News:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Sheerness Water Tower Development  (Read 27498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HERB COLLECTOR

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Appreciation 218
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #55 on: October 06, 2017, 23:52:41 »
Plans to convert the historic water tower in Sheerness into flats have finally been agreed, three years after being submitted.

The proposals, (.......) are to redevelop the derelict tower in Trinity Road and build a new three-storey block next to it.


http://www.kentonline.co.uk/sheerness/news/homes-plan-for-historic-water-132877/

http://www.facebook.com/CllrCABeart/photos/a.1616745745267953.1073741829.1604520636490464/2004159953193195/?type=3&theater

Offline Sentinel S4

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Appreciation 165
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #54 on: August 06, 2013, 22:18:22 »
This will be a constant money pit for whosoever takes it on. I originally thought that a re-vamp and clean up was all that was needed. However if there is subsidence then the cost will go through the roof. Would it be the side closest to the well? If so then the well will need surveying and possible stabilising, that alone will not be cheap. A nice building allowed to rot...

S4.
A day without learning something is a day lost and my brain is hungry. Feed me please.

Minsterboy

  • Guest
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #53 on: August 06, 2013, 16:44:00 »
Nice one S4, much appreciated.

Offline Sentinel S4

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Appreciation 165
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #52 on: August 06, 2013, 16:15:17 »
Now I have to agree with Minsterboy (strange I know but it does happen from time to time). If these problems are that bad then knock it down. I know this is a turn round for me but if anything I am a realist. It will cost more to keep it standing than anyone wishes to admit, so just bite the bullet and demolish it.

S4.

.
A day without learning something is a day lost and my brain is hungry. Feed me please.

Minsterboy

  • Guest
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #51 on: August 06, 2013, 14:45:37 »
Gawd, why don't they just do as I've been saying for some time, knock the blooming thing down and get it over with. Clearly the eyesore is unstable and would take an awful lot of money just to get it safe and secure even before it could be used for anything. As for looking for other developers who might be interested in the site - why would they be - knowing damn well that whatever they propose, at their expense, will have to to be scrutinised by the "guardians" of Sheerness who have already caused us to be stuck with this eyesore for the foreseeable future.

The whole thing is becoming a joke.

Offline isleansuz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Appreciation 8
  • IsleAnsuz
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #50 on: August 06, 2013, 14:27:17 »

Quote
A survey carried out on a town landmark has revealed there has been significant movement to one of the external walls.

We reported in June how Swale council had ordered a report be carried out on the water tower in Sheerness and now it has been done there is unlikely to be any more news for some time.

The survey followed the launch of the Trinity Road Development Brief which aimed to revamp the whole area, including the former Alldays store, empty council offices (now occupied by Restoration Youth), car park and Island Partnership.

But since the council revealed its plans and a public consultation took place, there had been no suggestion about what might happen.

The survey of the 150-year-old building also recorded that the large amount of bird mess inside will need clearing up.

more through the link: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/times_guardian/news/survey-reveals-wall-problems-at-4320

Minsterboy

  • Guest
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #49 on: September 13, 2012, 11:59:29 »
While it's admirable that you guys keep banging away with your heritage hats on you really do have to face the fact that when it comes down to simple economics, you are in the minority. No developer is likely to want to purchase and develop the site if he is expected to spend the huge sum of money that would be necessary to retain and make good the Water Tower stuck in the middle. Whilst all three suggestions in my opinion, had their merits, in a time of recession, simply flattening the site and starting from scratch has to be the cheapest and most attractive bet, and quite frankly, would make an attractive parade out of an eyesore.
I imagine that in these cash-strapped times, an old building has to have some pretty outstanding and historical features before anybody, whether it be a developer, Council or charitable organisation, fund its repair and retention, and it's debatable whether the Water Tower has that status, despite the misty eyes of a few.

To continue on the economics theme, when next year Morrisons and hopefully, the other suggested outlets, open at Neats Court, its pretty certain that Sheerness will see even more shops being forced to close as shoppers desert the town in droves. Facing that out of town competition, its not only unlikely that new buyers for the empty shops will come forward but also likely that whole lines of heritage buildings along the High Street and Broadway will start to fall into disrepair, you'll be spoilt for choice!

So, to be quite frank, I think that to keep resisting schemes such as the three that have been suggested, you have every chance of seeing the Water Tower still languishing as a giant pigeon loft for many more years to come, which I imagine, would inevitably see it knocked down anyway because it represented too much of a safety issue.
Interesting times ahead, me thinks.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #48 on: September 13, 2012, 07:22:08 »
So we have gone from one, to three historic sites being demolished!


Offline HERB COLLECTOR

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Appreciation 218
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2012, 22:52:19 »
Trinity Road, Sheerness development, public consultation.
Old council offices, water tower site, old library.
3 possible options.
1- Demolishes some or all heritage.
2- Takes the middle-ground approach.
3- Retains all the heritage assets.
http://www.swale.gov.uk/trinity-road/
Consultation closes 30 September 2012.

Sheppey Souvenirs

  • Guest
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #46 on: September 09, 2012, 22:41:30 »
I must admit, I had to chuckle on reading today's Sheerness Times-Guardian and the latest episode in the Water Tower saga. The MD of the company that own the Tower and it's site has suggested that those that were successful in preventing it from being demolished, now take the next step and stump up some money to see their unrealistic dream come to fruition.
Will we now see a deafening silence from those very vocal protestors this week or will they be raiding their piggy banks to offer some "real world" support to the owners - somehow I suspect that the second option is very unlikely.

I also note that the owners intend giving SBC the opportunity to buy it back and restore it themselves. Somehow, I also see that idea being a non-starter, because SBC like the action group, are only interested in someone else's money funding the restoration, not their own. Its a silly mess that in the mean-time, sees Sheerness saddled with an ugly wreck that does nothing for its reputation, simply because SBC allowed itself to be swayed by the protests of a group of people, buoyed by their own self-importance, who could not see what the financial implications of keeping the Tower standing were.

Hopefully the new Planning Laws that came into place last week will force SBC to take a more practical view in future because it includes a new section on developing town centres before greenfield sites. The document urges planners to: "Encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of high environmental value". The only environmental value that the Tower currently has is as a pigeon loft!
Minsterboy, it is very naive of you to think that the"protesters" alone were responsible for preventing the demolition of the Pumping Station. Were you present at the planning meeting?. If you are so concerned as to the site being an eyesore, then why did you not put in a letter of support for its demolition?. I think that to criticise those that are vocal in expressing a desire to protect the Islands heritage whilst making assumptions that none of those objectors are active in seeking a solution to the admittedly neglected site is equally narrow minded. Nobody objects to the development of the site but some believe that we are purely custodians of heritage buildings and should treat the islands historical buildings with respect. The preliminary work carried out by Cedar Holdings around the site is not only very poor workmanship, but now seriously dangerous, which I feel gives full justification for preventing them developing the site further. The "pigeon loft" has similarly occurred through the developer removing the boarding up carried out to make the site secure. On this point are you criticising the objectors, developer, or Council?
  The council did not provide adequate notice of the public consultation, the STG reported on a developer meeting but did not mention any consultation exercise. As this would have been notified to the paper via press release it is right to criticise the fact that the same release did not mention the consultation. As someone that has been active in supporting the view that the Water Tower (Pumping Station) should be preserved, a business in the affected vicinity, and someone that has spoken at the planning meeting, would I not have expected to be on the list of those receiving one of the "letters" that are reported to have been sent out.
   As each of the development briefs would result in more shops, and loss of the Trinity Car Park, I expressed a view that all schemes were unsuitable. This view, based upon the number of already vacant shops, the imminent loss of more businesses in town with the Neats Court development opening, and the lack of Parking for Iceland, and the COOP along with the loss of their rear access. On this basis I do not feel that the schemes would benefit the area or the Town Centre. This area is the only available pocket of land capable of providing the catalyst for regenerataion in Sheerness. If we get this wrong then the Town is truly finished. Care Homes, more shops, and low grade apartments around a restaurant without parking really do not provide a solution.
   There are many ways in which this area could be developed, and of financing it, but I was not aware that it was back on the market.  Perhaps when or if it is, it may be worth devoting the time and Planning to resolving the problem. Until such time I, like many others will continue to be vocal on the matter and expect those in ownership, and tasked with the job to comply with their legal and moral responsibilities.  If the devoloper really wanted to, he could work with those "objectors" who may well be more supportive of assisting in finding a solution.
Finally, there are plenty of other available Brownfield Sites available, that are not in a conservation area. Swale Borough Council are more supportive now than ever of preserving buildings of Heritage value.  Whilst I appreciate that people may have different views on this matter Minsterboy, I do not think it fair to expect that this right should be constrained to those with the financial means to provide the solution.

Offline isleansuz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Appreciation 8
  • IsleAnsuz
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2012, 13:18:14 »
Quote
There will be a public consultation meeting tomorrow afternoon, Thursday at Sheerness gateway regarding what should happen to our water tower in Trinity Road. Please try to attend and air tour views. Cllr. Mark Ellen

Cllr Mark Ellen posted that to the Kent Messenger facebook page a short while ago.
There has been outcry online already about how it has been virtually ignored by the press, with no coverage or mention at all that people have noticed.
However I am aware that people "in the area affected" had letters put through their door last week.

https://www.facebook.com/SheernessTimesGuardian
Its on the "posted by others" section of the page.


Just thought I'd bring this to folks attention.

Minsterboy

  • Guest
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2012, 08:21:53 »
I must admit, I had to chuckle on reading today's Sheerness Times-Guardian and the latest episode in the Water Tower saga. The MD of the company that own the Tower and it's site has suggested that those that were successful in preventing it from being demolished, now take the next step and stump up some money to see their unrealistic dream come to fruition.
Will we now see a deafening silence from those very vocal protestors this week or will they be raiding their piggy banks to offer some "real world" support to the owners - somehow I suspect that the second option is very unlikely.

I also note that the owners intend giving SBC the opportunity to buy it back and restore it themselves. Somehow, I also see that idea being a non-starter, because SBC like the action group, are only interested in someone else's money funding the restoration, not their own. Its a silly mess that in the mean-time, sees Sheerness saddled with an ugly wreck that does nothing for its reputation, simply because SBC allowed itself to be swayed by the protests of a group of people, buoyed by their own self-importance, who could not see what the financial implications of keeping the Tower standing were.

Hopefully the new Planning Laws that came into place last week will force SBC to take a more practical view in future because it includes a new section on developing town centres before greenfield sites. The document urges planners to: "Encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of high environmental value". The only environmental value that the Tower currently has is as a pigeon loft!

Lofty

  • Guest
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2012, 17:06:23 »
The small building that was over the Well Head, had no pump or anything remaining in it, the top of the well was level with the ground no protective wall or railings, if you were there in the dark afternoons it could be quite possible to walk in there and fall down the well it was wide open.

It is interesting to learn that there were in fact three wells we had always assumed that there was in fact only one as the combination of the depths within one well, there had been many trenches dug to see if any other pipes were ever conected from other wells but none came to light, only the connecting pipe from the Tower to pass under the School and Allens Clothes shop to near the Clock Tower, where an underground tank held water for the Steam Road Vehicles to take on water.

The front pump house had no Pump Engine there, it had long since been removed.

The two buildings were mere shells, the Island Boroughs of Sheerness Rural Council, Queenborough Council and Minster Council had combined at this time as Swale Borough Council, the two buildings had inner floor levels added to store the Maintenance materials, that were brought in from the former storage places i/e the Queenborough Council Yard was a few doors from the Guildhall, the Minster Yard was at New Road Minster, here all the plants and shrubbery were grown in the Council Greenhouses for their parks and gardens. This area now is known as Worcester Close with flats and houses and the New Library.
There were several other buildings in the Sheerness Council Yard Trinity Road Depot  one was the Old Fire Station.

I could name all of those former places that were part of the old Boroughs. Even where the Refuse used to be disposed of on the Island.
But perhaps this is off topic.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2012, 16:30:00 »
A write up I did a few years back for my other website.
The water tower is actually two buildings with the second building at the front being added at the later date. The first building was probably built between 1840 and 1850, the second was built in 1891. There are three wells within the building which were tested in the 1940's. Here are the findings:

1. Name of pumping station Trinity Road, Sheerness
2. Water derived from (geological formation) London Tertiaries and Chalk
3. Normal quantity abstracted from site gals/day 200,000
4. Nature of treatment Chlorination
5. Estimated reliable yield gals/day 200,000

No.1No.2No.3.
6. Top of well or boreholeO.D.688
7. Diameter of well or borehole7ft7ft14in
8. Depth of well or boreholeft304335810
9. Length of aditsyds.3737-
10. Rest level below surfaceftNo279279
11. Pumping level below surfaceftpumping450450
12. Pumping rateg.p.h.plant9,0009,000

There is a 14-inch borehole at the bottom of No. 1 well, to a total depth of 384 feet from the surface. There is an 18-inch borehole at the bottom of No. 2 well, to a total depth of 805 feet from the surface. A heading at a depth of 200 feet from the surface connects wells No. 1 and No. 2.
The section of No.2 well and borehole is as follows:

Made Ground2ft
Drift44ft
London Clay291ft
Oldhaven Beds21ft
Woolwich Beds26ft
Thanet Sand117ft
Chalk303ft
Total804ft

After the pumping station was built there was a lot of criticism due to it not being able to pump enough water for the population of Sheerness. In may 1897 Councillor W. J. Penney. J.P, acquired permission from the council to have a reservoir built at Halfway, situated behind Halfway Houses. At a council meeting Councillor Penney requested that a surveyor be sent out to give an estimate of the cost of building the reservoir and for pipes to be laid between the reservoir and the pumping station on Trinity Road. The reservoir was to store a supply of water for fourteen days consumption, the current storage was for only four hours consumption. Mr John Copland had said during the meeting that had the water board built a reservoir at Halfway first there would have been a large enough supply that there would be no need for the proposed works at all, thus saving a lot of money.
In April 1988 the building was removed from the Department of the Environments List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest, it had been a Grade II listed Building. The site was still regarded as an important historical building but was no longer under protection.
A proposal was put to the Council in September 1992 that the old water tower be refurbished and used as the local heritage centre and a tourist information centre. Swale Councils Leisure Services Committee agreed to look into the proposal, it was hoped that with the plan being agreed there would be support from heritage groups such as English Heritage and the English Tourist Board, unfortunately this proposal was not accepted and the building was left derelict for many more years.
Over the years many proposals have been put forward for use of this site, one specific one was to use the site for housing, a free house, and shop. This proposal was accepted in October 1996, after around 3 years trying to get the proposal accepted and iron out the details the applicant walked away from the proposal citing reasons "resources, time and energy." (Letter dated from applicant May 29, 1997.)
In 2000 part of Mile Town, Sheerness, was classed as a conservation area, the water tower falls within the conservation area, the local council has said "given its scale and appearance, makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the existing conservation area and the existing street scene." The Conservation Officer had commented during previous planning proposals that "the water tower is an extraordinary piece of fanciful late Victorian architecture, arguably the most important, non-listed building in the conservation area."
A housing application was lodged in 2002 but due to design issues it was withdrawn.
Another housing application was proposed in 2005, it was for 29 flats and maisonettes within the existing building with an adjacent new build and 29 spaces for parking. Planning permission was granted on 11 August 2005 and seems to be going ahead.

Offline Sentinel S4

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Appreciation 165
Re: Sheerness Water Tower Development
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2012, 15:05:03 »
Thanks Lofty. It is nice that someone who knows the site can provide the correct answer. Were there pumps in the out building? How deep are the bores? Was anything left when you did?

The old well at St Augustine's had a three throw crank (120 deg cranks) driven by a belt from a lineshaft and engine. The rods were about 320 feet long to get to the pumps in the sump. It had all been long out of use due to contamination when I knew it. Also you could still hear the water cascading from the adits in wet weather, well a few months later anyway..

S4.
A day without learning something is a day lost and my brain is hungry. Feed me please.

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines