Roger Wright Strikes Again

[ahinton]

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

Fair enough - but so what would you do? or rather what would you wish to recommend be done?

[Zucchini]

Roger Wright Strikes Again ...

I assumed that you were going to congratulate this excellent man on being quick off the marks and getting the charismatic Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla for 2 concerts with her CBSO.

But the topic is car parks (and aeroplanes)!

[Richard Tarleton]

Fair enough - but so what would you do? or rather what would you wish to recommend be done?

I've indicated the obvious solution, above (and why it might not appeal).

[DracoM]

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.

Totally agree.
RW empire building? 'Without a dedicated car park, we / I am not a real Festival' ?
Grrrrrrrrrrr!

[french frank]

But the topic is car parks (and aeroplanes)!

And Roger Wright. (The Observer article said nothing about music)

[french frank]

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

Quite right, Richard, and you also said, I see, In Your Opinion: very many protests in very many areas, in your opinion. I don't think you can be accused of having made a rash generalisation.

[Richard Tarleton]

Does anyone else, perhaps with first-hand knowledge of the issues, have a view on a preferable solution?

So far Zucchini is the only one who appears to have read my posts (OK the A-10s were a bit off-thread, it was just to show that Snape both protest and are protested against.....)

I see the protest movement has its own Facebook page (not that I'm on Facebook).

[french frank]

Does anyone else, perhaps with first-hand knowledge of the issues, have a view on a preferable solution?

We both suggested park-and-ride - I think I was just in before you .

Not having first-hand knowledge I didn't realise that they were creating a rod for their back by having all these ancillary services. I'm surprised that planning regulations haven't already prevented a lot of it.

I see from an earlier article that they were shocked at the suggestion that they would think of concreting over anything. They were then thinking of grassed areas, perhaps with sheep grazing when the car park wasn't in full use … . Which doesn't seem a lot different from renting fields from farmers.

[Dave2002]

...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).

No - it has not been there from the start. It was built, then burnt down, then rebuilt.

I don't quite see what is wrong with temporary car parks. I live in an area where the National Trust has events, and clearly they use grass fields as car parks or over flow car parks a few times each year.

What may be the problem with Snape is that the access road may be narrow, and putting a large car park at the end of it may cause problems with traffic building up, and then having to exit when performances finish. If that is the case it may make sense for car parks to be considerably further back from the village. Have the local people got a Neigbourhood Plan, or are they planning one, and has the larger authority got an active or developing Local Plan? If not, they should get on to that ASAP - if it's not too late already. If they don't want urbanisation and commerce they need to figure out what they do want, and maybe a balance will be struck. If the proposed development is in green belt, then it should be much easier to defend against it - if that's what the locals want.

[Bryn]

We both suggested park-and-ride - I think I was just in before you .

Not having first-hand knowledge I didn't realise that they were creating a rod for their back by having all these ancillary services. I'm surprised that planning regulations haven't already prevented a lot of it.

I see from an earlier article that they were shocked at the suggestion that they would think of concreting over anything. They were then thinking of grassed areas, perhaps with sheep grazing when the car park wasn't in full use … . Which doesn't seem a lot different from renting fields from farmers.

Here you go.

[doversoul1]

… The car park is just one aspect of a much larger development plan which provides many benefits.”
(Roger Wright (re. #1)

This sounds like:
…. much larger plan which provide many interest to a wider audience rather than respecting the interest and wishes of the small number of long-standing listeners.

When it comes to any ‘development’ in a rural area, one thing that seriously worries the residents is ‘if this is given a go-ahead, what’s next and where will it stop?’ It may all sounds a typical nimbyism (not in my back yard) but the ‘benefits’ are rarely to the residents.

[Richard Tarleton]

No - it has not been there from the start. It was built, then burnt down, then rebuilt.

Dave - I know this - it was rebuilt to approx the same dimensions. My point was that the requirement for parking for the concert hall has been more or less the same from the start. It's the other things that have changed.

Nothing wrong with temporary parking on green fields. Here, we seem to be talking about an engineered car park (the exact spec is not stated, but evidently a "green"one, perhaps one of the ones in Bryn's post). Currently, it's marshland, wet fields, water meadows susceptible to flooding. You lose the absorbent water holding properties, the biodiversity (plants, insects, brds), everything which makes the place special. It's also - it says somewhere - going to be lit, another ecological downside.

[Dave2002]

This sounds like:
…. much larger plan which provide many interest to a wider audience rather than respecting the interest and wishes of the small number of long-standing listeners.

When it comes to any ‘development’ in a rural area, one thing that seriously worries the residents is ‘if this is given a go-ahead, what’s next and where will it stop?’ It may all sounds a typical nimbyism (not in my back yard) but the ‘benefits’ are rarely to the residents.

According to the Localism Act, 2011 - it's not the listeners who should have a say, but the local residents.. There may be a significant divergence of opinons amongst "locals" - some of whom may not have been there too long. Some may want the business, the commerce, and others may be set against it.
There may be "opportunities" to build houses, though such as may be built will probably be priced so high that local people will not be able to afford them. Some people will push for this, as they can make a profit, though note that "they" may not even be UK residents, but could be offshore consortia investing back into projects in the UK with little concern about the people who actually live here. At the very least, if the locals do decide to accept the development - if it gets as far as a definite proposal - they should be checking out S106/CiL monies for projects which would help them. They will have to do this if they appeal against development - i.e. even if they don't want the development, as if they don't file for such funds then if the development is granted anyway they won't even get any spin offs locally. Also, many councils are working under a presumption "in favour of development" - driven by government - whatever that means.

[Old Grumpy]

I follow the various arguments herein at a distance. I have been to Snape Maltings but once and loved it. When we went there was no problem parking (August). I appreciate the festival will generate much more traffic. One question: what is wrong with farmers renting out their fields for parking - surely this provides income for the local economy?

[MrGongGong]

Dave - I know this - it was rebuilt to approx the same dimensions. My point was that the requirement for parking for the concert hall has been more or less the same from the start. It's the other things that have changed.

Many of the "other things" are rehearsal spaces and the other performing spaces that Aldeburgh Music has built
not just shops etc

The "concert hall" is (as with many others) only part of the story