Thursday, 29 January 2009

There maybe trouble ahead.

The formal planning application for the Market Street toilets is now available and will be discussed by Tenbury Town Council at their meeting on Monday night.

The winning design emerged as clear favourite during the public consultation exercise held earlier this year.

Following meetings with the Planners, the Malvern Conservation Officer and other Council Officials it was agreed that the popular design was suitable and could be built, and was supported by the two Tenbury District Councillors.

Originally it was thought that the plans were to be approved unopposed but now that the final Planning Application have been submitted, it looks like a number of people are going to raise technical and esthetic objections.


Anonymous said...

The application says this will create a 'public realm destination' - is this a complicated way of saying 'somewhere to go'?

@WR15 said...

It'll be a Grand Tourist attraction. A lot easier to find than the Civic Garden.

Anonymous said...

The application says the plans do not provide an area to collect and store waste. Strange, as a sanitary bin (for collecting and storing waste) is compulsory in Ladies toilets.

Phil said...

The application lacks both grid reference and postcode. It does not give the date(s) or details relating to pre-application advice. It claims no new rights of way will be created, even though it appears that a new right of way will be created, to the rear of the new toilets (previously occupied by the old toilets). It states there will be no extinguishments of rights of way, but the old right of way across the front of the old toilets will be obstructed by the new 'pods'. It states there will be no area to aid the collection of waste, even though aiding the collection of waste is the whole purpose of public toilets. It claims that the competition about new toilets constituted consultation about this planning application. This is hard to accept - it is one thing to hold an 'ideas' competition, holding a consultation on a specific design is a very different matter, especially as the plans do not actually match any of the designs in the competition. The applicant is said to be Dave Hawley, who works for MHDC, but later it says that the applicant is not related to any member of staff. The colours of the slates, tiles and timber doors isn't stated. The application says there are no windows; this will increase the need for electric light which will increase running costs and create a frightening situation if the lights go out with someone inside. There is no description of the lighting for the seating areas. There used to be cycle parking space in front of the old toilets but this application says no cycle parking will be provided. Why not? Shouldn't the Council encourage cycling? No references are given for the plans/drawings relating to foul sewage. The application says there will be no increased risk of flooding elsewhere, but because of the raised area behind the 'pods' it looks likely to displace more water than the old toilets did. The yes box has not been ticked for the non-residential floorspace section. Employment is shown as zero, so how will they be cleaned? Hours of opening are shown as "not applicable" - this must be wrong, there is no point having toilets that don't open. The opening hours are clearly important and material and could well affect neighbour comments. The site area is not stated. Certificate A is being used, but does the District Council have proof that they own the site? The County Council seemed to be in charge of the wall replacement, effectively on the same site. The land on the other side of the brook is not shown as being in the same ownership, even though it was stated last year that this amenity space was owned by MHDC.
Still, they're applying to themselves so it's bound to get approved!

Anonymous said...

Tenbury is lucky to have won taxpayer funding for rebuilding the town bogs which were lost to the floods of 2007.

The town is lucy because the unstated Government policy of today is for shutting down and demolishing public lavs.

Autocrat PM David Cameron and his phony Big Society, and the sockpuppets in MDC have cheekily decided to foist the burden of relieving the bursting general public onto the local bars and pubs in our towns

They must realise that lavatory pans don't clean themselves, and hyperinflation has hit the price of loo rolls as much as any other commodity. Why should the hard pressed local boozer take the strain in these difficult times?

If the bogs can't fund themselves it's surely time to turn a blind eye and abolish the offence of urinating in a public place, and let nature take its course...