Portmore Park & District Residents Association

Supporting local heritage, quality of life and community

WeyBetterWeybridge – PPDRA comments

Imagine breathing life back into Weybridge town centre, with better coordinated community facilities, enriched by our green open spaces…  The WeyBetterWeybridge project is looking to do just that, in the redevelopment of the Weybridge Hospital site and the library site.

PPDRA has provided comments to the project, from residents in the Portmore Park area, on what would help make it a success.

For the project to succeed, we see it as imperative that:

  • Community use of both sites is retained and enhanced for people of all ages
    • with increased youth provision and facilities for young people
  • Better linkage is achieved between the sites
    • with pedestrians’ needs put ahead of passing motorists.
  • The massing of buildings is harmonious with the setting
    • remain close to Church Street on the South (library) site
    • allow the open space behind to stay sheltered from road traffic noise and pollution.
  • All the green space and tranquility of Churchfields is retained and safeguarded
    • the open view of St James’ Church from Churchfields is conserved
    • the togetherness of park, allotments and church respected.
  • The green space between the North site and Portmore Park Road is safeguarded.
  • Facilities are multi-functional and flexible
    • maximise use and differing needs across age groups
    • make available for extended hours
  • Car parking provision is sufficient, but not intrusive or dominant
    • e.g. with undercroft parking on the North (hospital) site

We understand that the project is considering multiple possibilities. We want to see community facilities on these town centre sites, and not to lose them to other purposes, such as high density housing or commerce.  And we want to ensure our green open spaces are not lost or diminished.

View to St James’ Church from Churchfields Recreation Ground (across Churchfields Car Park), Easter 2021

  • It is key to retain the natural open views from Churchfields park, towards the Church and allotments
    • building in the southern two thirds of the car park would have an overbearing and negative impact on the open character of Curchfields park and allotments
  • Any new buildings on the South site should extend no further south than the office building adjacent to the entrance to Churchfields car park
  • New building on the Church Street library site should fit with our characteristic Weybridge town centre gabled street scene
  • New build on the North site could cover most of the hospital site
    • incorporating extensive undercroft parking
  • There would be strong opposition to a tower block or excessive height
  • The North site can benefit from a green and tranquil aspect across the Youth Centre field.

PPDRA’s comments for weybetterweybridge share local residents’ thinking on facilities needed, young people’s needs, linking the sites, traffic, parking issues, nearby town centre improvements, and more.

You can download a copy of our full PPDRA comments for weybetterweybridge here

 

Houses to replace garages in Grenside Road?

Traffic chaos in Grenside RoadResidents have mixed views about a planning application to build four terraced houses on the site of 22 lock up garages in Grenside Road (EBC 2020/3495). While new homes would be welcome, and would look much smarter than the current garages, the resulting loss of parking spaces for local residents is a serious worry.

Unfortunately, the application seems misleading about parking – it claims there are ZERO spaces at present (where even the application’s own photos show parked cars) and that it would be creating four additional parking spaces: ‘Existing spaces 0, Proposed spaces 4’.  In reality, it would be taking away spaces used by current residents, and giving some of them to the new homes.

The application’s Transport Technical Note explains that ‘the garage site is within private ownership therefore cannot be relied upon for off-street car parking’. It does not mention the currently used parking spaces on the access road, where the ‘new’ spaces are proposed.  Strangely, it even gets the site location wrong – it shows the development site covering part of the Broadwater Path and a large patch of St George’s Junior School land.

What is needed is some coordinated action to ensure Grenside Road residents have somewhere to park – for example, on-street in Grenside Road, where currently places are taken by heavy school-related parking during termtime.  If suitable controls can be brought in, then residents may even welcome the addition of smart new homes.

The challenge is that while planning consent is given by Elmbridge Borough Council, on-street parking controls are decided by Surrey County Council.  Yet Surrey have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the parking issues (and traffic issues) in Grenside Road are serious enough to require effective action – despite evidence like the photos accompanying this article.

PPDRA strongly supports residents’ attempts to get the parking issues looked at again, in the light of this planning application.

CIL funding available for local infrastructure projects

Elmbridge has announced a new round of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding for local projects. The application deadline is 29 March. Previous rounds have funded local improvements ranging from surfacing Broadwater Path to additional school facilities. Local residents can prepare and submit applications — you can find out more below and on the Elmbridge website.

Application process for CIL local funding

Elmbridge Borough Council is currently inviting applications for local funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

What is CIL?

CIL allows the Council to raise funds from some forms of new development to help fund the physical infrastructure needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. As part of the process, the Council annually allocates the local portion of CIL funds to be spent locally on smaller infrastructure schemes that are required in the communities where development took place.

Successful local CIL applications for funding to date have included projects such as capital improvements to state schools to better enable them to meet the needs of an increasing school population, improvements to community facilities, cycling facilities, footpath works and countryside access improvements.

Who decides?

The Council has formed settlement area committees known as Local Infrastructure Spending Boards where local Councillors will decide on how these local CIL funds will be allocated. In the case of Claygate, the local proportion of CIL funds will be passed directly to the Parish Council.

How does the process work?

Applicants will need to review the guidance notes and complete the application form in full, demonstrating how the project addresses the demands that development places on the area and show a community impact. Any applications which fail to provide the correct information will not be successful.

The application period for this round of allocations will run until 29 March 2020; applications received after this date will not be considered.

Local Spending Boards will be held in June and early July 2020. Applicants will be invited to attend these meetings to present to the board and answer any questions.

The guidance notes and application form are available from www.elmbridge.gov.uk/cilfunding.

Local Plan Consultation – PPDRA comments

The Elmbridge Local Plan consultation has given Weybridge residents an opportunity to comment on options which will shape the character of our town and borough over the next 15 years. Government demands that EBC finds space for around 9400 new homes mean there are no easy choices: any of the options on offer will have effects which residents may not like.  PPDRA has submitted the following comments:

ELMBRIDGE LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION 2019 – SUBMISSION

This is a submission in response to the Elmbridge Local Plan Consultation of behalf of the committee of Portmore Park and District Residents Association.

We have studied the indicative options put forward by Elmbridge Borough Council in public documentation and at the Weybridge consultation meeting, and we have informally canvassed preferences within the local community in north Weybridge.

Overview

In summary, we would support a sympathetic ‘optimising’ of urban areas – subject to some caveats, below – and a small degree of development on some ‘weakly performing’ Green Belt land so long as it minimises any negative impact on existing residents (indicative Option 2, with Option 5 in reserve).

We strongly oppose the options of ‘intensifying’ urban areas or wholesale release of Green Belt.

We have a question about how residents can help influence the evolution of the character of our town as housing density increases. We would also like more Local Green Spaces designated.

Rationale

1/ Intensifying urban areas in the way described in Option 1 would have an extremely negative impact on quality of life and the character of Weybridge and other Elmbridge towns. It would be wholly unacceptable.

North Weybridge is characterised by open and green settings, local open spaces, gabled buildings in Victorian and Edwardian style, and low rise development even in high density areas (e.g. terraced cottages), with larger buildings set well back.  Intensification would significantly reduce the quality of life and damage the character of our town. It would remove some key reasons for living in Weybridge. A number of existing residents have told us they would want to move away.

2/ Large Green Belt release (Option 3) would again be a wholly unacceptable option. It would change the character of the whole borough, and make Elmbridge a much less desirable place to live.

3/ A small amount of development on Green Belt land appears unavoidable. It is essential this only affects weakly performing Green Belt, and is planned in a way which has minimum negative impact on existing residents: e.g. by incorporating wildlife corridors and local green spaces to soften the impact and give some visual separation of new development from old; also ensuring truly adequate infrastructure ahead of development.

We would support the level of Green Belt development suggested in indicative Option 2. We have concerns that, if larger areas of Green Belt are selected (as indicated in Option 5), developers will simply build on Green Belt first, before tackling more difficult brownfield/infill sites. But we recognise the value – if there is to be any building at all on Green Belt – of the kind of analysis underlying Option 5.

While we recognise that the ‘performance’ of Green Belt needs to be judged against defining criteria, we consider that some mechanism is also needed for residents to offer input into how Elmbridge categorises the significance of specific areas of Green Belt.

For example, the strips of Green Belt separating Weybridge from Walton are highly significant in preventing the two towns appearing to be simply part of one endless conurbation. They help define the towns. Some of these areas of Green Belt also have significant local amenity value, as well as being important to the landscape and urban identity (e.g. Cowey Sale, Desborough Island, the Grotto Road Recreation Ground and land at Broadwater Farm, Oatlands Park and allotments).

4/ ‘Optimisation’ of towns must not include development which leads to damaging intensification (including over dominant infill) and loss of character.

Some of the Proposed Urban Sites in Weybridge would significantly damage the character of our area.  For example US401, the prominent triangle of green space between the southern end of Grenside Road and Thames Street, has significant value in shaping the character of the area: it is visible from the Monument Green Conservation Area, and maintains a continuation of visual green and open character into the southern section of Thames Street.

5/ Local green spaces are essential to the character and quality of daily life in Weybridge.  Losing any green spaces would remove some key reasons for living in Weybridge. We would like to propose further green spaces in north Weybridge including:

  • green space between Grenside Road and Thames Street (US401), reason described above
  • the Grotto Road Recreation Ground (i.e. the football field at the end of Grenside Road) which while already protected to some extant as Green Belt has high amenity value
  • Cowey Sale Open Space, Walton Lane (Green Belt with high amenity value)
  • Darnley Park Open Space
  • Desborough Island, Walton Lane (Green Belt with high amenity value)
  • Finnart Close Open Spaces
  • ‘The Grotto’ Marlborough Drive
  • Walton Lane Open Space (by Canoe Club & car park – riverside Green Belt with high amenity value)

Who shapes the future character of Weybridge?

At the 27 August consultation meeting, we were advised that a Neighbourhood Plan was really only useful where large scale development/redevelopment was planned. We were also told that with an increase in housing density, the character of a town would inevitably change.

Our question then is, how can residents help shape and moderate that change in the character of Weybridge, if not through a Neighbourhood Forum and Neighbourhood Plan?

Previous Elmbridge Local Plans have characterised sub-areas of towns in some detail – e.g. characterising Portmore Park Road as a ‘Suburban Boulevard’ – which has helped guide councillors in making decisions about granting consent to planning applications which affect character.

At present, planning officers can give advice based on national planning law and housing ambitions, with apparently insufficient regard to local factors such an application’s impact on the character and openness etc of a specific locality (e.g. St Catherine’s, Beales Lane, Weybridge).

We are currently in a position where applications which local residents and councillors consider to have deleterious and damaging impact on the character of our town (such as Bridge House, High St Weybridge) can appear to be voted through by councillors from other towns, without the benefit of any strong specific guidance about making new developments fit with the character of our town.

Is there some way in which the local knowledge of residents and local councillors, and their aspirations for future development of their neighbourhood, can contribute to a formal source of such guidance on local character?

Download a pdf of our Local Plan Consultation submission here

The future shape of Weybridge: have your say on 27 August

The Government says Elmbridge must find space for around 9,400 new homes in the borough over the next fifteen years.  EBC has now put together five Local Plan options, from intensive high rise building in our towns to building on some of the Green Belt.

UPDATE: Consultation is open until 30 September – read more and submit your views at https://consult.elmbridge.gov.uk/consult.ti/LPOC/consultationHome?

Residents interested in the future development of Weybridge can learn more and have their say at an Elmbridge Local Plan consultation meeting in Esher on 27 August, 7-9pm. You need to book a place in advance, and can also submit panel questions in advance.

Elmbridge Borough Council currently has no preferred option — it is going to make a decision after the public consultation, so your views really do matter!

The options include things that will be unwelcome for residents in some areas. A 2016 consultation proposed building on 3% of Green Belt, and was vocally opposed by residents potentially affected by building on Green Belt, for example two areas of Cobham. This has increased pressure for higher density high rise building in larger towns (Walton and Weybridge).

It is important that residents in each part of Elmbridge have a fair say.  To find out more about the options:

Here is what Elmbridge Borough Council says about the consultation:

On 24 July, Elmbridge Borough Council’s Cabinet met to discuss the upcoming Local Plan consultation and agreed on the options to be presented to Elmbridge residents from 19 August – 30 September 2019. They also agreed to a series of six public meetings to discuss the options with residents and to hear the views of our residents.

The meetings will each have a different area focus, they will all take place at the Civic Centre off the High Street in Esher and they will all be webcast, allowing residents to watch all the meetings from the comfort of their homes.

The meeting dates and area focus are as follows:

  • Tuesday 27 August, 7-9pm – Weybridge
  • Wednesday 28 August, 7-9pm – Walton-on-Thames and Hersham
  • Thursday 29 August, 7-9pm – Molesey
  • Monday 2 September, 7-9pm – Cobham, Oxshott and Stoke d’Abernon
  • Tuesday 3 September, 7-9pm – The Dittons and Hinchley Wood
  • Thursday 5 September, 7-9pm – Esher and Claygate

Residents should book to attend a meeting and we would request that residents attend one meeting only in person, to allow as many as people as possible to take part in the consultation. The webcast is also available to all and there will be a webcast replay service.

The format of the public meetings will be as follows:

7pm – Presentation on the Local Plan options

On the panel:

  • Ray Lee, Strategic Director, Elmbridge Borough Council
  • Kim Tagliarini, Head of Planning Services, Elmbridge Borough Council,
  • Rachael Thorold, Local Plan Manager, Elmbridge Borough Council

7.30pm – Questions and answers session

  • Questions should be submitted in advance.
  • Following registration, residents will be sent an email with the opportunity to submit a question for the panel.

Councillor Karen Randolph, Portfolio Holder for Planning Services, would like to encourage residents to get involved in the upcoming consultation:

“The Local Plan is vitally important for the future of Elmbridge and we want to ensure that our residents are fully aware of the options, which is why I would encourage our residents to come along to the relevant public meeting or watch it through the webcast. Please book online to attend and send us your question in advance to ensure we can provide you with a full response.”

 

 

Portmore Community Meeting and AGM 2019 – Report

What can residents do to influence development of our part of Weybridge, in the face of pressure for much higher housing density? That was the primary focus of the Portmore Park & District community meeting on 26 June. Other topics included green spaces and paths, flooding, and the parking review. Wall displays covered overviews of local issues, topics and developments, to inform and stimulate thinking. Forty four local residents participated, including three Weybridge Riverside Elmbridge councillors. County cllr Tim Oliver was unable to attend but sent a written update.  There was some lively, constructive and positive discussion throughout the event.

Elmbridge Local Plan, and where to put new homes

The meeting drew lessons from the high-density development proposals for Beales Lane (141 local objections, refused) and Bridge House in the High Street (19 objections, consent imminent). Residents at our meeting hope for a less massive, less dominant development in Beales Lane, preferably of houses, certainly something more in keeping with the surroundings.

Government demands mean the planning authority is under pressure to squeeze in higher density developments: the forthcoming Elmbridge Local Plan must find space for 9,480 new homes in the next fifteen years. There will be difficult choices: either much higher density in towns or allowing development on some Green Belt land, or both. The question is where non-damaging high density might be achieved, with adequate infrastructure.

This is already a live issue in other parts of Elmbridge, where residents have become highly mobilised following the 2017 Elmbridge Green Belt review consultations – they want increased density to be elsewhere, and their target towns seem to be Walton and Weybridge.

What can people do locally? Actions discussed were: Take part in the public consultation on Elmbridge Local Plan options, which will run for six weeks from August. Get involved, raise awareness. Work towards constructive answers. Form a neighbourhood forum. Consider a neighbourhood plan.

The importance of green spaces

Other topics at the PPDRA meeting included positive news on local green spaces and paths.

There was strong appreciation of Broadwater Path – used by most participants since being made an accessible public footpath with a two metre wide crushed stone surface – and its role in enabling an application (with Elmbridge support) for national funding to conserve Broadwater lake. Making Footpath 36 (Grenside Road to the Thames) more accessible would also be welcome.

The meeting welcomed the retention of the whole of Churchfields Allotments, and heard about community efforts to enhance the maintenance of the allotment site. There was no support for building a car park on the Churchfields Recreation Ground bowling green.

Roundabout care

A resident raised the very poor state of the roundabout by Morrisons. Participants compared this with the excellent condition of some roundabouts in adjacent boroughs, where garden centres sponsor roundabout landscape maintenance in exchange for discreet advertising signs. There was strong support for Elmbridge to adopt this.

Flooding

There has been little news on further progress with the £700,000,000 River Thames Scheme for flood diversion measures between Datchet and Teddington, which is still seeking to fill a £350,000,000 funding shortfall. But there has been a rehearsal of temporary flood barrier use to protect Walton Lane and Dorney Grove.
The meeting heard of years of active local resident liaison with the Environment Agency, over River Thames Scheme proposals — a major flood diversion channel would discharge opposite the canoe club — and flood modelling. This included PPDRA lobbying to reverse plans (happily subsequently changed) to cut into the south bank on the Desborough Channel, which would have meant relocating the Thames Path closer to the Walton Lane road. Work on the River Thames Scheme recently seems to have gone rather quiet, with some EA personnel moved to other work.

Walton Lane residents have been in continuing contact over local temporary flood response measures. In October 2018 there was a successful Environment Agency rehearsal of putting up a temporary flood barrier from Weybridge Point to the first Desborough Bridge.

Parking Review

The meeting included a discussion on parking, and contrasted the 2009 and 2019 Elmbridge Parking reviews.

A decade ago, in 2009, Surrey County Council proposed a large Controlled Parking Zone west of Thames Street, a north Weybridge CPZ.  The proposals proved very unpopular. They were rejected by local residents for multiple reasons, including loss of capacity leaving some residents unable to park near their homes, a parking ban along Portmore Park Road opening the way to more and faster rat run traffic, and serious displacement issues along the CPZ’s eastern boundaries.

The 2019 review in contrast sets out more localised changes. The proposals aim to: increase safety; make it easier for residents to park close to their homes in Dorchester & Gascoigne Roads; maintain on-street parking capacity; avoid displacement; and create space for daytime two hour waiting by shoppers. These are all aims which are in line with principles long supported by PPDRA and by many residents.

Several participants felt more CPZ space should be allocated for joint use, to permit shopper/visitor two hour waiting as well as long stay residents’ parking.

Grenside Road & St George’s Junior School

Parking problems persist in Grenside Road, and there was disappointment that nothing has been done in the parking review to improve this, beyond the useful addition of double yellows lines on the Grenside Road junction with Grotto Road to help improve safety.

It was noted that St George’s Junior School on-site staff parking is limited, resulting in many staff vehicles having to park on-street. PPDRA understands that the school was advised by an Elmbridge planning officer that a potential application for car parking space on their newly acquired land at the end of Grenside Road would be unlikely to succeed.  PPDRA has suggested that the school might consider seeking consent to put a staff car park on their new land immediately next to the Bannatyne Health Club car park, as the least damaging location.

Thames Street warehouse

A resident raised the continuing issue of concern around inadequate asbestos management on the Thames Street warehouse site. It was agreed that the issue might usefully be given additional publicity in the Weybridge Society newsletter, and PPDRA will follow that up.

Collaboration with the Weybridge Society

It was suggested that closer collaboration with the Weybridge Society would be sensible on major issues affecting our town.  It was agreed that collaboration is a good thing, and the committee would again follow this up.

PPDRA Committee 2019-20

The meeting thanked members of the committee for their contribution over the past year, with particular thanks to two committee members who were standing down: Doug Myers of Walton Lane, and Ian Bonnett of The Willows, who has served as Treasurer for many years.

Members of the Association were delighted to welcome Michael Freeman back onto the committee (in the role of Treasurer), following his term as Elmbridge Borough Councillor, and to welcome onto the committee Lester Gange of Walton Lane. We are still seeking a new committee member from the Dorchester Road/Thames Street area.

The committee elected for 2019-20 comprises:
– Miles Macleod (Chair), Clinton Close
– Michael Freeman (Treasurer), The Swansway, PPR
– Jane Heard (Secretary), Portmore Park Road
– Eleanor Butler, Church Walk
– Lester Gange, Walton Lane
– Pippa Graeme, Elmgrove Road
– Sarah Jane Groves, Grenside Road
– Barbara Molony-Oates, Greenlands Road
– Pauline O’Sullivan, Wey Road
– Diane Phillips, Portmore Park Road
– William Rutherford, Mount Pleasant

St Catherine’s Beales Lane refusal confirmed

Refusal has now been confirmed of plans for a huge block on the St Catherine’s site, Beales Lane (2019/0386), but with two changes to the reasons.  The plans were initially refused by Elmbridge Planning Sub-committee on 20 May because of the harmful impact of height and massing on the character of the area, access and manoeuvring issues, and loss of trees and soft landscaping.

The application was referred back to the Sub-committee to consider an additional pre-identified issue, missing legal agreement for affordable housing.  At the 17 June meeting, that new reason was added, but the access and manoeuvring issues were removed as a reason following new advice from Surrey Highways.

Residents are disappointed that Surrey had no objection to the traffic and parking issues the plans would have created, with lack of adequate turning space on site, and delivery vehicles having to reverse out of Beales Lane into Thames Street.  However there was great relief that Elmbridge recognised the unacceptably oppressive impact of such a massive building close to the the road, where at present the low building is set back and softened by grass and trees.

Here is the 17th June decision:

Elmbridge Borough Council  Meeting of South Area Planning Sub-Committee, Monday, 17th June, 2019

2019/0386 – St Catherines, Thames Street, Weybridge

Minutes:

One late letter of objection had been received.

The Sub-Committee Members resolved to refuse the application at the meeting held on 20 May 2019 for three reasons. Whilst the legal agreement securing the affordable housing contribution had not been received, the reasons for refusal had not included the lack of the affordable housing contribution as one of them.

Accordingly, during the introduction of the application, the Special Projects Officer advised the Sub-Committee that as the legal agreement had not been received, an additional reason for refusal needed to be included. The Sub-Committee agreed to add this reason for refusal.

Furthermore, the Special Projects Officer provided an update on the verbal advice received from the Highways Authority regarding the layout of the access and parking area on the development site, which had been included in the original reasons for refusal of this application at the Sub-Committee meeting on 20 May 2019.  Given that there were concerns as to whether this reason was sufficiently robust, the Special Projects Officer sought a formal view from the Sub-Committee as to whether it wished to continue with this reason for refusal.  In light of the update and having considered the information provided by the Special Projects Officer, the Sub-Committee were supportive of the removal of this reason for refusal.  Accordingly, the Sub-Committee resolved to

Refuse permission, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons

   Confirm Reason from the Sub-Committee decision 20 May 2019

  1. Due to its height and massing, the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

Confirm Reason from the Sub-Committee decision 20 May 2019

  1. Due to the loss of trees and green spaces around the building, which are considered to provide high landscape contribution towards the character of the area, the proposal fails to enhance and integrate into its surroundings. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy DM6 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

        [Previously listed as Reason 3. of the decision of the Sub-Committee made on 20 May 2019.]

Add Refusal Reason

  1. In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposed development fails to secure the necessary affordable housing provision contrary to the requirements of Policy CS21 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011and the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2012.

Remove Reason

  1. The layout of the access and parking area would result in hazardous manoeuvring due to the lack of turning point within the proposed rear parking area which would result in a need to reverse from the parking spaces to the under-croft access road in order to leave the site in forward gear. As such, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy DM7 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

        [Previously listed as Reason 2. of the decision of the Sub-Committee made on 20 May 2019.]

Beales Lane plans cause concern for residents

Plans for a three storey block of 17 flats and 11 houses in Beales Lane, with 53 bedrooms, are being considered by Elmbridge Borough Council (application 2019/0386). Over 100 objections have been registered with Elmbridge.  Read our PPDRA letter here.

Bigger, higher, denser, closer to road

The new block would replace the existing St Catherine’s buildings (lacking merit but inconspicuous, total 27 bedrooms) with a significantly taller block, of more than twice the mass, with its bulk much closer to the road.

See the photo and plans above to get a feel for the proposed scale. It is 55% higher from ground to rooftop compared with present, towards the Thames St end.

The plans propose parking spaces for 28 cars behind the block, accessed via a height-limited entrance mid-building.
The style of the proposed building is quite unlike other properties in north Weybridge. Some residents feel strongly that it is wrong for the location.

Many are concerned about the excessive bulk, and negative impact of the proposed development on the streetscene, traffic and parking – that it would transform the character of Beales Lane, and not in a good way.

Open, light, green and small scale

Residents are worried that the character of Beales Lane will be lost.  Beales Lane is green and open towards its Thames Street end. The St Catherine’s buildings are low and mostly set well back. Their layout is staggered so it doesn’t impose.

The houses opposite are a traditionally styled 1998 development, in keeping with the character of Weybridge.

It is currently a pleasant suburban lane, leading to the historic small cottages of Church Walk.

The new building would present a much larger and more dominating profile along its length, and project closer to Thames Street.  It would be a massive difference.

The current St Catherine’s building as seen from Thames Street

The proposed building would be 55% higher, far wider and project much closer to Thames Street

Below we list some objections to the development plans, raised by local residents.

How to give Elmbridge your views

Comments to Elmbridge Borough Council are invited by 29 March, but will be accepted after that. The application will be decided by the South Area Planning Sub-committee.  To register your comments, search for 2019/0386 at www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning

It is helpful if objections are on grounds that relate to relevant planning legislation / relevant sections of EBC Local Plan. Below are relevant issues of worry to local residents. We list things that Elmbridge Borough Council must consider in deciding planning application 2019/0386:

  • Oppressive bulk and mass
    • The proposed development is EXCESSIVELY MASSIVE compared with neighbouring properties
    • It is taller, with its bulk closer to the pavement, and would dominate a road that is currently open and spacious
    • Its bulk and mass would be excessive for this suburban site.
    • Beales Lane leads to the historic riverside small scale cottages of Church Walk, the contrast is stark
  • Lack of fit with local streetscene
    • The proposed is quite unlike other buildings in the area, in appearance and style as well as scale
    • North Weybridge is characterised by Victorian/Edwardian dwellings with traditional roofs and lots of gables
    • The proposed vertical and rectangular lines might look fine as worker accommodation in Rotterdam, but don’t fit well here
    • It would have a very negative visual impact, transforming Beales Lane
      • from a light, open, airy road with chimneys the highest points & St Catherine’s largely set well back
      • to a visually narrower street dominated by a high, massive, alien building along its south edge
  • Excessive density
    (not a likely winner, given current pressure for increasing density, but worth arguing)

    • This is a much higher density than neighbouring dwellings
    • It squeezes a large volume of habitable space (11 new houses and 17 new flats, 53 bedrooms) onto the site
    • The floor area and number of bedrooms doubles
  • Loss of privacy
    • Neighbouring residents are concerned about loss of privacy, especially in their back gardens
  • Loss of light
    • Neighbouring residents are concerned that the proposed high building will block their light. Some question the measurements supplied in the application, for the height of windows opposite.

Visitor parking being used by school parents for child collection; note narrow roadway

  • Impact on safe traffic flow, safe delivery access, and safe manoeuvring, given lack of turning space
    This is a Surrey matter (so it is worth also writing to our SCC councillor, tim.oliver@surreycc.gov.uk, on this aspect). We are surprised that Surrey Highways has no objection
    to the prospect of large vehicles having to reverse out of Beales Lane into Thames Street (a road which Surrey’s own figures show carries around 5700 vehicles a day) right next to a school crossing:

    • Beales Lane is directly opposite the entrance to St George’s Junior School, so there are special safety factors
    • As sheltered elderly housing (27 bedrooms), there were previously very few residents’ vehicles associated with St Catherine’s
    • Beales Lane/Church Walk is a cul-de-sec with no turning circle
    • It gives resident and delivery access to circa 43 homes (apart from St Catherine’s)
    • Delivery and traffic flow would be greatly increased by 17 new flats and 11 new houses (53 bedrooms)
    • Currently the St Catherine’s visitor parking space is used for turning by delivery vehicles and visitors
    • It is heavily used at school drop-off/pick-up times (scores of vehicles using it to turn)
    • The proposed design would remove current turning facilities, and mean large vehicles having to reverse into Thames Street, which carries high traffic flows and has a school crossing adjacent to St Catherine’s; reversing vehicles would risk the safety of pedestrians including school children and obstruct traffic flow
    • The design does not allow headroom for vehicles higher than approx 2.5 metres to access the rear parking, so big delivery and removals vans would have to park up obstructing narrow Beales Lane
  • Impact on parking
    • 28 parking spaces are proposed to serve 28 dwellings  (9 x 1 bed; 13 x 2 bed; 6 x 3 bed)
    • 40.5 spaces would be required to meet Elmbridge Parking Standards:
      • Development Management Plan – Appendix 3: Elmbridge Parking Standards (DM21 – Access and Parking)
        1 bed residential unit : 1 space per unit
        2 bed residential unit : 1.5 spaces per unit
        3 bed residential unit : 2 spaces per unit

Learn more and register your comments

The number of people who comment is crucial to the future of Beales Lane and Church Walk.

Search for 2019/0386 at www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning.

Comments to Elmbridge BC are invited by 29 March, but will be accepted after that.  Use the comment form on the EBC website or email tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk.

The application will be considered by councillors on Elmbridge Borough Council South Area Planning Sub-committee.

If you feel it is important that they are all aware of your comments, you can email them directly:

Cllr Barry Cheyne (Chair)                            Oatlands and Burwood Park
Cllr Mrs Dorothy Mitchell (Vice Chair) Cobham and Downside
Cllr James Browne                                         Cobham and Downside
Cllr Andrew Burley                                          Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon
Cllr Oliver Chappell                                         Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon
Cllr Andrew Davis                                            Weybridge Riverside
Cllr Michael Freeman                                      Weybridge Riverside
Cllr Peter Harman                                            Weybridge St George’s Hill
Cllr David Lewis                                                 Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon
Cllr Mrs Charu Sood                                         Weybridge St George’s Hill

bcheyne@elmbridge.gov.uk; dmitchell@elmbridge.gov.uk; jbrowne@elmbridge.gov.uk; aburley@elmbridge.gov.uk; ochappell@elmbridge.gov.uk; adavis@elmbridge.gov.uk; mfreeman@elmbridge.gov.uk; pharman@elmbridge.gov.uk; dlewis@elmbridge.gov.uk; csood@elmbridge.gov.uk;

Traffic and parking issues are the responsibility of Surrey County Council, who will prepare a consultation report in relation to planning application EBC 2019/0386.

The Surrey County Councillor for Weybridge is Tim Oliver
tim.oliver@surreycc.gov.uk

You can download a pdf copy of our March 2019 newsletter about application 2019/0386 here

Flats or Flats & Houses?

Some residents are puzzled by the reference to 17 flats and 11 houses in the planning application, when the drawings appear to show a single large block of flats, arranged over three floors.

Below is an extract from the 2019/0386 Application Form

Concern at plans for Bridge House in Weybridge High St

Bridge House viewed from Monument Green Conservation Area

Proposals to replace Bridge House (opposite Waitrose) with a much taller and more massive building are facing strong objections. Planning Application EBC 2018/2989 – Bridge House, 41-45 High Street, seeks to replace the current three storey building with a far bigger five storey rectangular building, housing three retail units and 28 flats.

The site is next to the Monument Green Conservation Area, and the new building would dominate the streetscene in a very different style.

Onsite parking would be reduced to 20, and the 28 flats would have to share 17 spaces, risking severe loss of nearby on-street parking amenity in an area already under great parking stress. The three retail units would each have one space.

Conservation Area

Central Weybridge has attractive conservation areas, with some lovely buildings at either end of the High Street, separated by a mix of traditional gabled buildings and the results of some poor quality post-modern planning of the 1970s.

Bridge House is one of those 1970s buildings. It sits next to Monument Green Conservation Area, and is visibly out of keeping. Thankfully it is low enough not to dominate entirely, but it has little else to commend it, and some people think it is an eyesore because of its vertical and angular style.

Many residents hope that any redevelopment of the 1970s mistakes would be more in sympathy with the character of our historic Weybridge townscape. There is a real opportunity with any redevelopment in Weybridge High Street to create new buildings which are in harmony with the traditional setting.

This application fails to take that opportunity. Instead it tries to cram the largest mass of building it can seek to justify, into a constrained site, regardless of the negative impact.

Dominating height and mass

The current application would dominate and detract from the charm of the Conservation Area, and be detrimental to the streetscene. The proposed new five storey building would be over 50% taller than the current three storey Bridge House (reaching up to the label in our picture above), and would stand out far more prominently next to the Conservation Area.

The streetscene plan shows it alongside its neighbours, and the contrast in bulk, mass and height.

The proposed new building for the Bridge House site (no, it’s not a multi-storey car park) would dwarf its neighbours

To find out more about the plans and make comments: search for 2018/2989 at www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning

Comments to Elmbridge Borough Council are invited by 14 Dec, but will be accepted at tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk after that. The application will be considered by the planning sub-committee at some date in the new year.

PPDRA Objection

PPDRA has submitted the following objection to Elmbridge Borough Council Planning Services:

Re: Application 2018/2989 – Bridge House, 41-45 High Street, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 8BB

I am writing on behalf of the committee of Portmore Park & District Residents Association to object to the proposed construction of a five storey building comprising 3 retail units and 28 flats.

There is great concern among local residents about its negative impact on our town, in terms of:

  • excessive bulk and mass resulting in the building dominating the streetscene
  • excessive height making it dominate views from the Monument Green Conservation Area
  • the façade clashing with the traditional buildings in the High Street and Conservation Area
  • inadequate parking provision (17 spaces for the proposed 28 flats), increasing an already high level of local on-street parking stress, to the detriment of local amenities

Impact of height, bulk and appearance

The proposed building is massive. At five storeys, it would dwarf its neighbours and tower above the Monument Green Conservation Area.

The building’s appearance would be entirely at odds with the traditional buildings in the High Street and conservation area. It offers no architectural nod to the predominant traditional local architectural styles. People are asking if it was inspired by a multi-storey car park. Surely a new building in this prominent site should take the opportunity of complementing its surroundings?

The strong horizontal and vertical elements of the proposed development would overwhelm its neighbours’ historic brick, slate and gables.  It would loom over the southern part of the conservation area, and would dominate the view from the north.

Impact of inadequate parking provision

How does the parking provision comply with Elmbridge Parking Standards? We understood these to specify 1.5 spaces per two bedroom unit:

Elmbridge Parking Standards for Residential Parking (DMP Appendix 1)
Locational Characteristics Town Centre/ Edge of Centre

  • 1 bed residential unit :     1 space per unit
  • 2 bed residential unit :     1.5 space per unit

This suggests that with 9 two bed and 19 one bed flats there should be 33 spaces (9 x 1.5 + 19) for the residential units, rather than the 17 proposed.

Elmbridge Development Management Plan Policy DM7 states:

“The proposed parking provision should be appropriate to the development and not result in an increase in on-street parking stress that would be detrimental to the amenities of local residents.”

Yet this application proposes reducing total number of parking spaces on the site from 28 to 20, while greatly increasing the number of residential units.

The roads adjacent to Weybridge High Street face what some residents describe as a worsening parking crisis, as successive new infill developments and changes to residential use have been permitted by Elmbridge with limited or no parking provision.

These roads include a lot of Victorian/Edwardian homes, with relatively narrow frontages and with limited or no off-street parking.  Hence many residents have to rely on being able to find somewhere to park on the street. That has become increasingly difficult.

Surely Elmbridge Borough Council, as our town planning authority, should be working to improve the amenities of local residents, rather than adding to problems?

We sincerely hope that after considering Application 2018/2989, Elmbridge Borough Council will refuse this application, because with its excessive height, bulk and mass the building would dominate the street scene, with negative impact on views from and towards the Conservation Area, and because its adequate parking provision would cause additional on-street parking stress detrimental to the amenities of residents, failing to comply with acceptable standards.

 

Beales Lane development consultation Nov 2018

November 2018 proposals for Beales Lane

Weybridge  residents viewed plans to develop St Catherine’s House in Beales Lane, at a community consultation on 15 November.  We saw plans for 30 flats, comprising 1, 2 and 3 bed dwellings, with a total of 59 bedrooms, and parking spaces for 28 cars behind the block, accessed via an entrance mid-building.

The architects were seeking local reactions, willing to listen and seemingly willing to consider adjusting designs.

What stood out immediately was the size and style of the proposed building, which is uncompromisingly rectangular, vertical, and flat roofed — no gables, no eaves — unlike other buildings in the area. Its central section would be four storeys tall, stepping down to two storeys where it adjoins existing Beales Lane houses.

St Catherine’s House, Beales Lane, viewed from Thames Street

The bulk of the proposed building would be much closer to the road in Beales Lane than is the case with St Catherine’s House, although the section nearest Thames Street would be set back to accommodate the existing tree.

The consultation and exhibition were organised by Harper Planning, on behalf of PA Housing. The design team spoke with interested members of the local community, answered questions and discussed concerns.

PA Housing, owners of the site, intend to apply for planning consent to construct a mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments, following demolition of the current buildings. There would be a mix of private ownership, shared ownership and social housing.

Initial reactions from residents have included:

  • surprise at the proposed density and appearance
  • concern at excessive height and mass
  • worry about impact on parking for local residents

We have heard strongly expressed views that the design does not fit with the local street scene and is oppressively massive. It would loom over Beales Lane. Most local buildings are brick built two storey dwellings with traditional pitched roofs, many with relatively low eaves. Beales Lane leads into historic and diminutive Church Walk.

Parking will be a very sensitive issue in an area with extremely limited on-street parking. More flats and private/shared ownership mean many additional residents are likely to have cars.  Some residents in neighbouring Church Walk, Jessamy Road and Thames Street, where parking space is at a premium, have to resort to finding a parking space in Beales Lane when needed.

There are also concerns about the loss of the paved space at the front of St Catherine’s which is currently used by many vehicles for turning, as Beales lane is a cul-de-sac without a turning space at the end.

We hope local views will sway the architects (contactable via info@harperplanning.co.uk) and that any planning application will reflect local reaction.