Portmore Park & District Residents Association

Supporting local heritage, quality of life and community

Highways hitch delays Weybridge Hospital rebuild

Weybridge Hospital fire July 2017

Weybridge Health Centre proposed design

Weybridge Hospital / Health Centre past and future

More than seven years after Weybridge Hospital burnt down, hopes of the replacement Weybridge Health Centre plans (EBC 2024/3065) receiving consent this month were dashed by a mix up over a secondary pedestrian and cycle entrance.

A proposed new active travel entrance via Portmore Way received strong objections. Planning consent will now be delayed at least until July 2025, the earliest date that Elmbridge Borough Council can consider a slightly revised application.

Why was a Portmore Way entrance proposed?

The NHS Property Services 2024/3065 plans for the Health Centre building and landscaping looked excellent in most respects, but for the unexpected pedestrian and cycle entrance via Portmore Way.

It seems Surrey Highways had insisted the plans should include a Portmore Way entrance, to give easier active travel access for those of us who live in north Weybridge — access previously made easy by Footpath 20 (FP20) from Portmore Park Road to Minorca Road.

Justified objections

This single aspect understandably brought fifty objections, around the undesirable impact of opening up a completely new access from Portmore Way on safeguarding the primary school, and on church parking. This means the planning application has to wait to be decided by a planning committee of councillors, rather than be decided quickly by a planning officer.

A Portmore Way entrance would also bring practical issues and further potential delays, as the hospital site is a metre higher than Portmore Way, and separated from it by mature trees.

So it would mean tree felling, purchase of carbon offset, and also, outside the NHS land, the design and construction by Surrey of a zig-zag sloping connecting path and handrails on Surrey Highways’ adopted Portmore Way land, plus provision of street lighting. How long would that take? And where is the budget?.

Why not Footpath 20 / Minorca Road?

The Surrey Highways’ intent was good, but their active travel solution ignored (or was unaware of) the fact that there was already a much-used active travel route from north Weybridge, via dual use FP20 from Portmore Park Road to Minorca Road, giving — prior to the fire — convenient direct (and level) pedestrian and cycle access into the Hospital site via the pavement which curves from Minorca Road into the site’s NHS land.

Weybridge Hospital Minorca Road entrance in 2016 with pedestrian pavement access

Extract from 2024/3065 Transport Assessment showing Minorca Road access in 2016, with pavement entrance

We are told by NHS Property Services that, while non-emergency vehicle access to the site will be blocked here, there was no intention in the Health Centre 2024/3065 plans to prohibit use of this FP20/Minorca Road pavement pedestrian and cycle entrance. They were simply preventing motor vehicle acccess other than emergency.

Surrey has a history of forgetting FP20. In 2009 it had fallen off their radar and lacked any maintenance schedule. It was becoming very overgrown despite daily use by many residents. But these days it is clearly shown on Surrey’s official online map as FP20, and it is in their dual use pedestrian/cycle active travel scheme. It is a very convenient active travel route from Portmore Park Road.

Amended plans coming

NHS Property Services is very willing to amend its plans and remove any reference to a Portmore Way entrance, which was not part of the original concept, and make it explicitly clear that active travel access will be restored via FP20 / Minorca Road.  It will need Surrey Highways approval, and then Elmbridge planning consent.

The revision will mean submitting updated plans to Elmbridge Borough Council after consulting relevant bodies, plus the statutory 21 days for public comment.

Lobbying Surrey County Council

Following discussions of the issues with our Weybridge Surrey County Councillor, Tim Oliver, we have been told that if NHS amend their plans to make it clear they include pedestrian [and cycle] access from a FP20/Minorca Road entrance, the issue should be resolved without the need to open up a new entrance via Portmore Way.

Local support will help

Given the 53 current objections, it would be really helpful to have at least as many letters of support for the revised plans. And then we may at last get a proper Health Centre to replace our much missed Weybridge Hospital.

You can read a full case against having a Portmore Way entrance in this document [2MB pdf], which was shared with SCC Councillor for Weybridge, Tim Oliver, along with the following covering note:

To Tim Oliver from Miles Macleod, 10 April 2025

Submission re Surrey Highways view on Portmore Way vs FP20/Minorca Road for active travel access (EBC 2024/3065)

Tim
Thank you again for your very prompt and helpful responses on this. The highly negative impact of creating a new Portmore Way access is an extremely important topic locally, as is avoiding any further unnecessary delay in rebuilding the hospital.

I attach a submission summarising what we believe is a very strong case for an active travel entrance to Weybridge Health Centre via Minorca Road & FP20 and NOT via Portmore Way. This was compiled after meeting with representatives from the local community, the church and school in Portmore way, NHS Property Services, NHS Surrey Heartlands and an EBC councillor. Please do look at it, and share with Surrey Highways.

I understand that NHS Property Services will be submitting amended documents showing no access from the Portmore Way site boundary, and reinstating the former pedestrian and cycle access from Minorca Road. The hope is that this updated application can be considered and accepted by EBC planning (sub-)committee in July, so that construction can at long last start this summer. Plainly it would be helpful if Surrey Highways are supportive. Further delay would be hugely unpopular.

The Transport Assessment will also be modified accordingly, but I note that even in the current version para 5.3.8, limiting Minorca Road access to ‘emergency vehicles only’, sits under a subheading ‘Vehicular Access’, and would not therefore apply to pedestrian and cycle access. I understand from NHS Property Services that there was no intention to prohibit pedestrian and cycle access from Minorca Road.

I hope the attached submission proves sufficiently persuasive for Surrey Highways to revise their view. It seeks to be self explanatory, but failing that, I would very much welcome a meeting to discuss the issues with you and Surrey Highways.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,
Miles
———————
Miles Macleod

Response from Tim Oliver, 14 April 2025

Miles
I have discussed the matter with […] the officer at SCC dealing with the application. His simple point is that in the absence of pedestrian access from Minorca Road the existing footpath would mean a long loop round via the High Street to access the site. If the NHS are now saying, there will be pedestrian access then I think the matter will be resolved without opening up a route from Portmore Way.
Kind regards
Tim

Tim Oliver OBE
Leader of Surrey County Council

Watch for updates

Once the amended plans are submitted, we will update this posting accordingly, and we hope the revised plans will receive strong local support.

River Thames Scheme Consultation 2024

New Thames foot/cycle crossing from Desborough and across new Flood Relief Channel weir

Proposed new Thames foot/cycle crossing from Desborough and across new Flood Relief Channel weir

The River Thames Scheme statutory consultation starts on 22 January 2024 and runs until 4 March 2024. While the flood relief elements largely benefit areas upstream of Weybridge, the landscaping proposals contain a major win for those of us who have campaigned for better sustainable travel linkage between Weybridge and Shepperton: a plan for a new pedestrian/cycle bridge across the River Thames from Desborough Island, giving access to Shepperton, and to a network of new riverside walks and green areas alongside the new flood relief channels. This will be a major step in sustainably linking our communities.

The consultation is open to all.

PPDRA has participated in stakeholder meetings and consultations since the start of the River Thames Scheme. We were originally greatly concerned about potential flooding around Walton Lane Weybridge from the discharge of a flood relief channel opposite D’Oyly Carte Island, and about the amenity impact of proposals to displace the Thames Path in widening Desborough Cut.

Detailed flood modelling discussions from 2015 onwards were reassuring, and also established that lowering the riverbed downstream of Desborough Island would have a more positive effect on flow and flood relief than widening the Cut. Combined with proposals for the long hoped-for cycle/footbridge to Shepperton, this gives the scheme a much more positive impact for Weybridge residents and users of the Thames Path and National Cycle Route 4.

You can read more about previous RTS consultations and PPDRA questions and input on this website, including:

………………………………………………………………………………..

Here is a copy of the RTS 2024 Statutory Consultation announcement email:

Have Your Say on The River Thames Scheme- 22nd January 2024 to 4th March 2024

“I am writing to you to notify you that statutory consultation on the River Thames Scheme (“the Scheme”) will run from 22nd January 2024 to 4th March 2024.

The Scheme is being delivered by the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council, in partnership with other local authorities and interested parties. It represents a new landscape-based approach to creating healthier, more resilient, and more sustainable communities. The integrated Scheme responds to the challenges of flooding; creating more access to green open spaces and sustainable travel routes, in addition to encouraging inclusive economic growth, increasing biodiversity and responding to the dual challenges of climate change and nature recovery.

Once built, the flood channel will be considered in legal terms to be a ‘flood defence structure’ and it is intended that it will also be a ‘main river’. Further information on what this means is contained in the statutory consultation brochure and on the consultation website set out below.

The Scheme includes the following proposals:

  • The creation of a new flood channel in two sections through the boroughs of Runnymede and Spelthorne, totalling over 5 miles (8.5km) long;
  • Capacity improvements to the River Thames through lowering the middle part of the bed of the River Thames downstream of Desborough Cut;
  • Capacity improvements to the Sunbury, Molesey, and Teddington weirs to increase the amount of water that can flow through them by installing more gates that can be opened when river levels rise;
  • New green open spaces associated with the flood channel, with access for local communities and facilities such as sports fields, accessible pathway network, nature play spaces and associated new landscape features;
  • Priority areas for habitat creation, enhancement and mitigation, which link existing and new wildlife corridors, improve fish passage and build upon the network of existing wildlife sites;
  • New or improved active travel provision associated with the flood channel corridor in areas of enhanced public connection, linking to the existing network and two new pedestrian and cycle bridges across the River Thames at Chertsey and Desborough Island;
  • Changes to the road layout and utilities, including temporary diversions during construction;
  • Temporary construction features such as site compounds and materials processing and storage sites; and
  • Temporary car parking for construction workers.

Following a direction from the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Scheme has been designated a project of national significance for which development consent is required. As such, the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council will be required to submit an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO). The Scheme is currently in the pre-application stage of the DCO application process.

We are now holding a statutory consultation on our proposals and this is your chance to help us shape the design we submit to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the DCO application.

To find out more:

  1.     Visit our consultation website: www.riverthamesscheme.org.uk to access our consultation materials, including interactive maps and online feedback form.
  2.     Come along to one of our consultation events- where you can speak to a member of the project team and view the consultation materials.

Additionally, we will be hosting virtual events for those unable to attend the in-person events. To sign up to one of these events, simply email:  enquiries@riverthamesscheme.org.uk.

The consultation will run for a period of six weeks between 22nd January and 4th March 2024. The deadline for submitting responses will be 11:59pm on 4th March 2024.

Have your say by:

  1.       Completing the online feedback form: www.riverthamesscheme.org.uk
  2.       Completing the paper feedback form: Available at our public consultation events and returning it to the address below.
  3.       Writing a letter to: FREEPOST RTUK – RBLY – XUBT, RIVER THAMES SCHEME, 5 First Street, Manchester, M15 4GU
  4.       Sending an email to: enquiries@riverthamesscheme.org.uk

The Environment Agency and Surrey County Council will consider and have regard to all responses when developing the DCO application following the consultation. Please note that responses and other representations will be recorded in and form the basis of a Consultation Report and, therefore may become public. For further details please see our Privacy Notice on the Scheme website www.riverthamesscheme.org.uk/privacy.

The project team and I look forward to meeting you at one of our consultation events and receiving your feedback on the proposals presented.

If you have any queries about this correspondence, the Scheme or the consultation, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at enquiries@riverthamesscheme.org.uk.

Yours sincerely,
Jeanne Capey
River Thames Scheme, Project Director ”

 

Elmbridge ‘No objection’ to Weybridge Library Hub plans – with reservations

Elmbridge Borough Council has registered ‘No objection’ to the Surrey County Council plans for Weybridge Library Community Hub redevelopment, with reservations. Surrey has the right to permit or refuse its own plans on Library redevelopments, following due consultation.

Reservations

However, the Elmbridge BC Officer Report requests “that greater consideration is given for the creation of increased community space provision on the first floor, e.g. enlarged kitchen/servery along with break out seating areas for community groups“, and that there is a ‘missed opportunity’ around the treatment of the entrance from Churchfields.

This EBC judgment aligns with some strong local feeling in Weybridge that the Community Hub element requires more space and facilities, and a more thoughtful approach to creating a flexible community Activity Hub on the first floor, to help it become an appealing community destination.

Library vision good, but Community Hub limited

The Library element of the redevelopment proposals, drawing on the Carnegie model, seems very positive in creating a Library which will enable and promote more community involvement, and bring increased cultural, social and learning interaction.

But the small community ‘Activity Hub’ on the first floor misses the opportunity to go beyond the limitations of the current first floor community hall (apart from adding toilets). The majority of the first space is taken up with tightly fitted traditional office desks and chairs, in a large open plan ‘Business Hub’ and in meeting rooms. It even seems to move away from adaptable community use by proposing to turn two potentially flexible current spaces, a Tea Room and Staff Room, into small traditional office-style meeting rooms.

Yes, residents want to see facilities for local business use. But is this an effective design, when there is a golden opportunity to create a well designed integrated Community Hub within the Library building, supporting multiple local activities?

Surrey County Council has a statutory duty to provide Library services, but not wider community facilities, and that rather shows in the proposed design. 

Here is the existing Weybridge Library first floor plan.

Community input overlooked?

During the public consultation phase there were many suggestions about how to make a first floor Community Hub a more desirable community destination, through increasing its space and enhancing its facilities, e.g. by:

  • Extending its space laterally, incorporating doors onto a new open air terrace on the roof of the planned single storey extension, with outdoor seating and tables
  • Increasing the flexibility of the internal space, to accommodate more varied activies
  • Enhancing its catering potential by expanding the kitchen area
  • Offering cafe facilities for visitors, to make it a local destination
  • Providing controllable shading for the west facing windows, to reduce the room’s greenhouse-like summer heat, without reducing its admirable winter light

Support for a more appealing Hub

Proposals for enhancing the plans and shaping the Hub more around what people want received strong support in the WeyBetterWeybridge Stakeholder Reference Group. A visiting Surrey County Councillor at one meeting said that a terrace would be a great idea and a significant improvement. It would greatly enhance the potential income from letting the space for social functions, since many people want the option of access to a terrace and fresh air for function guests.

A Surrey County Council Officer who presented draft plans agreed that a terrace would be an achievable addition to the Activity Hub, at modest extra cost (including repositioning some rooflights), and suggested that it could be added to the planning application as a minor amendment.

Joined up thinking needed

Subsequent local discussions have gone further, and suggested a far more integrated approach to the design of the building’s interior layout, combining the Library and Community Hub and Brooklands Radio elements in a way which would be much more inviting, appealing and engaging. This seems entirely in line with the aims of the Carnegie model, which is an inspiration for the redesign and extension into a community hub.

Improving access from Churchfields

The EBC Officer Report also suggests improving the design of the the access from Churchfields.
“The approach from the rear car park / pedestrian footpath is an important secondary access. Whilst some improvements have been made to the approach over the existing arrangement, it is considered that this is a missed opportunity to create a more welcoming space with better permeability/ connectivity through the site which would help encourage an increase in footfall and activity within the area. It is considered that this could be improved further by creating a more prominent accessibility entrance at the rear with an enhanced landscaped setting with a seating area through the relocation of car parking spaces to the main car park.”

This aligns with views of the Stakeholder Reference Group about the significance of this entrance, and the fact that this area of the Library exterior is the most tranquil and sheltered from A317 traffic nuisance.

Note that Elmbridge stated that its ‘No objection’ was ‘subject to consideration of the issues above’ listed in the Officer Report.

An opportunity for improvement

We hope that the Surrey plans for the refurbishment may yet be amended, to achieve a more effective and appealing Community Hub by exploiting the great potential of an extended and improved Library building.

At the very least the first floor Activity Hub design must be improved, something which can be done at modest cost if incorporated now while there is the opportunity. Preferably the entire redesign of the building will be revisited, to offer an integrated community hub which is closer to what the community wants. But it is entirely up to Surrey County Council to decide this.

What currently seems unclear is how to get effective feedback to Surrey County Council about the proposed plans, other than by contacting our councillor for Weybridge Division, Tim Oliver.

We are still seeking clarification on how residents can make publicly visible comments on this Surrey County Council planning application.

 

 

Weybridge Library Community Hub Redevelopment Plans

Surrey County Council’s consultation planning application (2023/2312) for Redeveloping Weybridge Library as a community hub is now on the Elmbridge Borough Council website.
This is a consultation, as the Library planning application will be decided by Surrey itself.
Update 1 Sept: the full set of 25 plans is now listed on the EBC website, up from the 2 originally listed.
Update 17 Sept: The Elmbridge BC decision on the consultation application is “No objection”.

Application Headlines

Address: Weybridge Library Church Street Weybridge Surrey KT13 8DE
Description : Consultation from Surrey County Council: Change of existing library, museum, public hall (Use Class F1) and Brooklands Radio (Class E) to new community hub to include library with single storey infill extension (Use Class F1), youth support (Use Class F2), flexible community/commercial including public hall (Use Class F1/E) plus external alterations to existing elevations, installation of photovoltaic panels and roof top plant and associated parking and landscaping.
Application Type : Surrey County Council Consultation
Status: Registered. Not decided by EBC. Please contact the relevant authority to make a comment.

Surrey County Council Cabinet on 27 June 2023 approved capital spending to fund the Weybridge Library Community Hub redevelopment.

There is some useful information in the comprehensive Report on WEYBRIDGE HUB REDEVELOPMENT presented to Surrey Council Cabinet on 27 June 2023.

Surrey also provide a summary of the options considered.
The original long list of options to deliver Weybridge Library Community Hub included a complete re-build of the existing building and alternative leasehold or freehold acquisitions to re-site the building.
These options were discounted due to the cost and carbon footprint to deliver a new build and limited alternative sites capable of delivering the spatial needs of Council Services.

New Proposals for Weybridge Business Park – Exhibition 14+17 June 2023

Bridge Industrial are preparing a new planning application to redevelop Weybridge Business Park.

UPDATE 14-06-23: view new Weybridge Business Park proposals (pdf 3MB)

A new architect and design team have been appointed to redesign the scheme taking on board feedback from the local community following the resounding refusal of the application for a massive Amazon-style distribution centre next to the historic Wey Navigation — plans which received hundreds of local objections and objections from public bodies such as the National Trust.

The previous refused scheme was described as “just crazy” by local residents interviewed by the press, because of its impact on local quality of life and on traffic flows through neighbouring communities.

Public Consultation

Bridge Industrial want to hear your comments on the new proposals, and are staging a public exhibition, to be held in Building 6, Weybridge Business Park, KT15 2UP on Wednesday 14 June, 4pm – 8pm and Saturday 17 June, 10am – 2pm.

This will be an opportunity to meet the Bridge Industrial team, view the proposals, ask any questions you have and provide your feedback.

We note that Bridge Industrial describe the adjacent site as “Industrial”, whereas it houses the Waterside Trading Estate with commercial suppliers such as Screwfix, Toolstation, Easy Bathrooms, Wilson Electrical, Brewers Decorator Centre etc. There are adjacent residential properties, and the overall atmosphere is tranquil and far from industrial, with a charming riverside walk, moorings and waterside pub.

How to contact the developers

If you have any questions or would like more information then please get in touch with the developers:
Phone: 0800 092 0426
Email: weybridgebusinesspark@londoncommunications.co.uk

Reactions to previous application

Runnymede Borough Council refused that previous planning application for the following reasons:

Refusal Reasons for Planning Application – RU.22/0776

  • Application Number: RU.22/0776
  • Site Address: Weybridge Business Park Addlestone Road Addlestone Surrey KT15 2UP
  • Property Address: Weybridge Business Park, Addlestone Road, Addlestone, Surrey

Reasons 1

The proposed ‘Building 100’ by reason of its position, form, scale, mass and significant bulk would result in an overtly prominent, dominant and visually overbearing form of development which would have a detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the area. This is contrary to Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020), Runnymede Design Guide (2021), the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and the National Design Guide (2019).

Reasons 2

The proposed use would result in a loss of residential amenity to surrounding residential properties. This loss of amenity would be due to due noise and disturbance from both the on-site operations as well as disturbance from the likely significant numbers of comings and goings of large goods vehicles that the proposed uses would attract, particularly at anti-social hours of the day and night. This is contrary to Policy EE2 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020), the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and the associated National Planning Policy Guidance relating to Noise and disturbance.

Reasons 3

In the absence of a completed legal agreement the proposed development has failed to secure the provision of the necessary infrastructure needed to make this development acceptable in planning terms. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies SD3, SD4, SD5 and EE9 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and its associated guidance.

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.

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.”

 

 

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.