Help Save the Richmond Dry Dock, founded by James Yeo of P.E.I. in 1856 in Appledore, England.

I am Judith Redstone and am writing to you from Appledore in North Devon, England.

We, in Appledore have a maritime history with Prince Edward Island and its people.

From 1765 until 1873 when Prince Edward Island was a British Colony, many families in the West Country had already established trade links with the Island. In the eighteenth century, it already had a small shipbuilding industry. It was after the Battle of Waterloo that the maritime trade began to develop.

Merchants from the West of England, some already established in the colony, set up lumbering and shipbuilding, and ships were built to be sailed to England.

James Yeo had emigrated from the West Country to Prince Edward Isle in 1819 (I am sure you will know this). I understand that by the middle of the century he had become a great merchant and shipbuilder in the colony. His son William was set up in Appledore as his father’s agent.

In 1856, James Yeo, of Port Hill, Prince Edward Island, seeking to expand business with the West Country, built the Richmond Dry Dock in Appledore. Roughly finished ships were sailed across the Atlantic from Prince Edward Island and caulked and re-rigged in the Richmond Dry Dock and sold in the British market. This began an era of great prosperity and shipbuilding and repairs continued in the Richmond Dry Dock for many successive decades.

This Dry Dock has been redundant now for some time and has fallen into private ownership. The Dry Dock is a Grade 2 star listed building. This means that it is protected and must be preserved.

However the owner is seeking permission from the local authority to build 12 houses around the edges of the Dry Dock. The plans are such that if passed, it would be impossible in the future for the Dry Dock to be used for shipbuilding and repairs. It would be impossible to maintain the fabric of the dock if these houses were built.

Appledore people have a dream – that dream is to see the Dry Dock and the surrounding area developed into a Heritage Site, with an extension to the existing Maritime Museum, renewed shipbuilding and repairs of wooden boats and a home for the recently restored schooner, The Kathleen and May.

A group of us are currently working to turn this dream into reality. On Monday 2nd August 2004 we held a Public Meeting. Over 200 people attended and gave us their unanimous support.

Initially we have to stop the proposed development. To do this objections have to be made to the local Authority, Torridge District Council by 16th August. This can be done by email to: [email protected]

The reference number of the planning application is Northam 1/1393/2004/OUT and the application has been made by the owner through his company Pointcentre Ltd

Please help us to preserve our Heritage and email your objection to this proposed development on the grounds that it is out of keeping with the listed Dry Dock and the principles of conservation and preservation and our shared Maritime Heritage.

Please send a copy of your email to me at [email protected]

Thank you so much. We would hope that you can mention the following points in your email, and please mention that you are from Prince Edward Island, so the planning committee can see this is of international concern. This is necessary, as historical concern cannot be the sole basis for an objection:

Proposed Outline Planning Application for Richmond Dock

Please write a letter to raise your concerns to The Chief Planning Officer, Torridge District County Council, Riverbank House, Bideford, Devon EX39 2QG. Emails may be sent to [email protected] . Please also send a copy your email to [email protected] . We will be more than happy to hand deliver your letter or email and, if you send one yourself, please ask for a receipt.

The Full Planning application of 11th July 1995 (16851994 P P F)- 20 houses and 6 flats, together with off street parking and road alterations of Richmond Dock was refused on the following grounds which we believe still apply today, if not more so than ever before:

"The proposed development by reason of it’s design, layout and massing would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the adjoining Appledore Conservation area and form an inappropriate setting for the grade 2* listed dry dock"- Mr D Pinney, Director of Planning and Technical Services for Torridge District Council

Points to consider:

  1. Location and Context

    2. Of major consideration has to be the fact that the proposed housing development is to be situated in a highly sensitive area. English Heritage have previously stated that "there is a need to consider the setting and views into and out of the adjoining conservation area". We must consider the impact that such a development would have on the historic and unique waterfront of Appledore- which is probably the best surviving maritime settlement in the whole of Devon. Modern housing does not fit into the context of the surrounding conservation area with it’s many listed buildings and, indeed, with a Grade 2* listed structure being situated on the actual site itself

    In 1995 English Heritage quite rightly stated that "it is fair to say that the more any scheme of redevelopment deviates from the historical character of the site, the more it will erode the setting of the dock"

  2. Traffic Issues and Parking

    3. Govt guidelines state the need for 1 and ½ spaces per unit. Parking is a real issue in Appledore- none available around New Quay Street (double yellow lines). The current outline proposal only allows for 1 space per unit.

  3. Privacy

    4. The proposed outlines include 3 storey houses directly overlooking the houses on New Quay Street. This is a serious encroachment on the privacy of the residents of New Quay Street and even a 2 storey house built so close (as indicated by the footprint of the existing proposal) will have a detrimental impact. Remember that the 1995 proposal had houses situated approx 17m from those in New Quay Street whereas the current proposal indicates that they will be much closer- approximately 5m in fact

  4. Light

    5. The Planning Committee noted on 14/07/89 that they were concerned about the impact regarding the loss of light affecting the properties along New Quay Street.

    In April 1995, following discussions with David Hall (the Torridge Planning Officer) Gary Webb, the Architect at the time reduced the proposed height from 3 storeys to 2 in response to concerns about these light issues- and the application was still turned down.

    Also, in that particular application the proposed houses were to be a full 17metres away from the houses in New Quay Street- as stated above. The current proposal is seeking to erect 3 storey houses approximately 5 metres away from the existing New Quay street houses. This will severely impact upon the natural light available to those houses. This is likely to be far worse than the previous plans which were turned down.

  5. Drainage/Flooding

    6. Is this adequate? The storm drains of New Quay Street have flooded in the past and surely the proposed development of the adjoining site will lead to increased surface run off and associated flood risk. Does the plan allow for an adequate flood protection scheme

  6. Access

    7. David Pinney, Director of Planning and Technical Services for Torridge wrote on 21/03/97:

    "It has always been made clear by the Highways Authority, that any developments of this land would require widening and improvement of New Quay Street, an expensive exercise and one eating into the site area, and involving the loss of the boundary wall. With the site immediately adjoining a grade 2* listed structure, the site is very clearly sensitive in conservation terms"

  7. Density of Housing (massing)

    8. This was a major reason why the application was turned down in 1995 and we believe this is still an issue today.

    The original 1995 plan was for 25 houses and 6 flats covering the entire Richmond Dock site. The proposed houses on the Marine Parade side of the dry dock were dropped leaving a density of 20 houses and six flats which was still refused on density grounds. A major part of the site was then utilised for the development of a single dwelling- the Duckery.

    We believe the current proposal for 12 houses on the much smaller remaining area poses even more serious concerns regarding density and massing than the original 1995 proposal (although this would obviously need to be checked and compered to the previous proposal that was refused).

  8. Proximity of the proposed building to the existing dry dock structure

14/02/95 English Heritage noted they were concerned the development would not have adequate clearance of the dock ie. The buildings were too close to the edge of the dock. The properties outlined in the current plan appear to be even closer to the dock. This would severely limit any future potential use of the dry dock (an issue that seriously concerned the NRA as well) for actual working purposes. English Heritage noted in 1995 the Lundy Ferry (which still operates today) was in the dock, thus indicating "the continuing need and potential for the dock"

Other points to mention:

The current proposal also includes scope for further house building/development- will this lead to further development of the site in future? Will this in turn lead to a domino effect carrying on up the Estuary towards Bideford

Affordable housing has not even been considered

The concerns that Northam Town Council raised in 1995 still apply today:

24/11/94 a document summarised their views:

"No provision is made for public access to and around Richmond Dock". They were also concerned about the proposed properties overlooking existing building on New Quay Street

The Agent for the current proposal, Graham Sturkey, has written to council stating the following:

"Any alternative use, eg. Boat building or any other commercial use in this totally residential area would be rigorously opposed by the local residents on the basis of noise generated and the potential increased use of New Quay St by heavy lorries". Points to consider:

  1. Who has been consulted and is there any written evidence?

  2. As these same local residents we feel this is not our understanding of the situation. There is a strong positive opinion in the community regarding the possible use of the site for some sort of Maritime Heritage Centre reflecting the proud history of Appledore