning committee meeting, with all to often one party voting one way and the other main party voting the other.
What a pity Great Yarmouth cannot install a democratic system whereby the planning committee consists of a fair coverage of councillors for each area and every member must vote even if it is by proxy for matters which are of great public interest. In the case of Riverside they could vote either 'yes', 'no' or 'yes but with reservations on size'.
Not good enough? Well how about Gorleston's 10 councillors deciding on Gorleston affairs with the assistance of the town planning offices on local and technical matters. On matters concerning the borough as a whole every councillor to vote in person or by proxy. Should Gorleston's vote be five for yes and five for no (five Labour and five Conservative) the public would know who to vote for next time.
Name and address supplied
Gt YARMOUTH MERCURY 3 DECEMBER 2004
LACKING THE COURAGE TO SHARE THEIR VIEWS
AS a past chairman of Great Yarmouth Borough Council development control committee, I was dismayed to read that the Riverside scheme had been approved by the committee with only minor design amendments requested.
This was despite the strong recommendation of the officers of the borough council to refuse the scheme, and the opposition of the residents to the overwhelming height of the blocks. Planning and development control is one of the most important functions of a local authority, and in Yarmouth we led the way by introducing wider consultation, the facility for the public to address the committee and also having full reports from the officers, including the appropriate policies on the agenda.
The aim of these initiatives was to make the system more transparent and accountable. How can the public understand this decision, which if reports in the Mercury are correct seems to have been taken on political lines?
As a borough councillor I was proud to represent St Andrew's ward for 12 years, and certainly a scheme to change the area to housing and move out industry is to be welcomed. However, what we see is a scheme with the blocks of flats on the Riverside much too high for the area.
The report in the Mercury, on November 26, suggested councillors representing Gorleston wards should have been at the development control meeting. The responsibility for making such momentous decisions is given to the members of the committee and not to other councifiors, although they can attend and comment if it is appropriate.
However, it would have been helpful if the councillors for St Andrew's ward, Bryan Watts and Gerry Cook, and also county coundillor Collins had made their comments in writing in advance for inclusion on the agenda. As representatives of St Andrew's, they must have had views and should have had the courage to share them with their electorate.
JENNI LIVINGSTONE
Great Yarmouth
IN view of so much criticism and unrest regarding the recent development committee's decision on the proposed riverside development at Gorleston, in the name of true democracy the decision to build this high-rise project must be reconsidered.
Another meeting must be called, but this time with all Gorleston's councillors in attendance. A plan must be submitted by the developers, clearly showing the real height and scale of the entire development, and in perspective with existing landscape and buildings.
Criticisms on behalf of the planning and conservation officers must be given a full and lengthy hearing, along with detailed comment from the Harbour Authority, regarding issues of national security. A representative on behalf of any objectors must be allowed the freedom and time to question the proposed developers.
I also urge the people of Gorleston to get more involved with this issue. The outcome will have far-reaching repercussions on the town, as we know it today. The words of Mr Duffield (Letters, November 26), "Poor old Gorleston. The people are always complaining about being left out, they will wish they were this time", will indeed prove true, if you don't stand up for your beliefs and rights, now!
J R BAKER
Gorleston
THE excuses in the Great Yarmouth Mercury given by several of the Gorleston councillors for not turning out to vote on the Riverside Road development appeared to be very similar in style. Was this coincidental or deliberate?
Either way these councillors do not deserve our vote at the next set of local elections. A development of this size deserved full attendance by our elected representatives, not just from a handful.
I wonder if those absentees will be quite so reticent when they go to claim their next set of expenses?
N WILLIAMSON
Bradwell
WELL done the staff of the Great Yarmouth Mercury. I asked if it were possible for the Mercury to get a response from the Gorleston wards councillors; the Mercury did it.
What pathetic statements the Gorleston councifiors came out with. What is it with these people, are they so engrossed in their own little worlds that they have forgotten they are "representatives" of the Gorleston electorate?
These councifiors, and I query their title, cannot be taking their jobs seriously if they believe that their printed views are a true representation of the majority of people living in Gorleston. One last comment. In their views it came over that most were only interested in their own wards, as they had too much on their plates with their problems to become involved. Then why doesn't the same criteria apply to the Yarmouth wards?
Why are Gorleston councillors allowing Yarmouth's councilliors to dictate what happens in Gorleston?
When are we going to get Gorleston an elected councillor, who will stand up for Gorleston?
JOHN L COOPER
Gorleston
TOP marks to the Mercury for drawing Gorleston councillors out of their silence to make those inexcusable excuses.
Their excuses weren't very imaginative, but did prove how right I was when I wrote that their absence was an insult to the electorate of Gorleston, especially in Claydon and St Andrews, where the development may be.
I say "may", because fortunately there are a number of Gorlestonians who are not prepared to let the matter rest there and are continuing the fight.
The insight some of our councillors have given by their replies does not bode well for the town, reinforcing the idea that Gorleston needs some kind of non-political parish council which is able to influence decisions concerning our town if we are ever to really regenerate.
We need enthusiasm to gain grants and finance which has been done so successfully for Yarmouth.
DENNIS DURRANT
Gorleston
I THINK the Riverside development is a good thing for Gorleston, as it will tidy up the area and house values will go up.
Someone has said there will be no parking space for cars, but there has to be. All new-build homes have to have parking space.
On another point, no one has a right to a view when a home is bought.
MARTIN P C ANNIS
Caister
MAY I take this opportunity to thank the councillors for giving their reasons for not attending the planning meeting regarding the proposed development of Riverside Road.
I think I may be a little confused, but I always thought that councilliors were there to support the people who vote for them; obviously not in this case. We did not ask for their views, but for their support in voicing, either by writing or speech, the wishes of the general public.
Yes, we need housing, but not five-storey fiats, that completely destroy the history of an area.
Incidentally, when the next council elections come around, I already know I will have a previous engagement, or a personal reason for not voting! (Don't be stupid! - get out and vote these incompetant and uncaring councillors out! - Ed)
MARY TAYLOR
e-mail
ADVERTISER 9 DECEMBER 2004
A CASE OF PROFIT BEFORE PEOPLE?
Dear Editor,
Four weeks on and the debate on the 'proposed' Riverside Road development still rages on.
With each week that passes we discover more and more things that helped get this monstrous
scheme passed. Tales of councillors votes not being counted. Tales of a certain celebratory party which had been pre-booked before the outcome was known. Tales of dishonest councillors not declaring membership of the same organisation that at least one of the developers belong to.
On top of that there are the excuses from the Gorleston councillors who had better things to do.
What's happened to democracy? Has this turned into yet another case of profit before people?
This may be the way that these people are used to doing business, but this time the people of Gorleston aren't going to let you get away with it. We are going to continue this fight so Mr Hall and Mr Fish don't start counting your millions just yet.
Wendy Hunt
Gorleston
Gt YARMOUTH MERCURY 10 DECEMBER 2004
EFFRONTERY OF AN OUTSIDER
PERHAPS unsurprisingly, the dispute about the Riverside flats has taken up whole pages in the Mercury letters section over recent weeks.
What is also unsurprising is the fact that most writers have been strongly against the scheme. In last week's edition there was only one letter in support of the scheme, from a Caister correspondent.
Surely the views of someone in Caister on a development in Gorleston are about as relevant as someone in Gorleston complaining about a block of flats being built in Norwich.
He also had the effrontery to go on to say that no one has a right to a view. What cheek! It's all right for him in Caister - he probably enjoys good views of the herds of wildebeests moving majestically over the plains of the Serengeti, not to mention the hanging gardens of Babylon (with apologies to Basil).
I share the majority view of the people who have written in on the subject. I am not against the development per se but feel strongly that the proposed flats are much too high and would spoil the area, which, with a bit more thought, could be turned into something very special.
KEN OVERY
Gorleston
VIEWS GIVEN
REGARDING the Gorleston Riverside Council Development meeting, I wish to point out that I made my views quite clear to the chairman of the planning committee. However, with hindsight, I now realise I should have made my points in writing.
Many councillors, Conservative and Labour alike, do work, and it is not always possible to attend daytime meetings.
Finally, the complainants, who are
happily settled in Gorleston, might just give a thought to the 4000 who are on
the borough housing list. Maybe, the Riverside development could be a godsend to
a few of these people. (This will not be the case, as none
of these proposed houses/flats will be for tenants on the council list or social housing associations
- Ed)
Councillor GERRY COOK - St Andrew's Ward
DISREGARD FOR HERITAGE
THE old, historical part of Gorleston which grew alongside the river and the harbour is gradually passing into oblivion. The fishing and boat-building industries have gone; soon the present industries will disappear.
This area is the essence of Gorleston. What little
remains of this atmospheric and interesting place will soon be lost forever
under massive blocks of buildings. It will become just another housing estate.
The charm of the riverside lies in its tranquillity, and variety of old buildings built into and on top of the cliff. This cliff is an attractive geographical feature of Gorleston. High buildings will obscure this ancient and natural line, and the character of the escarpment from the riverside to the High Road will be altered. The riverside will be a different, but not better, place.
I deplore the complete disregard for Gorleston's history and heritage which is being shown by prospective developers of this unique area. The proposed buildings have no place in this quiet riverside setting, and will completely ruin an ancient and historic area.
DOREEN FEUELL
Gorleston
OBJECTORS SHOULD WRITE
THE decision by the full borough council to approve the scheme for the five-storey fiats at Riverside Road, is as shameful as some of the Gorleston Councillors not making representations to the development control committee, especially in the face of the planning officers' report of the frightening scale of the flats and the dismay felt by the people of Gorleston at the whole proposal.
There is already a blight on surrounding properties and to the conservation area.
The fire risk to310 individual units seems to have been ignored, quite apart from the question of flooding, and is quite against the town plan.
I have been informed that objections to the scheme should be made to:
Ms Caroline Bowdler, Regional Director, Government Office for the East of England, Eastbrook, Shaftsbury Road, Cambridge, CB22 DF, reference 06/04/0854/F asking for the decision to be overruled or go to a public inquiry.
I urge objectors to write as soon as possible.
CECILIA EBBAGE
Gorleston
NOTE: ALL ARTICLES AND LETTERS REMAIN THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF THE RESPECTED OWNERS.
Please feel free to either email us, or add your comments to the HAVE YOUR SAY section.
 |
 |
 |