The application is now in for a 47 space car park. See:
http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/DCOn ... 1%2A%5D%7D

Hey Keith, couldn't get your link to work, so did a fresh search using the number you gave in title.

Here's a revisted link to the application:
BDB/72095
Construction of a temporary 47 space car park with associated works following demolition of existing public house

So, oppose it and be left with a big gaping (fenced / bollarded) space and maybe pissed off drivers going to station?
Or, support it and be left with the feeling that we condone this destruction?
Perhaps a case for the 'comment' option...

I wonder what will happen with all those tall trees?

I had a laugh at some of their submitted documentation...

I think a few pub patrons at a revitalised Railway would have been making efficient use of the premises!


And who made it 'unoccupied'?


There certainly was one 'official' objection to their 'application' (BDB/71866); but it should be noted that the application was only about the method of destruction, not whether to do it or not.

And there was a community initiative to try to save the place, too...which I count as 'objections'.
SAVE THE RAILWAY

Photos and discussion of the destruction are in this other thread HERE.

Have a read of what your B&DBC officers had to say about the demolition in the attached officer's report...

The demolition determination application would not have even been needed if the pub hadn't been attached to the houses fronting Station Road.

~Andrew~

I decided to object to the car park.

The fact that the developer already lied about there being no opposition to the demolition of the pub was probably the swaying factor for me.

Go have a look at the destruction. They have ripped out a gathering spot for that part of town, where a new would-be owner was keen to revitalise the pub, for the sake of more congestion and housing alone.

Whitchurch, if we're not careful, will turn into nothing but a bedroom community, and a parking lot for other towns' commuters.

Here's what I wrote in my objection (learn how to comment HERE):



You can read the Whitchurch Design Statement HERE (pdf download).

~Andrew~

How ironic that the bulldozers went in on the day the Government's Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee issued its report demanding major reform to the way Pub Companies operate, and threatened statutory intervention. At the same it urged the OFT to look more carefully at the issues raised in CAMRA's "super-complaint" submission.

But for the Railway it is too late.
Yes, there was someone willing to purchase and invest heavily in the Railway as a pub, and with plans to turn it into a thriving business venture.
But they were denied by the greed of the PubCo who had also failed to support their previous licensees with practices that simply penalised any success.

So Whitchurch has lost yet another public house, and a further community facility is destroyed.

Just hours before the bulldozers started their destructive work the bar was still set, with hard fought over trophies still on display, flowers still in vases, and even beer mats still on the tables.
And the pub is being ripped down without any official Change of Use having been granted - simple bullying tactics to get their own way in planning issues.

But who cares?
If the Council caves in to these bullies, we will have more car parking, attracting further congestion, noise, and environmental damage. Will the Council stand up to a developer who cocks their nose at the planning system? Somehow I won't hold my breath.

Just hours before the bulldozers went in, the bar is still set:


The front of the building is ripped away - the bar can just be seen:


Soon to be memories - just like so much that is being lost:


John B

Attached pdf.

Also see the BBC News article:
Pub industry reform on 'beer ties' called for by MPs

And they have now cut down the trees.

Remember, this is still classified as a pub.

The application to make a car park is a 'change of use', and a stepping stone towards a second 'change of use' from car park to housing.

You can comment on their car park application: BDB/72095 (by following my instructions HERE).

Update: forget that - just click HERE to go direct and write your comments.

~Andrew~

There is a now a facebook group about this.

~Andrew~

The developer, in their planning statement for the car park BDB/72095 application states in section 1.08:



As we have seen, they have ripped down those trees.


Add your comments to B&DBC about their car park application NOW (consultation closes this week!): CLICK HERE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS

~Andrew~
p.s. and now the sign has been demolished too (luckily rescued by a nearby local).

The application has been ammended to ask for 53 car spaces, up from 47.

Also, their application form states clearly that a full tree survey must be submitted. The owners and agents did not do this.

Thirdly, it seems B&DBC has now been fenced in...literally. Is that legal? Is the new fence (no proposed bollards in site) on their property, or is the B&DBC street sign on theirs?

~Andrew~

Thanks for the reminder, Andrew - just submitted my comments.

A video I just made of the destruction (tip of the hat to Mike Stead for letting me borrow his video camera).
Remember to submit your comments on the planning application!

Update! Video enhanced with extra features!
You can watch it below, or at YouTube in High Definition.



~Andrew~

I updated the video with extra stuff.

Seems the developer Lochailort may well be cocking a snoop at the planning system....

...and undercutting the station parking.

Today at the Railway:

PUBLIC PROTEST ONSITE, THIS SATURDAY (27TH MARCH) AT NOON. Please tell all your friends, relatives, neighbours, bring the dog etc. The papers will be there, this could really make a difference to the planning application. Let's get some really creative banners / placards too - a bottle of nice wine is up for grabs for the best one!

From B&DBC today:

"the consultation period for comments expires 26th March. However, the Case Officer is not back from leave until Monday 29th March and therefore no recommendation will be made until after that date. Therefore should any further representations be received after 26th March and up until her recommendation is made (ie whilst the application is still pending determination) these will be accepted."

Please make sure you get heard - if you haven't already, please make your submission now - http://bit.ly/bCP0cq

More activity and new signs at the demolished pub site today...

These guys are really acting as if they have the B&DBC planners' permission already!

~Andrew~

Yes, they seem to be acting if they have already been granted planning permission.

I predict 5 things if the Car Park is approved:

Within a few days, all resident free parking bays will be just as full as before. Point, no benefit in the extra parking spaces in the first place.

More traffic flow/congestion around Station area. No benefit to local residents or town.

Less space on platforms and carriages. No benefit for current commuters, local people will just drive, other commuters from Andover/Overton/Newbury will choose Whitchurch instead. They will not use local amenities. No benefit for Whitchurch.

People will start getting clamped, possibly without reason. No benefit to Whitchurch, Station car park will be tainted with the same brush.

The next obvious proposal of flats will seem like a welcome. Even though new flats will probably have poor parking due to space, the irony.

I hope that if they do start using it as a car park without permission that our planners will take action against them.
Let's see what we pay our council taxes for.

They actually have legal powers to deal with that, John.

Come along and make your views heard/seen at NOON today - Saturday 27th.

This developer should not get away with bullying us and assuming that the planning process is in his pocket.

More carparking = more commuters = fewer seats on the train

When the carpark is turned into houses, all those new commuters are back out on the streets along with new residents

Whitchurch needs PLANNED housing, not back-door arrogant bullying and more traffic.

This site could still have a pub built on it, better than before. We must stop this Change Of Use planning application.

The media will be there

Make your objection today! It's your last chance to register online at http://bit.ly/bCP0cq

There was a protest up at the pub site today at noon...

~Andrew~

The Wessex regional director of CAMRA, our very own John Buckley (how many hats does he have!?), stated CAMRA's views about the demolition and the car park application (full HD version at YouTube). Time is running out to let the planners in Basingstoke know your views on the demolition.



~Andrew~

I have just added my objection and they still seem to be going through so hopefully it is not too late. I can only re-iterate everyone else's opinions on this - I commute daily (walking to the station) and the last thing we need is more traffic congestion, more train congestion and clamping in our town... Let's hope the planners refuse to be bullied.

Welcome to the forums amandad; nice to have you about the place. Thanks for posting that info about getting comments into B&DBC.

As of this morning:

• Responses Received: 24
• In Favour: 2
• Against: 21
• Petitions: 0
• Comments: 1

~Andrew~

UPDATE: Great news - kind of.

B&DBC have confirmed the following today:

No decision will be made this week

If the recommendation is to approve the application, because of the number of objections it will have to go to a Development Control committee hearing. The earliest this could be is late May. Objectors will have the opportunity to speak at that hearing.

If the recommendation is to refuse the application, the applicant does have the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Stay tuned!

Cheers

Mike

...or the developer might withdraw the application all together....perhaps to resubmit a new (fresh) one...?

~Andrew~

See:
EDM on DEMOLITIONS WITHOUT PLANNING CONSENT

CAMRA is urging that MPs support this EDM.
It does not just apply to pubs but to all community uses.

It is also important to ask prospective candidates where they stand on this matter..

Local Council candidates can also be asked for their views on this.

Cheers,

John

Yes, need some answers before the election, too late afterwards.



As for the Car Park, anyone noticed that reading between the lines of the fence advert sign that its not a normal Pay and Display car park? I assume that you buy a permit for a certain time span (monthly,yearly) which works out at £2.50 a day (at first). Once the permits have gone, only 50 people can park there, no good for the odd traveller. I also assume that there will not be a standard-like Pay and Display machine...because its not needed, its a private permit car park. If this is the case, more proof that the site owners are steam rolling the idea....and worry about the questions/objections when its too late.

Even if it was a Pay and Display car park (or that its changed to that to craftily get people to approve of the idea), as I posted before, there would be no benefit to the community, locals or train commuters in the long run anyway.

I asked the Borough Council election candidates various questions, mainly on the pub loss issue, but also including two on the car park.
I am sure the candidates won't mind me publishing their replies:

Q: Do you object to/support the present application for a change of use to a temporary car park?

A: Keith Watts (LD):
I did originally because I don’t want the site to be left, just boarded up, to fall derelict and into misuse.
I am reflecting on that position now on traffic grounds. I support the Local Plan provision for a car park north of the station with a direct vehicular access from Newbury Road. I am concerned that temporary permission might be seen as a precedent for the use of Station Road for access to a permanent car park.
A: Bill Judge (Con):
I regret I am disinclined to engage with you in argument on this, or any other issue.

Q: If the owner commences use of the land as a car park prior to any planning permission being granted would you call for enforcement action by the Borough Council ?

A: Keith Watts (LD):
Yes. I have already raised an Enforcement case about the premature advertisements....
A. Bill Judge (Con):
I regret I am disinclined to engage with you in argument on this, or any other issue.



From the Planning Application:

1.07
It is anticipated that the car park will serve both as an overspill parking area for commuters and also provide additional parking for local residents and visitors.

1.09
It is proposed that the car park will be served by a 'Pay & Display' meter....

1.10
The expected hours of operation would be on a 24-hour basis, 7 days a week.

1.11
A maintenance team will service and empty the 'Pay & Display' machine on a bi-weekly basis and car park patrols will be conducted by a designated civil enforcement team.

1.12
No lighting is proposed...

1.13
Anticipated signage...one entrance and exit sign, one tariff back-board, one 'pay here' cone, and four 'have you paid and displayed' signs.


So there we have it.
One candidate who won't give an answer, and a 'Pay or Get Clamped' compound.

In our negotiations with the developers we should be getting good value for the replacement of the value of the trees lost.

I estimated by my Green Value formulae one tree to be worth £9000 to replace. The accrued value is higher.

What willl they make from the car park :-
STATION ROAD CAR PARK

Number of parkings de risked
spaces price per day days per week per month per 6 months per yr
47 5 940 5640 11280
2.50 £2,350.00 £14,100.00 £28,200.00




The money paid to Tree officers in BDBC is £260,00 per annum excludes Office Costs/ Overhead/ Transport and Pensions.

6TH APRIL LETTER IN POST FROM BDBC NOW 53 SPACES,

HEREWITH UPDATE ON PARKING YIELD DE-RISKED.

STATION ROAD CAR PARK
update 8th April 2010.
Number of parkings de risked
spaces price per day days per week per month per 6 months per yr
53 5 1060 6360 12720
2.50 £2,650.00 £15,900.00 £31,800.00
THE 6 MONTHS YIELD COULD PAY FOR THREE REPLACEMENT TREES ALBEIT NOT THE SIZE OF THOSE REMOVED.

Interesting, thanks.

It still begs the question on how many permits they are limiting the car park to. Being a mainly commuter car park, if they limit the permits to 50, then the Pay & Display meter isn't going to get much money and the car park will be full of private permit owners. I suppose they could have a permit owners only section but that would of been on the application though?

Obviously, this is only a problem if the silly idea is accepted.

B&DBC say in a letter to me that "amendments have been made to the...application and the Borough Council will take into account written comments received within 14 days from the date of this letter" (it is dated 06 April 2010).

So - if you haven't commented, then here's another chance to do so: Send in your comments now!

But first some news - Whitchurch just gained another two bollards today! The developer has erected two bollards next to a support wire. Strange, didn't see planning permission for that.

The amendments are:

• description now reflects that the pub was demolished
• letters received about the trees
• updated site survey no longer showing the trees (that they cut down)

It appears that B&DBC finally realised their mistake in accepting an application requiring a tree survey without one. B&DBC wrote a letter requesting such on 17th March.

I now wonder if they will just pull the whole application (along with the 25 objections) since their application still states they will retain the trees.

The first tree letter is from the JTS Parntership, Chartered Surveyors and Chartered Town Planners. It says in part,



The second tree letter is from tmc Aboricultural Consultants (Tree Management Consulting LLP, Guildford) dated 9 June 2009 which says in part,



~Andrew~

Has anyone else seen the site today?
The site owner has now flouted the planning process, marked the site out, installed the Ticket machines, switched them on, and placed a large 'Open' sign up?

This developer is just giving the finger to the public consultation that the planning system is supposed to provide.

Is the Council going to take Enforcement action against this illegal operation?

If not, what are we paying them for?

Claire Cook is the key officer.
copies of two recent emails to her:-
Claire,
The attached is the basis of my new system of valuation and as I think I said I am working alongside the National expert on CAVAT a system of valuation based on different accurate criteria.
Developers who are less than caring about the social environment usually say they will put in a Standard tree (STD) as this is the very cheapest tree one can buy. I just bought 20 for the Millennium Green 8ft tall £12.75p each.

The Old Library Site, here in Whitchurch, is a classic exmaple of this. I am about to have the sycamores there, destined for ripping, out valued by CAVAT. That developers suggested replacement STD Quercus robur fastigiata, one of the most diminuitive trees in existence and it never gets big and takes ages to grow.

When we plan to put in decent sized trees for clients who do care about best human aesthetics we bring to bear the latest knowledge on planting systems that work. I attach some of the latest data.

You as an officer of the council should be ensuring that one of our key entries into Whitchurch for visitors and regular commuters is as beautiful as possible. In the long term the developer wants houses we know that and a fine landscape increase value of property.

The Railway Inn application is a classic case in so many ways so could become part of a TV programme we are planning in respect of Valuation of the Environment and the role of Officers in the Councils at all levels. You could become famous.

Regards

Graham
Dear Claire,
Thank you for yours 6th April 2010, I am sorry to be so long in responding.

I note details of the amended submission are with our Town Council.

I want to make sure that the documentation I am about to send gets to the officer who will be involved in the planning decision on this case.
I have learned that normally Tree officers are not involved in meetings and that written reports are used.

I am concerned about this aspect.Is it David Hill ?


Part of my strategy nationally is to try to improve the level of knowledge applied so that biased tree reports by so called experts are put in the proper context.

In respect of the trees on that site now removed a consultant says :-


"The Trees are located adjacent to the front boundary"...true

"They form a closely spaced line comprising four mature Western red cedars and a Lawson Cypress." True. It is a healthily evolved row and this is how we plan car park planting.

"They were probably planted as a boundary/screen/ hedge".... possible and they have been deemed valuable enough to retain for 30plus years for a number of good reasons; they provided a barrier between road and pub car park; they provided an all year round screen of houses and road when viewed from the hotel and later pub and they screened the building from the road; they created a garden effect.; the provided a green feel when visitors and other travellers arrived by train. I will not enter into the carbon footprint contributions here.

"and have become overgrown". this is a biased opinion possibly based on I think a pre-disposition to please the developer and a get a fee for doing it or out of ignorance. Like children these trees were allowed to grow because the end result over many years was deemed valuable. Illegitimate children by applying this sort of philosophy would be in danger of execution.

"I would grade them in a low category" (see attached image of fine quality trees).My valuation of one tree £9000

"will usually not be retained where they would impose a significant restraint on development." In my view their position would not have provided any impediment to sensitive and proper development, quite the opposite. Trees of such substance are installed by myself and fellow professionals in landscapes where quality is deemed desirable.

The yield from the temporary car park will be considerable (see attached) so maybe we should have a significant amount of that money back by the installation of a tree screen of some substance and I do not mean extra heavy nursery stock but substantial plantings such as we put in business parks etc,.




Graham Burgess

Two fingers to our B&DBC council by the developers it seems:
The car park is fully open and operational.
The planning application is still pending.

Will our B&DBC council just sit back and be steam rollered by this bully of a developer who cut down mature trees, filled in a deep well (subsidence issue?) and now is operating without planning permission?

~Andrew~

Well, at least it would be interesting to see how many cars suddenly disappear from the Evingar Road 40 odd free parking spaces.

The developers may be using this as a trial run, to prove that it has benefit. They probably think that in the short amount of time it will be in their favour. The cast iron proof would be to check the free parking spaces next week. I believe the argument would be lost for the case of 'alleviating locals traffic parking problems'. All it will prove is that 50 more cars will just pay to use the parking and use the station.

Claire Cook,
From Graham Burgess.

10TH April 2010.

RAILWAY IN SITE Ref BDB 72095.

In addition to lack of proper diligence in respect of the trees on the site referred to there is a similar lack of prudence in respect of a well that could be hundreds of feet deep.

In the past a previous manager of The Railway Hotel died after falling into the well.

There is record of another person falling to her death in another well on the adjacent Evingar Road.

No further works should be allowed on this site until the site of the well has been properly confirmed and inspected by independent specialists employed by Basingstoke and Deane not the developer.

Can someone check.
I have a letter from Claire Cook 6April saying

Ammendments have been made to the application.

1. Description of development amended to reflect that the public house has been demolished .The description now reads "Cosntruction of a temporary 53 No space car park with associated works!

This is obviously a deliberate, calculated breaking of the law to see what the result is.

Graham, scroll back through this thread to my posting on Thurs April 8 and you shall see what that was about.

~Andrew~

...and this week another local pub has appeared on the 'To Let' lists.

The 'signs' are there...

Estimated ingoing required: Negotiable
Starting Rent: Negotiable
Agreement type: Negotiable

All the usual indications that the PubCo is not confident.

I feel for any tenant who goes in with rose-tinted specs of building up a pub business.

And today, another was knocked down - this must be some kind of world record:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8614779.stm

Dangerous potholes were present this afternoon at the unapproved temporary car park (along with half a dozen parked cars).

The holes were covered with just flimsy bits of chipboard.

~Andrew~

Hi all i hope that wasnt Mikes signs used in your photo Andrew.

We used much better quality stuff Chris!

Double the number of cars from yesterday, around 10 at one point. All free spaces near to station still full.

Hello all,
First time poster. I've just had a rather upsetting experience and I'm not sure what to do. Yesterday I noted that the car park business is now up and running- despite BDBC not yet determining the planning application. I passed this info onto BDBC and when I noted a car had been given a parking enforcement notice, I popped a notice onto the windscreen to let the driver know this.

This morning at 8.35 I was door stepped by Mr Hugo Haig of Lochailort Investments Ltd who own the site. He accused me of posting lots of notes around (patently not true, I just wanted to tell that one driver the truth) and he told me to stop this, not put any info on any of the cars and I was not to access the site any more.

It was pretty intimidating- I dont even know how he knows where I live and I'm now a bit worried,

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks

WR

Welcome to the forums! Glad to have you about the place.



Holy cow. A few of us have said we think the owner's behaviour regarding the planning application process is bully-like, and now your story seems to prove they are acting that way in person too.

I would immediately report this to B&DBC (Cllr Keith Watts has been following the application).

If you felt physically threatened then perhaps the police should be involved too.

~Andrew~