Roger Wright Strikes Again

[doversoul1]

Benjamin Britten’s idyll under threat as festival plans car park

[..]
Roger Wright, the Snape Maltings chief executive, previously controller of Radio 3 and director of the BBC Proms, told the Observer that the proposals were still at an early stage. “The fact is that all of this may prove to be too difficult and too costly to take further – final costings have still not been done. We’re aware of a broadly worded petition but of course we are in full listening mode. Unless we can prove a public benefit then the plans may not go ahead. The car park is just one aspect of a much larger development plan which provides many benefits.”
[…]

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/apr/16/benjamin-britten-aldeburgh-car-park-threat-snape-maltings

In a much smaller scale, we recently had a battle over a planning application on a AONB (area of outstanding natural beauty) in the village. It brought out many interesting issues and aspects of the people in the village.

[french frank]

but of course we are in full listening mode.

'Twas ever thus. Some of us well remember - the leaning back in the chair, the expansive spreading of the arms, and: "I'm here to listen …"

[Richard Barrett]

Not wishing to take sides, and never having been there: the article says that at present the excessive number of vehicles visiting Snape have to be accommodated by local farmers renting out fields for parking. Isn't that just as much of an eyesore? What kinds of solution are the protesters suggesting?

[french frank]

Not wishing to take sides, and never having been there: the article says that at present the excessive number of vehicles visiting Snape have to be accommodated by local farmers renting out fields for parking. Isn't that just as much of an eyesore? What kinds of solution are the protesters suggesting?

But the fields remain fields, however much of an eyesore the cars may be. I don't know what the the protesters are suggesting. What about a Park & Ride somewhere

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not wishing to take sides, and never having been there: the article says that at present the excessive number of vehicles visiting Snape have to be accommodated by local farmers renting out fields for parking. Isn't that just as much of an eyesore?

Possibly - except that the vehicles leave once the Festival is over; the suggested Car Park will be there (and, presumably, empty) throughout the rest of the year.

What kinds of solution are the protesters suggesting?

For some protesters it might not be a matter of suggesting any solution - more one of preserving something that is important to them. If the pub/restaurant across the road from me decides it needs to cut down the woodland area that is the view from my bedroom window in order to build a car park on the land, I would protest, without thinking that it was my responsibility to offer alternative suggestions to their problem.

[gradus]

I think the site of the proposed car park - presumably the land between The Crown and the river bank was under 3 feet of water a couple of years back. It's nonsense to say that there is insufficient parking at present, there's room enough except when a food festival or similar is held ie infrequently.

[Richard Tarleton]

Not wishing to take sides, and never having been there: the article says that at present the excessive number of vehicles visiting Snape have to be accommodated by local farmers renting out fields for parking. Isn't that just as much of an eyesore? What kinds of solution are the protesters suggesting?

There's a world of difference both visually and hydraulically, between temporary parking on green fields, and hard parking surfaces (on a flood plain). The area is extremely prone to flooding - the lovely Crown Inn just down the road was closed for months by the severe floods of 4 years ago. It looks as if it's proposed to build it on the south side of the river, destroying a lovely and classic view, in an AONB. The Environment Agency should be strangling this idea before it goes any further, as a flood risk.

I've known the area well for 45 years (my first 2 concerts in the Maltings were at Easter in 1972 - inc. a St John Passion and a chamber recital both with Britten and Pears) - many concerts in the meantime. My last concerts at the Maltings were during the 2014 festival (alas the festival occurs in June, as a serious birder I'm normally there in April or May). I've witnessed the transition of the complex from its last days as a working Maltings to the present multi-commercial-outlet and residential complex it is now (there are some very expensive residential apartments and several shops, as well as the Britten-Pears school, etc. etc.) - it looks as if there's been a lack of planning along the way.....

Alternative solutions - I'd be investigating car parking up the road, closer to the village perhaps (at any rate not on the flood plain) with a compulsory high-end park and ride system for concert days.

[Richard Barrett]

For some protesters it might not be a matter of suggesting any solution - more one of preserving something that is important to them. If the pub/restaurant across the road from me decides it needs to cut down the woodland area that is the view from my bedroom window in order to build a car park on the land, I would protest, without thinking that it was my responsibility to offer alternative suggestions to their problem.

As I said, I'm not taking sides. But living near a major performance venue (albeit one that even within the profession has a reputation for exclusivity, which presumably RW is interested in addressing) is surely not quite the same as living across the road from a pub.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As I said, I'm not taking sides. But living near a major performance venue (albeit one that even within the profession has a reputation for exclusivity, which presumably RW is interested in addressing) is surely not quite the same as living across the road from a pub.

No - but I was responding to your question about what (alternative) suggestions for solutions to the problem(s) that the protesters might have. If they object to the proposed Car Park, they don't have to have any.

[Richard Tarleton]

The following links from this last winter give an idea of the scope of the problem.

https://www.suffolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/flood-warning-update-230pm-january-2017

http://www.suffolklearning.co.uk/suffolklearning_images/users/Early_Years_Team_CYP//2017-27-Broadcast13January2017.pdf

Hard surfaces, lacking the absorbent holding properties of marshland, merely exacerbate flood risk. I don't suppose Roger will be too worried if his car park floods in winter or contributes to the flooding problem, but the EA and local authorities should be, and if they have anything about them should be knocking this on the head. This is quite apart from the AONB/SSSI issues. There are alternatives - park and ride being the obvious one, though the exclusive clientele might not care for it.

(I spent my last few years at work heavily engaged with coastal flooding issues, drawing up flood risk maps, not in this area which nevertheless I know well).

[Richard Barrett]

they don't have to have any

This is the problem with very many protests in very many areas IMO, it just comes down to "let's keep things as they 'always' were", which generally means "as they were when I liked them". Anyway I shouldn't be getting involved in this argument at all! - it would be all the same to me if they pulled down the Maltings and put the car park where it used to be.

[french frank]

This is the problem with very many protests in very many areas IMO, it just comes down to "let's keep things as they 'always' were"

Possible, but not logical, captain. Protesters may object to a particular change. It doesn't follow that they are against ANY change, just that they are against the one proposed.

To return to ces moutons: there were those who objected to RW's ideas for Radio 3: it didn't mean that they were against all change - just that they thought RW's ideas were destructive. But he was/is the one being paid to find the answers - back to the drawing board for thee, my lad.

[Richard Tarleton]

it would be all the same to me if they pulled down the Maltings and put the car park where it used to be.

...then there would be no need for the car park....I don't think it's the concert hall that's the problem, after all it's been there from the start, with its current seating capacity, so much as all the other stuff - multiple retail outlets, residential units, restaurants.... But there's a planning issue (or a lack of planning issue) at the heart of it, that's for sure. Even the pub immediately next door to (in front of) the complex, not the above-mentioned Crown, has hugely increased its capacity with I don't know what provision for the extra parking it generates. "Get there early" was the best advice they could offer on the two occasions we ate there recently, once during the festival. (Tom Service and crew were also eating there).

I was trying to point out that there are (hopefully) statutory and regulatory considerations that rule it out, regardless of what local people think. But trashing the place's natural beauty and principal does seem misguided, somehow. Perhaps RW is just flying a kite at this stage?

It does sadden me to see more and more of the Suffolk I know and love disappearing under concrete/tarmac. Sizewell C and D just up the road, with a housing "campus" for 10,000 construction workers....

[Richard Barrett]

Possible, but not logical, captain. Protesters may object to a particular change. It doesn't follow that they are against ANY change, just that they are against the one proposed.

I quote myself: "This is the problem with very many protests in very many areas".

[Richard Tarleton]

By way of more local colour, Snape itself has been protesting about increased flights from the former RAF Bentwaters, just down the road. Just as they thought they'd got rid of the USAF A-10 Warthogs, which used to patrol the Suffolk skies at an altitude of 250 feet.....