Harman Technology plans for site redevelopment

Photo Engineer said:

This is such a long thread that I have not kept up with it, but I have a point to make after skimming it.

You see, what Harman is doing is almost exactly what Kodak is doing, but in a slightly different direction. Kodak has changed Kodak Park into Kodak Industrial Park and they are renting out space to businesses and demolishing old and unused buildings to make room for new construction.

There is a striking parallel to these two companies actions, but with the direction of one being "consumer" and the other being "industrial".

And it seems to me that no one is getting rich on either plan. It is a method of staying "even" or just moving ahead with some degree of usable "profit".

PE

Click to expand...

Well said and good point, I bet that will make Dan happy too, to have others see it in that light. Thanks PE.

Sal Santamaura said:

Alleged current market value of homes purchased long ago doesn't necessarily mean their owners are "rich."

Click to expand...

Of course. Don't take me too literally.

I'm just saying that values here never reached those heights, and have fallen from there. They were on the rebound and now have turned back down.

Photo Engineer said:

This is such a long thread that I have not kept up with it, but I have a point to make after skimming it.

You see, what Harman is doing is almost exactly what Kodak is doing, but in a slightly different direction. Kodak has changed Kodak Park into Kodak Industrial Park and they are renting out space to businesses and demolishing old and unused buildings to make room for new construction.

There is a striking parallel to these two companies actions, but with the direction of one being "consumer" and the other being "industrial".

And it seems to me that no one is getting rich on either plan. It is a method of staying "even" or just moving ahead with some degree of usable "profit".

PE

Click to expand...

“The Eastman Business Park in Rochester is integral to the region’s economic future,” said Empire State Development President, CEO & Commissioner Kenneth Adams. “I am pleased that with Governor Cuomo’s leadership and this new partnership between New York State and the EBP Bioscience Manufacturing Center, the park is receiving the short and long-term support it needs to become a major economic driver in Monroe County.”

Significant progress has been made in resolving the obstacles to the Eastman Business Park’s future growth, enabling it to attract new companies and helping meet the goal of creating 1,800 jobs over the next five years at the site. In 2013, Kodak and the state agreed to a global settlement that addressed environmental legacy issues at the site; the Park’s utility systems were acquired, ensuring stability for the Park’s tenants; and Kodak emerged from bankruptcy and committed to maintain significant operations and jobs at the site. The FLREDC believes the Park has turned a corner and is ready to become one of the nation’s preeminent industrial parks for technological innovation.

Eastman Business Park (EBP), formerly Kodak Park, is a massive 1,200 acre technology and industrial complex that spans from the City of Rochester into the Town of Greece in Monroe County. EBP has more than one million square feet of manufacturing, laboratory and warehouse space with infrastructure systems that put it among the top industrial sites in the eastern United States. Under Governor Cuomo, more than $90 million has been committed and invested by New York State to attract dozens of new companies that are transforming EBP into a diverse hub for research and development (R&D) and high tech manufacturing. The park now has 48 companies with more than 6,500 employees, most of which are non-Kodak jobs.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/02202014-eastman-business-park

http://www.eastmanbusinesspark.com/

Well, NIMBYs ("not in my backyard") apparently contributed to a long delay of the project that would consolidate HARMAN's Mobberley facilities. July came and went with no approval. The latest provisional date for a decision by the Cheshire East Council is November 12:


I don't know whether, if the proposal is approved, there would be a day-for-day slip, but the development will definitely take longer than notional schedules associated with the planning package.

Simon R Galley said:

(...)
As people you have been on the ILFORD tours in the past will tell you, the factory as it is now ( and actually since the early 1990's ) is far, far too big and needs maintaining and heating, this will further improve our profitability as well as our carbon footprint.

We have always planned a smaller footprint, hopefully this will now happen over the next few years.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

Click to expand...

Interesting...

So Ilford is "doing a Ferrania" and trying to assemble a rightly-sized factory, to be able to produce film in a profitable and sustanaible way, from here to "the day in which all Nikon F cameras stop working" (i estimate this to happen in 400 years, more or less.)

And Ferrania is "doing an Ilford" in the way they are getting close to the customers and actively listening them.

Future looks bright. I think i'll drink one glass of champagne to celebrate. And use another roll of HP5+, the swiss army knife of films.

Not quite. Simon so far only refered to size reduction of the premises, not of the machinery.

Size is relative

The Ilford No14 coating machine is capable of both coating paper and film and is not on the scale of the machines of Kodak. I suspect it is around the size Ferrania will match, at least in width. Without having the details from Ferrania and relying on the movies posted their machine is not only wider but has considerably more "downstream" drying and post coating steps, and again without being an expert I suspect this is related to the production of colour materials.

Hello Chris,

Chris Livsey said:

Size is relative
The Ilford No14 coating machine is capable of both coating paper and film and is not on the scale of the machines of Kodak. I suspect it is around the size Ferrania will match, at least in width.

Click to expand...

the size differences are not so big as lots of people think. The coating machines of the major manufacturers have a comparable coating width.
According to Robert Shanebrooks excellent book "Making Kodak Film" the net coating width of the coating machine in Building 38 is 54" (about 1,35 meter). The master rolls are up to 11,000 feet long.
The net coating width of the Ilford coating machine is 1,42 meter. The length of the "parent rolls" (that is the term Ilford use) is up to 2500 meters.
The coating machines at Agfa (Leverkusen and Mortsel) and Ferrania ("big boy") have (had) similar widths.

One of the big coating machines from the Agfa Leverkusen factory in Germany is now working at InovisCoat in Monheim, Germany.
This machine was modernised and a bit scaled down. Now it has a coating width of net 1,08 meters.
It is used for both BW and colour, and both film and paper.

Chris Livsey said:

Without having the details from Ferrania and relying on the movies posted their machine is not only wider but has considerably more "downstream" drying and post coating steps, and again without being an expert I suspect this is related to the production of colour materials.

Click to expand...

The main difference between the Ilford coating machine, and Ferranias big coating machine is that Ilford has five slots (five layers can be coated in one coating run), and the Ferrania coating machine has nine slots.
Five slots are enough for high-quality BW, but not enough for high-quality colour film.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Hello Chris,

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Henning your input greatly appreciated.

Chris Livsey said:

Henning your input greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

Dear Chris,

no problem at all, you're welcome.

I've very much enjoyed the excellent Ilford Factory Tour last autumn with Simon being our guide.
When all the very hard work of the next years is finished in Mobberley, and the new, modernised factory will be in full operation,
maybe then Ilford will again offer a yearly factory tour.
That would be awesome.

Best regards,
Henning

Sal Santamaura said:

Well, NIMBYs ("not in my backyard") apparently contributed to a long delay of the project that would consolidate HARMAN's Mobberley facilities. July came and went with no approval. The latest provisional date for a decision by the Cheshire East Council is November 12...

Click to expand...

Although Cheshire East Council's Web site has not yet been updated to reflect it, according to a NIMBY report


today the Council rejected this site consolidation and residential development plan by a vote of eight to four. Apparently the developer has six weeks to decide whether to appeal or submit a revised plan.

My understanding is that Councils really need to have a duly approved plan in place for future development for things like housing. Once that is in place then they stand a chance of preventing housing development in a so-called piecemeal fashion by developers in areas not identified in the plan.

However the way things are in the U.K. and the pressing need for more, in fact much more housing to satisfy people's needs then an appeal by the developer if there is no future development plan in place stands a very good chance of success. If the developer knows that its housing plan does not contravene a Council approved future development plan or that there is no such plan, given that Councils have had the time to put one in place then the developer is almost certain to appeal and very likely to win with costs given against the Council

These days and given the stance of all three of the major political parties in the U.K. not building houses is frankly not an option from what I have seen.

pentaxuser

A small town near here had a well known and respected girls' school dating back to the 1920's, well liked in the area and contributing to local employment and economy. A few years ago the school wanted to overcome financial problems by developing a small part of the unused grounds for quality housing.
NIMBYs objected and prevented the plan.
Result two years later.....school closed, part demolished, the whole site redeveloped into an elderly persons housing complex, with all facilities and services withing the private grounds, employing foreign rather than local staff, too expensive for local people, and (some have said) a "ghetto" which contributes nothing to the local area. Now the NIMBYs don't like this!

A more balanced report:
http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/...s_thrown_out_by_Cheshire_East_Council/?ref=mr

It was always going to be difficult to argue for that density of housing under the flight path to Manchester international Airport 1 mile out from the runway.

Chris Livsey said:

A more balanced report...

Click to expand...

More balanced than what?

Sal Santamaura said:

More balanced than what?

Click to expand...

Than a report titled "VICTORY", that could be interpreted as somewhat none objective and unbalanced, although it is factual for that pressure group it did not explain the reasons, which the article I linked does although only briefly.
I am not criticising your link but merely providing further information which I interpret as more detached or balanced, I for example don't consider it a "Victory" to delay the redevelopment of the only photographic film coating plant in the UK. Whether it was wise to link it to housing, however profitable, in that location is open to argument and the ongoing delays and costs must be significant.

Would you prefer me to edit my earlier post to remove the word balanced?

Sal Santamaura said:

More balanced than what?

Click to expand...

Chris Livsey said:

Than a report titled "VICTORY"...

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. The only reason I linked to that was because Cheshire East Council's Web site hadn't yet been updated and it seemed wise to at least provide a source for the alleged rejection.

Chris Livsey said:

...Would you prefer me to edit my earlier post to remove the word balanced?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I was only surprised by your use of the word because it felt like you'd applied it in contrast to one or more of the thread posts themselves.

Chris Livsey said:

... the redevelopment of the only photographic film coating plant in the UK [...] Whether it was wise to link it to housing, however profitable, in that location is open to argument and the ongoing delays and costs must be significant.

Click to expand...

I'd imagine it was one of the few ways open to Harman to finance such a big redevelopment of their own site, short of borrowing hugely.

If I were a developer, I'd have thoroughly explored what the local response was likely to be and I'd have had my lawyers earning their money examining the local and national planning laws, as well as potential issues particular to the location (e.g. the overflight) ... and then I'd have made a proposal much much bigger than I thought ever likely to succeed so that as the planning process ground through it's interminable process, I could appear to make significant "compromises" in the plans until approval was granted ... but I was still able to make a juicy profit ...

Surely that wouldn't be what they are doing, though, do you think ?

I see, no the discussion has been balanced

The NIMBY issue is real and applies in a lot of areas and has been discussed, as usual here, with intelligence and civility.
I am sure the re-developement of the Harman plant would have aroused few or no objections.

The objectors in this case may shout Victory but may not do so were Harman to close as a result and throw its local employees out of work.

pdeeh said:

I'd imagine it was one of the few ways open to Harman to finance such a big redevelopment of their own site, short of borrowing hugely.

Click to expand...

It isn't Harman's site. The land was sold coming out of the bankruptcy and they rent the facility. The people who bought it are the developers. Harman will get a shiny, new, smaller and more efficient, facility to rent into the future without having to pay up front.

Chris Livsey said:

A more balanced report:
http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/...s_thrown_out_by_Cheshire_East_Council/?ref=mr

It was always going to be difficult to argue for that density of housing under the flight path to Manchester international Airport 1 mile out from the runway.

Click to expand...

One of the three stated reasons for rejection was there would be too much airport noise for the people who would move in. One might think that they may be able to make that decision for themselves. Apparently these people will be of much more delicate sensitivities than the 2500 who already live there. It was very thoughtful of the council to spare them that pain.

The detrimental, to health, effects of noise are now more widely understood than when the great majority of the homes occupied by those 2,500 were constructed and the traffic growth of the airport has also been more recent than their construction.

Not surprised, but fairly normal state of affairs methinks. The council will be playing politics and not being seen to approve a development that some object to. On a brownfield site, unless there are significant issues, I suspect that if the developers appeal to central government, this will get approval, and the local council can then avoid blame for a decision against what is always a vociferous minority. I think any "victory" by objectors will be short lived.

Someone's post in another thread today was a reminder that I'd not checked lately whether the owner of HARMAN's Mobberley site had appealed Cheshire East Council's rejection of its redevelopment plan. Some searching reveals that an appeal was filed in late June. Although the Secretary of State, to whom the appeal was made, will not hold a public hearing on the matter until early next year, and a decision must follow that activity, I consider this positive news.

There could be nothing better for the long-term future of HARMAN than a "right-sized" facility. Also, with the development plan apparently calling for HARMAN's landlord (LPC Living, the developer) to underwrite some if not all of the cost involved with relocating equipment, odds of a HARMAN site lease extension beyond its current expiration -- approximately ten years from now -- would be greatly improved. Here's wishing LPC Living great success with the appeal!

Update appreciated.
A contentious local development, built without planning permission for the size constructed, and not a minor size violation, is now 5+ years on since construction and is approaching its third central appeal following refusal of two re-submissions locally for retrospective permission and two central appeals rejected also one magistrates court fine for none compliance with orders to amend the building, still not done. Slick and efficient is UK planning, NOT.