J4M35 - On the two outline planning applications dated the 20th March, 2008 submitted by a Manchester agent, the details of the land owner was given as Coast Properties and Finance Ltd., of 20 Berkley Street, London W1J 8EE. This firm appears to specialise in the purchase and development of delerict industrial sites in the UK (I have found reference on the web to another site they own at Sedgefield). Both these two outline planning applications were refused by Amber Valley Borough Council with very valid reasons. It would appear that no further planning applications have been made regarding the Butterley site to AVBC's Planning Department, but the Agent applied instead to AVBC's Building Control Services Department for a Section 80 notice of the Building Act, 1984. It was granted and it is that department WHO GAVE PERMISSION FOR THE PRESENT DEMOLITION OF THE METAL BUILDINGS ON THE SITE, the Building Control Department NOT the Planning Department. The AVBC's website address where information can be found about Section 80 of the Building Act, 1984 and whom to contact, is:-
http://www.ambervalley.gov.uk/services/businessandindustry/businesssectors/buildingandconstruction/buildingregulations/buildingcontrolservices/ n.b. Sorry I don't know how to make a link to a website, would someone please help me and provide links to the websites that I mention in this posting - thanks.
Very many thanks to AR for supplying the reference numbers of the outline planning applications that were made to Amber Valley, which I have been studying in depth (xmas cards still waiting to be written :curse: :curse: ). If anyone would like to look at these outline planning applications they are as follows:-
AVBC Reference number AVA/2008/0536 - this was an outline planning application made by an Agent on behalf of the site owner Coast Properties and Finance on the Butterley Engineering site at Butterley Hill, Ripley, Derbyshire DE5 3BQ and submitted on the 20th March, 2008. It applied for Outline Planning Consent for "part demolition of existing buildings on site to provide mixed use development comprising of residential (Use Class C3) and commercial uses (Use Class B1 B2)".
AVBC Reference number AVA/2008/535 - the details of the agent, site owner, site and date submitted are exactly the same as the above Outline Planning Application, however, the application in this instance was for "Listed Building Consent for application to demolish buildings within the curtilage of a Listed Building".
Both of these outline planning consents were refused by AVBC on the 21st October, 2008.
To read both of these applications and supporting documents, plus the decision and reasons for refusal by AVBC go to website:-
http://www.ambervalley.gov.uk/AVBC/Core/TemplateHandler.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID= {3C1E4
Type in the reference number of the outline planning application (check the year and month of submission is correct) in the box, click "search" then when the records are on the screen, click on the following boxes in turn "Documents", "Constraint", "Consultation" and "Map". There is a lot of paperwork to read and digest, plus photos, plans etc.
Of course, if you don't want to find the information on the internet, you can always call in the offices of the two departments i.e. planning and building control and ask to view the paperwork regarding these outline planning applications.
Tomorrow (fingers crossed hopefully) I will be writing three letters, one to English Heritage and two to the Planning and Building Control departments, trying to get them out on site to view and save the Furnace Bank, which does not have either a Scheduled Monument or Listed Building status on it at present (although AVBC states in the reasons for refusal of the applications that English Heritage are looking into the matter). The agent on behalf of the site owner seems to play down the importance of the Furnace Bank and refers throughout the applications to it merely being a "high retaining wall" on the eastern boundary of the site, it wants pointing out to English Heritage that it is in fact a very early furnace NOT a retaining wall. There are two buildings at present on site that are Listed Grade 2 , the owner of the site wants to get the stone buildings within the curtilage of these Listed buildings demolished also, so we have to keep an eye out for a further possible application being made for another Section 80 Demolition Notice under the Building Act of 1984 to demolish these buildings! Icklok told me last week that it is believed that the roof of the old factory (never having been in on site I don't know which building this is) made of metal, contains the earliest example of a roof with north lights inserted, it was designed by the same man who designed the span of St. Pancreas Station, London (recently been refurbished) whose name I can't at present remember.
Seems to me that the best thing would be to pressurise AVBC into issuing a BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICE which would give the site a six month breathing space, giving it temporary status the same as if the buildings that want saving on the site had actually been awarded Scheduled Monument or Listed status, whilst English Heritage surveyed the site in person this time, and made their minds up whether they did in fact want to save them as Scheduled Monuments or Listed (and catagory of Listing).
I was born and grew up in Derby (a great railway and engineering town in my youth), I have also lived at Sawmills very close to Ripley and know the area quite well. This area was a cradle of the Industrial Revolution, with it's mines (ironstone, coal and lead), quarries, railways and the Cromford canal. It's located just to the east of the Derwent Valley which has been awarded a World Heritage Site status, and was just as heavily involved in the birth of the Industrial Revolution as Arkwright and his mills. The Butterley Company which employed thousands of people in the area, shaped the area into what it is now. Surely this site should be treated with respect and something saved as a monument to the skill and craftmanship of the Company and its workers. I'm not against progress and I realise that delerict industrial sites need refurbishing and given new life, but at the same time when such historical buildings are ruthlessly demolished by a developer with no thought or regard for the industrial archaeological history of the area and it's indigenious people,whose ancestors have probably lived and worked in the area for two hundred years or more (some of my ancestors were iron founders at Sutton-cum-Duckmanton in the 1700's before moving to Chesterfield and then onto Derby) then I think we have to come out fighting and try and save the important buildings on the site if we can.
Icklok, as he told us last week, is now abroad playing with his trains in a much warmer climate 😉 so it's up to the rest of us who care about the site, to try and keep an eye on it and report progress in his absence.