Blackpool’s ailing tram network has hit a setback as the Government stepped in to review the site for the proposed tram depot following complaints and court action from residents.
Originally proposed at Starr Gate, the £20million construction was hoped to be up and running early in 2011 but given the Government intervention this may not be the case.
Upon hearing the prospect of his legacy being erased, Council Leader Peter Callow ripped off his multi-coloured tie, tied it round his head and started beating his chest like a gorilla whilst claiming that there is a chance the funding may be lost for the project if it does not go ahead as planned.
The Transport Minister, Sadiq Khan (or Saddique as the Gazette transcriber likes to incorrectly call him) believes that this tram upgrade will improve links to the Fylde Coast. How this can be possible given that the routes will be exactly the same I don’t know, but in true Labour style the money is doled out and forgotten about, with the actual implementation left to people that haven’t a clue what they’re doing.
Looking at the following video it’s obvious that Mr Khan doesn’t know much about the scheme, so he gets Bumble and Marsden to do all the talking (about how great the Government is). Interesting points are where Gordon Marsden mentions Blackpool being a 21st century city and the Ron Bell style that Mr Khan reverts to when he speaks to Joan Humble.
So what’s the problem with the location for this new tram depot, and why did the Starr Gate Residents’ Association take the council to court?
Quite simple, it’s NIMBYism. But I have sympathy with the residents association, too. I wouldn’t want the value of my house to go down due to a 4-storey heavy industrial unit that operates between 5.30am and 1am being constructed on my doorstep either.
“We don’t want them to abandon building the trams, but it’s not right at Starr Gate.” – NIMBY-in-chief
Fortunately for residents, the High Court ruled in November that the decision to grant planning permission for this depot was unlawful and ordered a planning review. The council were about to approve the modified plans until the Government issued an Article 14 Direction which is an indefinite intervention that prevents the local planners from granting permission – until the Government is satisfied.
Despite this, though, work on the depot has been ongoing by developer Volkerfitzpatrick, antagonising residents further.
I think there are three key points here. The first is whether the council should be allowed to just cobble together a half baked plan, approve it and steamroller the residents with it. The second is whether we need a new tram depot given that there is one already, and the third is whether there is any point in investing in a tram network that in its current form will continue to be a loss maker.
As I mentioned I have sympathy with the Starr Gate Residents’ Association. The Council should never be allowed to sit in their offices playing Monopoly with our money. They should never be allowed to walk all over the residents in this way. They’ve been trying to do it with the Kensington debacle and they’re trying to do it here. I always wonder why they bother having consultations if they’re going to build anyway.
Whose fault is it that money has been committed without a proper plan? Not the residents’, that’s for sure.
Starr Gate is a largely residential area located at the end of the tram line. One of few residential areas remotely near a tram stop, in fact. Homes have something of a sea view. Why choose there to build this huge depot? It’s hardly in-keeping with the area. Why spend a fortune rebuilding the promenade if you’re going to wreck it by approving horrors like this or like the crazy wedding chapel?
The next question is do we even need a new depot? After all, there already is one at Rigby Road. Why not just refit it? That surely wouldn’t cost £20million and the location is better. They could then use that £20million to direct the trams somewhere useful inland. Bisecting a residential zone would be a start, but guess what? In none of the plans for Kensington-le-Fylde is a tram link mentioned.
It’s all about being seen to be doing something. There is no real commitment to the tram network by the Council, it’s just a dead horse that they are determined to flog provided they can get someone else to pay for it.
That’s why they pretend they love cycling, because in Cycling England there’s a nice quango from which money can be siphoned. But again there’s no commitment and the money is blown on gimmicks like this pay as you go cycling thing that nobody uses. If they were that interested they’d provide proper cycle routes so cyclists don’t have to brave the dangerous road network that the Council has implemented.
“Whatever happens with them doesnt really affect me
“Why would I take the tram when the number one (bus) does the same route, faster?
“I’ve taken the tram once and it took so fucking long to get to the miner’s home. 15 mph and stopping every minute” - Jamesh, regular commenter
There are of course those that believe the trams are integral to the future of Blackpool but that’s not an argument I buy into. Sure, if the tram network was useful to the resident I would be fully on board with the scheme, but after the inland tracks were closed many years ago the tram network became pointless. For me, it’s an illuminations gimmick and an option for pensioners that are bored of buses.
Perhaps I’m too narrow minded and can’t see the depot wood for the trees. This could have been a brilliant project to get people out of cars and onto public transport and could have been a money spinner for the council with a bit more investment and planning. But after a rushed planning job and £100million down the drain it’s nothing more than a heritage project kept alive by the public coffers.
Think about the benefits spongers that are sat at home doing nothing whilst you work hard to fund them and that’s what the tram system is. It doesn’t pay for itself which for me means it needs to be scrapped or redesigned. This current scheme just doesn’t cut it.
The effervescent Sheepdog has stormed in on the Gasjet with a fervent indictment, offering a couple more reasons why Starr Gate is a poor choice. Can’t be long before the deleters strike so here’s his comment;
The residents have every right to block a totaly uneeded shed on the seafront. Its inner Blackpool that needs the new buildings & demoplition teams. The idea that Starr Gate is the perfect loaction for this ode to foolishness is flawed from top to bottom.
This is not the location to park up 16 highly sophistictaed trams whose elcectrical systems & computer management systems will not stand being filled with lightlt sand thats blown about. The glass panels that are meant to be cladding the building will look like they’ve been shotblasted after 3 days of facing the elements.
Better to rethink this stupidity now before the trams arrive . The scenario being if they dont is after 2 weeks the council is humiliated as to why the new trams dont work properly because of all the sand & salty air , the service suspended & thay have to spend even more money getting Rigby Rd sorted out as they admit defeat.
This is not regeneration , but a coucilor who owns a bit of land getting a good deal & helping to ruin the best bit of Blackpool. This town / council doesnt know the meaning of the word regeneration, ruination yes. Regeneration provides schemes that offer soloutions to real problems. Not one of Blackpools schemes offers any tangeble solutions , they are just ill thought out , bung something up/down quick musings designed to fool people into thinking that progress is being made. Progress is not being made,& never will be made, unless you truly get to grips with the fundamental issues that blight the town.
Dot be fooled by Capt Callows scaremongering , just the rhetoric of a man that far out of his depth its not true. he means well , but he’s out of time , just stuck in about 1980.
Which councillor owns the land?
Tags: blackpool, council, nimby, reblackpool, transport
Phil close the system and you can’t extend it one day back into town, instead in a few years you will be on here posting about how much Blackpool has declined further and has just become another run of the mill sea side town in decline losing yet another gem in it’s crown.
As regards the Starr Gate Residents’ Association if they have 20K to spend on a legal team, why not spend that money on helping improve Blackpool by donating it to a charity instead of trying to protect their sea view like good Nimby’s.
True but that should be in the plan now, especially with the ongoing Talbot Gateway.
Since it isn’t, I can’t see them demolishing Talbot Gateway building work in order to put a Blackpool North line in.
Plus, it needs a lot more than a Blackpool North link to be viable. A St. John’s Square link is needed, a Central Station link is needed and links down arteries such as Lytham Road, St. Annes Road, Devonshire Road, Talbot Road, and so on all linking into a transport hub are required for the trams to have a purpose and to be a profit maker.
I’m amazed that they are happy to subsidise the trams, even now, but then they’re being doled out a load of free money and given the chance to write their names in history as the councillors that modernised the tram system.
Furthermore, since Blackpool’s buses are also a loser (indicated by the impending sacking of 60 bus drivers), surely it makes sense to scrap the trams to get more people using the buses?
But then, the only people that use the trams don’t pay anyway do they?
Phil you are confusing the Line One bus service which no one is paying to use as they are all pensioners with those on the trams (apart from local pensioners) who are paying to use them.
I agree about the future extensions, the first viable extension will be the Blackpool North Extension, after that the next one has to be to Blackpool Victoria via St John’s Square but that is a long way of. Without the existing tram line though there can be no extensions.
Who’re paying on the trams?
Anyone who isn’t disabled or a pensioner from the local area unlike Line 1 buses.
Any clues as to which Cllr. Sheepdog?
Very good, fair article Phil. There is more to this though and the Govt are doing the right thing by calling it in.
I see someone is deleting my posts from the Gazette, which is interesting, it’s either personal or my points are hitting home against some nimby.
I noticed that. It’s not me!
Interesting what SGRA had to say, though.
he he he, no problems Phil. I haven’t even moved to Blackpool yet and already I have plenty of people who don’t like me which is good
re SGRA they have a point but it’s a sad example that money rules, if this was Fleetwood or a good few places in Blackpool it would have been built without delay because they don’t have the money these residents have to raise 20K and hire a lawyer.
That sort of money could do so much more good rather than filling the pockets of legal teams.
It’s chump change in the grand scheme of things though, and this depot will have a large impact on the value of their houses, to the tune of much more than the combined £20,000.
It is a sad example that money rules, however the council did jump the gun and they did start building without following the planning rules that everyone else has to abide by.
If the old trams do not fit in with the EU and other regulations to accomodate the disabled, money would be much better spent on firstly, modernising some of the currnet exisiting 1930’s built Balloon Trams to qualify. Some of the bus fleet, in particular the mini buses could be parked overnight on the former Bludnell Street Depot site. This would allow a space for purpose built Depot to either accomodate the old heritiage fleet or house the new trams. For the past four years Blackpool has stored many surplus mothball trams. These are currently being sold off cheaply to transport trusts and museums. Rigby Rd depot was built to house a much larger fleet than Blackpool has today. I don’t beleive that there is insuffucent space at Rigby Road. This muti use location is ideal it houses the offices, bus and tram depot, staff canteen and various workshops. The idea of Starr Gate is not practical due to the weather and the residential location. The cost of upgrading the Rigby Road site would be minimal in comparison. Is it all too late? one thing is for sure a lot of money and time has been lost over the past few years due to the closed privileged meetings and planning decisions which took place, without clear transparency. I am no longer a resident or council tax payer in Blackpool so I have little say other than my polite opinion on this matter. I can proudly say that I was a resident in Blackpool for nearly 25 years and my late Father was a Blackpool Transport employee for 19 years. Has the underhand beaviour of Council and transport officials changed in Blackpool? Fortunately the High Courts found Blackpool Council 80% wrong to their disgraceful behaviour towards my Father. I doubt they will ever voluntarily apologise for this. I truly hope the residents of Starr Gate at receive a fair enquiry without prejudice. In the least they deserve this. I look forward to the outcome and good luck.
Stephen, the existing trams are worn out, most were built in the 1930’s, even the Centenaries are shattered, there are only so many refits that can happen before a tram like any vehicle wears out.
Those English Electric built trams could out live a generation of newer trams. The centenary trams prove it! If you suggest the old fleet mainly English Electric are worn out then scrap the lot of them! No that won’t happen because many of the tram nuts (including mysef) know perfectly well that they need to retain some of them to ‘play trams’ every so often. The overall working idea of a the English Electric tram is simple. If they are worn out how often do you see the railcoach or balloon trams broken down? hardly. I can remember when the Jubilee Trams 761/762 first entered service they were forever breaking down and the centenary fleet. High specification trams I doubt will stand the test of time along the prom during the fiece winter weather, salt sand, wind rain etc. Yes the old trams will need some modifications but overall it is money better spent. The idea these expensive fast new trams along the prom reminds me of the rich footballer with a flash fast car reaching a top speed of 16mph behind an old dear in a mini metro. Its doomed for failure and I hope the losses are not taken at the expense of further cuts in bus services, jobs and future sound and sensible investment of public transport in Blackpool. They should not be playing trail and error tram games after all Blackpool has 125 years experience!!
Stephen why do people like Paul Turner at the Lancashire Transport Trust support the new Trams? They know that without the investment that is coming with the new trams which comply with disability legislation, the new track they are laying, we would be at risk of losing the system all together.
Blackpool isn’t a museam just as it wasn’t in the 1930’s when it ordered new trams.
You live in London and will soon enjoy crossrail, the DLR, the Jubilee extension, the East London Line rebuild, the Thames Link Rebuild, all costing billions, why begrudge Blackpool a project that will help disabled users, families with push chairs and eventually provide a link directly to Blackpool North?
We either get the money from the Department of Transport and rebuild the line or we lose it and another town or city will use it?
Regarding the job losses at the buses that has nothing to do with the trams rather Labour’s free bus passes which I’m in favour of because public transport isn’t just about making money which is we we subsidise the London Underground despite it making a loss!!!
The point was that it seems mad to have both the buses and the trams on a loser. Sure the London Underground might operate on a loser too but that isn’t a tram system for a kick off and secondly it benefits every Londoner. I bet the Manchester trams don’t operate on a loser.
How does the trams system benefit me? It doesn’t. I went on the rocket tram a few times when I was little and took one return journey from Manchester Square to Cleveleys when I was 16. That’s it.
I wish the figures for tram usage were available.
As Stephen says, whats the point in these new trams if they’re limited to 16mph anyway? Everyone goes on about regeneration but this tram project provides nothing except compliance with some bollocks legislation.
The trams are just as slow. The trams are just as dead. The trams are still a massive money sink except instead of one depot there will now be two!
hence my comments about improving our rail links.
whats the point of having a great tram service which isnt integrated to the railway and our road and rail links are shite when getting into Blackpool?
wait till the electrification pledge goes up in smoke, labour filth!
Harold is spot on, we need to integrate the tram service to our railway stations.
Without that the whole thing is a disjointed incoherent shambles of a transport system, much like Bpool council, lol
Phil up until last year Blackpool Transport made a profit, it’s the pensioner passes that have caused the loss, not the trams.
Re the system you should get down and ride it during the illuminations, it’s a great way to see them and beats driving .
Although the system doesn’t go through the heart of Blackpool it does play an essential part in connecting the tourists to their hotels and links Trainless Fleetwood and Cleverley’s with Blackpool, there is a role for the existing system and with some extensions in the future it will be a great asset for Blackpool and something we should all be proud of.
use the money to electrify the north line and reopen the fwood line!
I have every sympathy with the residents. If you’d paid a lot of money for a nice quiet location then had this dumped in front of you, you’d be annoyed too. And they have every right to be heard – it will affect them personally more than any individual that benefits from the project.
Much as the trams are “iconic” is there really a future for them anyway in Blackpool? They’ve been a serious loss maker for the town for some years. They are small and cramped for getting your shopping on, they are necessarily made of metal and therefore require a lot of maintenace with all the salt around them and most importantly who is supposed to be boarding these trams? Those that live near the front? Those from out of town? (if so a park and ride scheme is again desperately needed), tourists?. And if they are “modernised” then they lose all the iconic status and have a very poor route for passenger numbers.
It’s not that I don’t think trams are a good idea in general – they certainly work in the city of Manchester. But you need track for a good system and trundling up and down the Prom is never going to be a big earner, especially without directing out of towners and tourists through park and ride routes (the ride bit could be a tram, a train, a bus..). Blackpool’s motto is “Progress” and the tourist industry in Blackpool has always survived on innovation rather than historic attractions (though it does have both). My opinion is that the tram system should be abandoned for economic reasons and prospects if nothing else.
which councillor owns this land where they want the depot?
Don’t know. That’s your task for this week mate go digging and find it for me
I am on it!
Zim, I do not begrudge Blackpool having investment money which is truly well over due! Although I now live in London I have an invested interest in Blackpoool and it is for everyones benefit that the town makes progress. I accept what Paul Turner is saying from the LTT and it would be sad to see the system close altogether.. The LTT are a historic trust and are not the operator of the new system. If they were to be brave an to volunteer as the private operator they would go bust within months. On the whole many of these acedemic enthusiasts play and talk about trams like they are toys! I can recall the days when in the summer Blackpool Tramway was raking it in. I remeber my dad working one man operated over 30 years ago and paying in over £300.00 on a 8 hour shift! No travel passes in those days all cash fares. None of the big money raised in the glory days was set aside for the inevitable infrastructure overhaul. Blackpool has to face facts that you simply can’t deliver 16 supertrams and expect with a majic wond you will have hundreds of passengers an hour travelling on a 10 minute all year round service. The same route that has lost a lot of money for at least the past 10 years. Perhaps if Blackpool had places like the Print Works and a conference centre the trams might be a little bit busier but I doubt it especially during the winter.
Stephen, the reason I mentioned Paul Turner is that even as a great fan of looking after the historic trams they know they can’t go on for ever providing a full service.
The new trams and importantly the new track will become the linch pin of the existing system and in time will be extended.
I was the first person to file objection to the location. Day one of planning application.
My main concern was the durability of the new building and the feasability of maintaining the rolling stock that is supposed to be a long term investment of our council tax, as well as the available grants.
When the tram system was designed our forefarthers had the sense to construct the maintenance depot’s in protected areas.
IE: Blundell st – Red Bank Rd – Whitegate Drive.
As stated in many of the above post’s the Promenade route is the only remaining route of our historic past but why build the depot at the end of the line.
The staff that will be employed at this location will not all live in the imediate area and must be from differing areas.
Would anybody seriously want to work on the beach in winter so why the council have railroaded (pun) this scheme is beyond me.
My objection was duly noted and various communications stated that a full feasability study would be taken into acount prior to approval.
I assume behind closed doors !. because the planning exersize was clearly well underway and was going to be approved due to the expenditure of the enviromental studies and consultations that had already been undertaken.
-
This is similar to the Palatine Youth Centre development and the same will happen with the Talbot Gateway.
As I see it the council make to many decisions on spending money prior to consulting or informing the rate payers.
And by the time it’s released to general knowledge any chance of there action can’t be overturned.
Zim says the Super tramway will be extended? do you really belive Blackpool will receive the Billions needed for this to happen. I will like to see it, but in reality it is not going to happen. Blackpool desperately needs a Life Line and the super tram Starr Gate to Fleetwood route is not nor is a new Depot. It would be a sad shame to see it close in 2018, unless some how Blackpool can be granted exclusive rights to run its archaic system as a tourist attraction in accordance with future saftey regulations . Enthusiasts, and residents have to accept that we need to be realistic, a £100m life line will not be the end… The ongoing operating costs of the supertrams with little return will be a haemorage to Blackool which ultimately will create further cuts and make the down worse! I am a great beliver in modernisation and have no objections to new improved Fire Engines equipment , Ambulances etc, but not to waste a money on New Dead Donkeys. In the long run it will be the residents of Blackpool who will be taken for a ride!
Stephen, how much do think it will cost to build the line to Blackpool North, it’s only half a mile long. At a guestimate I would say we are looking at 30 million give or take. Between Blackpool Council, Lancashire Council and the European Investment Bank the money could be borrowed, just as Manchester are borrowing the money for phase B of their extension.
Future extensions could run on ultra light rail, thus cutting the cost down further, never say never is the Zim Flyer motto.
Zim, it is not even half a mile to North Station from Talbot Square. This extention was rumoured in the 1970’s/80’s when the tram way was making a steady profit!! it never happened. Why? When the London Tramlink was only a pipe dream, all local authorites involved held meetings with the public, estimated passenger surveys were undertaken, drop in centres with detailed information was availble, Q and A sessions took place. Has this kind of transperency happend over the Super Tram and the Starr Gate Depot. It appears not. Several high ranking Council officials would take more than a dim view if a 40ft Industrial Building was constructed without full and proper consultation in front of residential desirable houses adjacent to Stanley Park. It is not about hating the trams its about good ethics and standards and plain common sense.
Stephen do you know how long the planning process took for the Croydon Tram system, do you really think such a lengthy planning system is good for this country?
By the way, you keep saying the tram system makes a loss, could you give me the exact figures?
Zim, it is common knowledge that the Blackpool Tramway operates at a loss you should know that. Should you wish to obtain the exact figures loss and expenditure spread sheet my best advise is to contact Mr Trevor Roberts BTS MD, or the Town Hall Bosses, who clearly are the real executives and decision makers when it comes to the tramway. Whether you will receive this clarification to your satisfaction without prejudice I cannot guarantee!! The planning of the Croydon Tramlink involved huge intergration of several different councils, transport companies, highway agencies etc, and no doubt the planning period was extensive and took time for the job to be done properly. One thing is for sure the system is a total success and is used as a serious form of Public Transport by a wide range of different passengers. Blackpool several years ago had an advantage over the Croydon system because they had the infrastructure already in place albeit old and in need of renewal but nevertheless still up and running. The planning of the supertrams or new Depot works should have been a far more straight forward task than Croydon. I would like to think Blackpool officals had ample time to do thier PPPPPPP. In showbuisness remember the old saying “Prior preperation prevents a piss poor performance”
Zim – have you seen the Blackpool Transport accounts? I downloaded the March 2008 ones a wayback – it’s about £1 from the Companies House webcheck service though Blackpool council should supply you with accounts for free and the 2009 ones should be filed now. (Steve Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, PO Box 4, Town Hall, Blackpool FY1 1NA)
It’s quite clear all the way through with the comments made in the Directors’ Report for a start that the trams are struggling financially with the fall in tourist numbers (not that closing the line helps either).
You can always try a FOI Act request of course re the tram figures.
Hi Frustrated, the reason why I wanted to see the figures is Stephen keeps quoting them but doesn’t actually know what they are. It sounds to me the more you repeat a lie the more you begin to believe it.
Blackpool Transport until last year with the introduction of free bus passes for the elderly made a profit. It’s the bus pass that is the issue not the trams.
As regards the public enquiries that Stephen loves so much, for the Croydon and Nottingham systems they took up to ten years by which time the costs had gone up so much we were lucky they weren’t cancelled as was the case with the Leeds and Liverpool proposed Tram systems. Planning in this country is a mess which is why most of mainland Europe builds high speed railway and tram lines whilst we just talk about it.
Zim,please do get your facts right I have not quoted excact loss figures I have referred to the losses in general terms of the Tramway. Ofcourse the OAP travel has had a major blow to BTS as a whole. Blackpool inherits a double loss because of the tramway is not included in the free fares ultimately losses passengers numbers and becasue BTS is a wholly owned undertaking of the Council. Nevertheless prior to the free travel on buses the trams it still did run at a loss. Blackpool is a seaside town and I don’t expect the trams to make a profit in the winter along the promenade with such an isolated route, however in the good old days the healthy summer revenue gainedwould balance out over the financial year. Now I do not think every public service should be about making mega bucks, if the service is of a major advantage to a wide range of passengers, business and schools etc, and operated reasonably competitive I am all for it!! The past 10 years that has not been the case. I don’t beleive that Blackpool needed a 10-15 year or more super tram planning of the prom route as it is already in place. What you will also find outside the Foxhall Pub along the new tracks are the spurs in the rails which would have directed the trams into Blundell Street entrance. Why were these spurs fitted inreadiness in Feb 2008? Had the new Depot been in construction or modernisation at Rigby Road in my view there was a some hope that the project could have been delivered on time on budget, with the funding deadline etc, without the Council having to get embriolled in seems according to a High Court a legitimate dispute which could turn out to be a costly mistake if those that do not want the tramway to close in 2018. Is the end of the line for the iron road? if it is I will personally be upset like many other people no doubt will. It was sad to see the very last London Route Masters run in regular service, again they were not disabled friendly. The residents of Starr Gate cannot be blamed for this debacle, if delays are caused or the money is lost due to alleged unlawfull practice. Blackpool Council have 125 years superlative experience of operating a tramway.
As stated previously the letters of objection seem to have been removed.
Within one of many communications I received the main criteria of planning should all have been met as stated in a emailed response ( were they carried out and undertaken prior to final application being assessed ) ?.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
APPLICATION NUMBER: 09/0426
Please quote this number on all correspondence.
Proposal: Erection of tram maintenance and storage building with associated plant buildings, tram wash, sanding station, sand silo, substation, communications mast, car parking, landscaping and boundary treatment.
Location: LAND AT STARR GATE, NEW SOUTH PROMENADE
You made comments on this application and I can inform you the proposal was considered on 03/07/2009 . The decision and imposed conditions and/or reasons are as follows.
Decision : Grant Permission
Conditions/Reasons
1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2
Details of materials to be used on all external surfaces shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development being commenced.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the locality, in accordance with Policy LQ14 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
3
Details of the surfacing materials to be used shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the locality, in accordance with Policy LQ1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016
4
Before the development hereby permitted is first commenced, the details of the boundary treatment indicated on drawing no. 3290099 (2-) 51 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this agreed treatment shall then be provided as part of the development.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the locality, in accordance with Policy LQ1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
5
a) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include any proposed changes to existing
ground levels, means of enclosure and boundary treatment, areas of soft landscaping, hard surfaced areas and materials, planting plans specifications and schedules (including plant size, species and number/ densities), and shall show how
account has been taken of any underground services.
b) The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first planting season following completion of the development hereby approved or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority (whichever is sooner.)
c) Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, uprooted, destroyed, die, or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.
Reason. To ensure the site is satisfactorily landscaped in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure there are adequate areas of soft landscaping to act as a soakaway during times of heavy rainfall with regards to Policy LQ6 of the Blackpool
Local Plan 2001-2016.
6
No development shall be commenced until a desk study has been undertaken and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for on site contamination. If the desk study
identifies potential contamination, a detailed site investigation shall be carried out in accordance with a written methodology, which shall first have been agreed in writing
with the Local Planning Authority. If remediation methods are then considered necessary, a scheme for decontamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and completed prior to the commencement of the development. Any changes to the approved scheme shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution to water resources or to human health and in accordance with Policy BH4 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
7
Prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use the car parking provision shown on the approved plans shall be provided and shall thereafter be retained.
Reason: In the interests of ensuring adequate parking provision at the site to serve the needs of the development in accordance with Policy AS1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
8
Prior to the development hereby approved being commenced, details of the cycle storage provision shown on the approved plans shall submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this agreed provision shall be put in
place before the development is first brought into use and thereafter retained.
Reason: To enable access to and from the property by sustainable transport mode, in accordance with Policy AS1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
9
Prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use the refuse storage provision shown on the approved plans shall be provided and shall thereafter be retained.
Reason: To enable access to and from the property by sustainable transport mode, in accordance with Policy AS1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
10
Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans hereby approved, final schemes for the provision of lighting, tram signalling and catinery supports shall be submitted to
and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To limit the visual clutter at the site in the interests of the appearance of thedevelopment in accordance with Policy LQ1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
11
The wash plant and sand plant shall not be used outside the hours of 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 8pm on Saturdays and 10am to 7pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of nearby residential premises, in accordance with Policy BH3 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
12
Other than to allow the initial release of trams in the morning and the final stabling of trams at night, all external doors to the main depot building shall be kept closed outside the hours of 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 8pm on a Saturday and 10am to 7pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of the occupants of nearby residential premises, in accordance with Policy BH3 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
13
Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use a Site Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This Management Plan shall include details on the hours of operation of the site, the shift patterns of tramway workers at the site, the provisions for the mainenance of the site, the provisions for the storage and collection of equipment and waste at the site and details of deliveries, the operation of CCTV and the
provision of appropriate lighting. The agreed Site Management Plan shall then be implemented at all times when the development hereby approved is in operation.
Reason: In the interests of safeguarding the residential amenity of the occupants of nearby properties in accordance with Policy BH3 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
14
Before any demolition takes place on the site, a survey into the presence of protected species on the site (particularly bats) shall be conducted and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: to ensure that the proposed development would not disturb or displace any protected species in accordance with Policy NE6 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
15
Before the development hereby permitted is first commenced, Project Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall include hours of work and details of necessary measures to mitigate impact on surrounding habitats. These measures shall include provision of a solid barrier to be erected around the site during the construction period to protect the neighbouring sand dune habitiat, and the restriction of any construction taking place in the period September to March to daylight hours.
Reason: in the interests of the amenity of local residents and to prevent the disturbance of protected species and/or damage of protected environments in accordance with Policies BH3, NE4, NE5 and NE6 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
16
Prior to the development hereby approved being commenced, details of the materials and the opening and closing mechanisms of the external doors to the depot building shall submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To minimise potential noise disturbance to safeguard the residential amenity of the occupants of nearby houses in accordance with Policy BH3 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
17
Prior to the development hereby approved being commenced, details of a screen to surround the sand silo shall submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this agreed screen shall be put in place before the development is first brought into use and thereafter retained.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the site in accordance with Policy LQ1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
18
Prior to the development hereby approved being commenced, details of the cycle access between the Squires Gate Lane/Clifton Drive/New South Promenade junction and the Promenade Jubilee cycleway shall submitted to and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed access shall then be provided before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use.
Reason: To safeguard the cycle route in the interest of promoting travel by a sustainable transport mode in accordance with Policy AS3 of the Blackpool Local
Plan 2001-2016.
19
The development shall not be brought into use until a travel plan for the wider Blackpool Transport Services operation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied prior to the implementation of the Approved Travel Plan (or implementation of those parts identified in the Approved Travel Plan as capable of being implemented prior to occupation). Those parts of the Approved Travel Plan that are identified therein as being capable of implementation after occupation shall be implemented in accordance with the
timetable therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.
Reason: In order to ensure appropriate provision exists for safe and convenient access by public transport, cycle, and on foot as well as by car, in accordance with Policy AS1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001 – 2016.
20
Nothwithstanding the details shown on drawing numbers 3290099 (2-) 48 Rev B, 3290099 (2-) 46 Rev E and 3290099 (2-) 47 Rev A, a scheme for the return of thecladding from the eastern elevation onto the northern elevation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is first commenced. The agreed elevations shall then form part of the proposal hereby
approved in place of those shown on the plans listed above.
Reason: To ensure continuity and integration between the elevations to achieve a high standard of design in accordance with Policies LQ1 and LQ4 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
21
A parking survey to assess the need for a managed parking scheme to be operated in the nearby area shall be conducted in the area in accordance with a methodology to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the results of this survey shall then be submitted to and any necessary measures agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and undertaken before the development hereby approved is first brought into use.
Reason: To ensure that local on-street parking provision is available in the interests of the amenity of local residents and in the interest of highway safety in accordance with Policies BH3 and AS1 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 The development proposed has been considered in relation to Policies RR12, LQ1,LQ2, LQ3, LQ4, LQ5, LQ6, LQ7, LQ15, BH3, NE4, NE5, NE6, NE9, NE10, AS1 and AS4 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001 – 2016 and is in accordance with those
policies and there are no other material considerations which weigh sufficiently against the proposal such as to warrant refusal.
ADVICE NOTES TO DEVELOPER
1. Please note this approval relates specifically to the details indicated on the approved plans and documents, and to the requirement to satisfy all conditions of the approval. Any variation from this approval need to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing and may require the submission of a revised application. Any works carried out without such written agreement or approval would render the development as unauthorised and liable to
legal proceedings.
2. A safety audit should be carried out on the internal access road shown on drawing no. 3290099 (2-) 51. Any alterations to the approved plans shown as being required by this safety audit must be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority and the works carried out before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use.
Zim – I’ve always believed the trams make losses as that is what was said in the Directors’ report in the 31/03/08 year end Blackpool Transport accounts. However you also have to take into account the various closures during any period as there have been a lot in recent years – hence I wouldn’t want to say 100% for sure that the tram system couldn’t be able to be made to pay its way.
I’m not a public transport expert – but I must agree that Blackpool needs great improvement in this area. And without it regeneration is never going to really work.