.

subscribebutton1

Log in
x
Register
x

Search - Documents
Search - Articles and Content

Residents' Association Forum

Planning Issues => Planning Applications => Topic started by: Admin on January 09, 2012, 10:54:50 AM



Title: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 09, 2012, 10:54:50 AM
Still no sign of any planning application on EBC's website for the large extension at the side of the Crown which many feel is inappropriate.  It is completely unacceptable for a development that requires planning approval to go ahead willy-nilly especially in a conservation area.

We are pressing Elmbridge to take appropriately robust action to resolve this situation. 

Residents may care to write to the planning department to reinforce this message.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 09, 2012, 11:50:53 AM
Extracts from:
Planning Enforcement Charter
February 2011
http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/Elmbridge%20Borough%20Council/Planning/EnforcementCharter.pdf

The carrying out of development without planning permission or the failure to comply with the conditions attached to a planning permission are breaches in planning law.

Allegations of a planning breach being received by the Council per annum are reaching unprecedented levels.

The Council relies heavily on the public to be their eyes and ears and to alert the Council to any breaches in the Elmbridge area

Planning Services signed up to the Government's Enforcement Concordat, which outlines six principles of enforcement policy: clear standards, openness, helpfulness, effective complaints procedures, proportionality and consistency.

Also, enforcement is a discretionary power and the Council is not bound to act.  In this respect consideration on action will be influenced by whether taking action is in the public interest. 


We must make it plain to Elmbridge planning officers that they cannot sit on their hands in this instance.  One recalls the long period of feeble enforcement inaction concerning the development at 27 High Street and behind.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on January 09, 2012, 01:15:48 PM
There is a form you can complete here

https://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/forms/achieve.htm?id_achieve=givbXRHRrs4&af4=1


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 09, 2012, 02:49:39 PM
I have done.  Others should, too.  Graham is writing a letter on behalf of the Association.  Elmbridge seems to have  allowed this to drift since planning officers visited the site in around mid-November.  I do not see how they can continue to allow this total disregard of planning procedure and guidelines.  We'll have a 27 High Street situation all over again.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 10, 2012, 12:26:44 PM
Letter from the Residents' Association to EBC's head of Town Planning of 9 January:
"Dear Sir,

The Crown Inn – Thames Ditton

Our Association is becoming more concerned by the day at the seeming lack of action by your Officers with regard to the work being undertaken at the above premises which is within the Thames Ditton Conservation Area.

There still appears to have been no planning application submitted and even if one is made retrospectively, there is no reason why work should continue to be carried out without the required consent.

Your own ‘Enforcement Charter’ is quite clear in stating that, ‘the carrying out of development without planning permission or the failure to comply with the conditions attached to a planning permission are breaches in planning law’.

We would hope that the required enforcement action will now be taken without delay.

Yours faithfully

Graham Cooke
Planning Convenor
"

--------------------------------------------

Statement from EBC planners today, 10 January:
The Council is currently investigating the erection of a pergola and air conditioning units at the Crown public house in Thames Ditton.  The owners of this site are aware that they do not have planning permission for the structure they have erected or the units and have now submitted an application to the Council to retain it.  They are currently taking the necessary steps to validate that application (ie provide all the necessary and required information).  Once this has been completed residents will be able to make representations regarding the acceptability of their proposal.  The Council has informed the owners of the site to cease works until such time as planning permission has been considered and are taking all available steps to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

Comment: evidently the planning application has been submitted within the last few days.  It can take up to two weeks for an application to be mounted on the EBC Planning portal - please keep an eye open for it.  Also for indications that the owners have obeyed the council's instruction to cease works until the application has been considered.




Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 11, 2012, 08:54:59 AM
still no app online, new sign went up today I see


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 11, 2012, 02:09:14 PM
Workmen were still working there today in disregard of the council's request.  I have photographed that, and the structure, the built context, and the sign that has replaced the historic Crown sign (where has that gone?) for our councillors to use.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on January 11, 2012, 03:06:18 PM
Presumably, it should be okay for them to continue with the internal work as that has not been raised as a planning issue?

The response from the council makes no mention of the two new externally illuminated fascia signs which would also require permission.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Bax on January 11, 2012, 04:22:10 PM
Yes work definitely continuing outside today and another hideous illuminated sign has appeared!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 11, 2012, 04:43:07 PM
Thames Vegas


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 18, 2012, 08:51:21 AM
Apparently the 'retrospective' planning application is ref 2012/0014 but it is not yet displayed on the EBC planning portal.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 18, 2012, 09:13:04 AM
whats the view on this?

I mean, if they go through all the processes and the planners are happy with it, and its not doing any harm, should one object purely on the basis that they shouldnt have done it in the first place? just trying to think fairly.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on January 18, 2012, 09:21:04 AM
I don't think so, craig.

I would think it a liitle harsh to punish someone simply for getting the process wrong and, giving the benefit of the doubt, it could be a genuine mistake/misunderstanding.

I will be looking at the proposal in exactly the same way I would have done if it had been submitted in the proper timescale (though with the benefit of having seen the part construction!).
If I think there are issues with it then I will object.
If not, and it looks like a reasonable development that will enhance the street scene and not cause a nuisance  or eyesore to neighbours then I won't.

There would be no point objecting on any other basis anyway, as I expect the planners would ignore it.



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 18, 2012, 09:24:10 AM
i'm inclined to agree.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on January 18, 2012, 10:09:59 AM
Quote from: Admin on January 18, 2012, 08:51:21 AM
Apparently the 'retrospective' planning application is ref 2012/0014 but it is not yet displayed on the EBC planning portal.


The most recent planning application for Thames Ditton area is ref 2012/0123 received on January 13th - already online! /0006 went online back on the 3rd. Perhaps their is a hiccup with the council's website?

It would have been nice if they could have just stuck an artist's impression of the pagoda in the window in the meantime (not the artist who did the sign though!).


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 18, 2012, 04:31:37 PM
that was an artist? ;)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 25, 2012, 10:45:04 AM
still no planning I see, odd isnt it?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on January 25, 2012, 11:18:33 AM
I suspect all plans for a raised platform have been scrapped, probably on advice from the planning officer that they hadn't much hope. As a result, they'll just have and over engineered framework for the lanterns, although I'm guessing there may be scope to attached some sort of material canopy.

It looks like the garden area is now paved with a decking area that will probably be quite nice. Not sure about the air conditioning units/ extractors though.

It is strange about the planning and I still feel they've got about the whole project badly. Unfortunately, this caused me to research Siam Kitchen and based on what I have read it is unlikely I'll be eating at The Crown very often when it does open: too expensive for what you get - though I guess they have to get the money for all their faffing around from somewhere.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 25, 2012, 11:27:56 AM
faffing, such a great word!

That steel fabrication would have cost a lot of money, what a waste.

price wise, yes their food is on the high end of the scale but I do think paying more for indian, thai and chinese food is worth it.

I'd always eat from the Rose, but I'd rather eat my dog than the food from the other place. The same with Good earth in esher, its absurdly priced, but its worth it


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 25, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
I believe that they still need to obtain planning permission for that huge 'garden' structure.  Else it will have to come down.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 25, 2012, 11:46:31 AM
i'd be inclined to agree


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 02, 2012, 11:09:45 AM
Quote from: Admin on January 18, 2012, 08:51:21 AM
Apparently the 'retrospective' planning application is ref 2012/0014 but it is not yet displayed on the EBC planning portal.

This number has now been allotted to an altogether different application nothing to do with the Crown.

There is still no sign of a proper planning application for the Crown on the Elmbridge planning portal.  It is assumed that they have failed to supply the detailed supplementary paperwork

At our open Meeting of 31 January:
(1) councillors explained that EBC's Legal Department were on the case, which meant that the council had to proceed meticulously through all the required stages so that as and when legal enforcement action is necessary, the case is not prejudiced by insufficiencies in due bureaucratic procedure.  This will take time but should be inexorable.
(2)  It was agreed that the Association would write officially to the developers to indicate serious concern among residents at this unauthorised development, and that the Association would be asking residents to consider withholding their custom from the restaurant unless and until the situation was properly regularised.  The argument for this being that to date the developers have been seemingly immune to the council's quiet diplomacy, and have prevaricated.

There are concerns about the structure; the aircon units; and the signs.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 02, 2012, 11:15:58 AM
I honestly do not understand their motive, i mean, do they just think this will all go away?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 02, 2012, 11:31:27 AM
They are part of a large chain I believe, and it would be hard to credit that they are babes in the wood of planning regulations.  An alternative explanation could be that they know perfectly well what they are about, and think that with a change in the tide of government regulation they will get away with it eventually.  If we want to keep the Conservation Area conserved, and if we want to avoid a developers' free-for-all (what price that huge Taggs development?....) then we must do all we can to make sure that they do not.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 02, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
Does that mean they lied to you? Thats really bang out of order.

I have been following this thread but I've kept out of posting as I do not feel I have enough understanding of the planning process to helpfully contribute. 

My opinion thus far was that I could forgive incompetenace but for them to have openly lied, when confronted, that an application has been made and giving a false application number is inexcusable bordering on fradulent.
Quote from: Admin on February 02, 2012, 11:09:45 AM
Quote from: Admin on January 18, 2012, 08:51:21 AM
Apparently the 'retrospective' planning application is ref 2012/0014 but it is not yet displayed on the EBC planning portal.

This number has now been allotted to an altogether different application nothing to do with the Crown.

There is still no sign of a proper planning application for the Crown on the Elmbridge planning portal.  It is assumed that they have failed to supply the detailed supplementary paperwork

There are concerns about the structure; the aircon units; and the signs.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 02, 2012, 01:48:09 PM
It's not fraud really, with respect they dont know who Keith is, I'm quite sure they are fully aware of the planning rules and as such just say whatever they think the relevant person who approaches them wants to hear to keep them quiet/happy or make them go away until its finished.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on February 02, 2012, 02:01:23 PM
I'm surprised the council has to reuse planning references numbers. I'd of thought that would lead to confusion, but I guess they know what they're doing!

Nevertheless, the developers of the Crown are exhibiting highly questionable ethics.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 02, 2012, 02:09:18 PM
Quote from: craigvmax on February 02, 2012, 01:48:09 PM
...I'm quite sure they are fully aware of the planning rules and as such just say whatever they think the relevant person who approaches them wants to hear to keep them quiet/happy or make them go away until its finished.

I think that may be it.  It seems likely that the application EBC received at the start of January was incomplete and lacked supporting papers - which are required before it can be properly registered and the public process begun.

In November, when they told me they'd submitted an application (but hadn't), they did know my role exactly, because I told them up front.

Juninho: they didn't give a false application number.  That number was the number EBC were reported to have allotted on receipt of the eventual application at the start of January, and the one we were expecting by now to be up on the EBC planning portal covering the application by the Crown's developers.  Given the delay in getting the requisite paperwork in, one assumes it has since been used by EBC for a different application, as application serial numbers generally reflect the date order of issue; and that a new number will be allotted as and when (and if) a fully-supported application is made.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on February 02, 2012, 02:30:19 PM
Hi Keith, thank's for clarifying.

Out of interest, are the owners of the Ferry Works allowed to just cut all those new windows into the wall (Old Swan side) of the building without planning?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 02, 2012, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: Ratty on February 02, 2012, 02:30:19 PM
Hi Keith, thank's for clarifying.

Out of interest, are the owners of the Ferry Works allowed to just cut all those new windows into the wall (Old Swan side) of the building without planning?


Lawks -  I don't know about that one - I will ask Graham et. al. to check and comment.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 02, 2012, 02:50:07 PM
I heard the build figure on just that part of the works, it was more than my house is worth hahaha, hope they do have planning


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 02, 2012, 03:24:09 PM
Ah I see ok. 

Still not great as the picture I am getting is of someone building first thinking its more likely to be passed that way rather than following the proper process. I still hope I am wrong and its just down to incompetence.

Quote from: Keith on February 02, 2012, 02:09:18 PM
Juninho: they didn't give a false application number.  That number was the number EBC were reported to have allotted on receipt of the eventual application at the start of January, and the one we were expecting by now to be up on the EBC planning portal covering the application by the Crown's developers.  Given the delay in getting the requisite paperwork in, one assumes it has since been used by EBC for a different application, as application serial numbers generally reflect the date order of issue; and that a new number will be allotted as and when (and if) a fully-supported application is made.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 02, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
Octagon are a huge company and heavily involved in construction and development, on a job that vast I'm sure everything will have been covered


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 02, 2012, 08:44:39 PM
Quote from: Keith on February 02, 2012, 02:40:41 PM
Out of interest, are the owners of the Ferry Works allowed to just cut all those new windows into the wall (Old Swan side) of the building without planning?


All approved.  Application no 2010/0108  Decision on 17/3/10 (and thanks to Peter Hickman for replying swiftly on that one).



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 04, 2012, 10:39:10 AM
There was some sort of private function in the crown last night, all lit up, a few people dining


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on February 04, 2012, 11:47:03 PM
It was for friends and investors. Official opening is on the 8th I believe.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 05, 2012, 12:33:42 PM
I will not be eating at this place unless and until they abide by the rules.  My custom goes to places that honour planning regulations and contribute to  the community rather than despoiling the conservation area.  Others will wish to consider their own position.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 05, 2012, 12:35:36 PM
I'm with you on that, keith.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Dittonian on February 05, 2012, 12:38:04 PM
So am I


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Flex on February 05, 2012, 04:55:40 PM
Same here.

I hope that About Thames Ditton turns down their advertising.  


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: kanjana on February 06, 2012, 02:05:05 PM
Firstly, let me apologise for the misunderstandings and delays around the planning permission.

We only intend to put up a metal frame to hang lanterns for decoration (there were never plans for extensions of any kind) and install air conditioning units. We submitted the application to the local authority back in November but were told documents were missing and this has led to delays. In the meantime, as our neighbors know, we have done our utmost to reduce disturbances when anyone personally let us know of any problems.

Most of you will be aware that the building was previously empty and took away from charm of the area. We hope that once the restaurant is open it will have a positive influence on the lovely character of the town, as well as offering residents a unique and authentic high quality Thai dining experience. 

We look forward to welcoming you at our forthcoming opening, and to serving the residents of Thames Ditton for many years to come!

Kanjana for Ba Siam (The Crown)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Highways Contact on February 06, 2012, 02:42:17 PM
Hi Kanjana,

Good to have you on the forum. Can you give us an update of where you are with Elmbridge and your planning application. Have you provided the documents Elmbridge requested and will this all be online in the near future?  

Many thanks

Andrew


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: kanjana on February 06, 2012, 02:55:47 PM
We are in the process of submitting the necessary paperwork and are in contact with the council. We ourselves are keen to rectify this situation as quickly as possible and hope the application will soon be posted online - it's hardly in our interests to aggravate local residents after all!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 06, 2012, 03:08:54 PM
Hi Kanjana,

Welcome to the forum and to Thames Ditton.

I cant speak for everybody but if you read through the posts here regarding your work, much of the problem lies in the fact that we live in a lovely village, a conservation area where we all have to abide by certain planning laws and rules. It has felt to many that your company has disregarded these rules and attempted to carry on work without the proper planning permissions being accepted.

The large white steel structure seems shall I say "over engineered" just to carry some lanterns which might explain why residents felt that you had an alterior motive in constructing it.

However, I wish you every success with your business and I trust you are now ensuring the proper planning will be in place. As Highways Contact said, I look forward to viewing them online. it usually takes a few days.

best of luck


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 06, 2012, 07:20:59 PM
Welcome to the forum, Kanjana.  It will be much better to have a proper discussion.

We understand that the very large steel structure, the size and height of a house front, requires planning permission and conservation approval whether for an extension or just to hang lanterns.  Your company does not seem to have been well advised, to put the best possible construction upon the situation.  It is therefore not surprising that a degree of mistrust has developed.  The planning process must be scrupulously respected if that mistrust is to be relieved.  That could mean that the structure, if it is not approved, must be removed.  We shall see.

The village would have welcomed the new restaurant if it were not for this vital factor.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 07, 2012, 08:05:51 AM
Follow-up question for kanjana:  to ensure that formal written communications from the Residents' Association and others are delivered to the right addressees, please can you post the full and correct current postal addresses for:

a.  The owners of the Crown
b.  The lessees of the property
c.    The developers if different

many thanks.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Thames Dittonite on February 07, 2012, 12:29:40 PM
Kanjana,
If you required a structure to hang lanterns on why have you not chosen a more authentic structure rather than what looks like the steel sub structure for an aircraft hanger.
Your cavalier style attitude to the sensitivities of our conservation area are of great concern to many residents and will undoubtedly jeopardise the success of your venture I am afraid.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 07, 2012, 01:17:51 PM
I have to agree with the comments above, kanjana.

It is also a shame to have lost the Crown signage, which was very much in keeping with the area and to have that replaced with modern signage.

There are also concerns that greater use of the outside space (which backs on to residents gardens) and the new airconditioning units will increase noise and cooking smells coming from the premises. Whether or not permissions are required/have been given for this, it is still a concern to nearby residents.

I am hoping that your comments above regarding not wishing to annoy your neighbours indicate that you will have considered this in your plans, so I will wait and see how that turns out.

I am sure that the majority of residents will indeed welcome a new restaurant in the village, provided that there are no resultant issues of nuisance or detriment to the appearance of the conservation area.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Flex on February 07, 2012, 03:12:36 PM
New company registration BA SIAM LIMITED
registered address:

THE CROWN PUBLIC HOUSE
SUMMER ROAD
THAMES DITTON
UNITED KINGDOM
KT7 0QQ

Company Registration No.: 07870177
Incorporation Date: 05 Dec 11
Financial Year End: 31 Dec
Capital: £100.00
on 05 Dec 11


Web Domain Registrant 
Ba Siam Limited
Summer Road
Surrey
Thames Ditton, England KT7 0QQ
GB

Domain name: BA-SIAM.COM
Administrative & Technical Contact:
    Noori, Simon  
    Summer Road
    Surrey
    Thames Ditton, England KT7 0QQ
    GB
    +44.7958537185

Registration Service Provider:
    Fasthosts Internet Limited, 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 07, 2012, 03:22:53 PM
I know this can be accessed fairly easily but I'm not sure the above post should be quite so public and left open on the forum personally.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Rhodrich on February 07, 2012, 03:27:36 PM
I see that their 'grand opening' is tomorrow at 7pm:

http://www.ba-siam.com/

Will anyone from here be going?  ;D


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 07, 2012, 03:29:46 PM
Thanks - I have now been able to find the same address info (http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/ba-siam) (should have thought of it earlier) which is fully in the public domain, and I see no reason why it should not be so.  I will pass it on to those wishing to write formally to the company.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: lord catering on February 07, 2012, 08:58:35 PM
As much as I agree with all the comments on the 'non planning permission' issue (which Elmbridge Council will need to sort out in due course) I will try to visit the re-opened Crown tomorrow evening in order to support a new local business.
As the director of a restaurant in St Margarets, we and all the other businesses really appreciate the continual support given to us by local residents.
St Margarets is itself a 'village' and our high street consists of some 30 retail units ALL of which have tennants who are sucessfully trading - the reason being that the residents fully support their local businesses - can we honestly say this happens in Thames Ditton? How many empty shop units are there in our high street?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 07, 2012, 09:19:22 PM
Very fair point


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: BlueSky on February 07, 2012, 09:49:16 PM
Best wishes with the enterpirse! 

St.Magarets is a great place, made by the boutiquee shops, the Thai restaurant is going for quality and fusion cooking, mmmmm 

If a new shops can be attarcted, competition is good as Standards will rise. Look at the sandwch shops!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 07, 2012, 10:29:03 PM
I think those comments are a little unfair.

It's a two way street. The residents will support businesses who respect the nature of the village they have come into, which of course most of the businesses do. However, if people appear to be taking the mickey then some of us may tend to be defensive. 

I would be very happy for the errors made in planning to be rectified and for there to be another successful business in the village which I would gladly support.

But it will be in that order.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 08, 2012, 12:12:41 AM
Just to record that there was a glitch in the system at midnight (the witching hour!) and this thread disappeared entirely, apparently due to a file corruption during automatic forum maintenance.  I was able to get all but the last two posts (which were of little substance) back, I think.  Sorry for the glitch.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 08, 2012, 08:52:07 AM
intrigued as to those posts now haha


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on February 08, 2012, 02:57:34 PM
I thought they were very interesting!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 08, 2012, 03:56:36 PM
If I recall correctly, they were (a) Emberman conscientiously correcting BlueSky's typos and spelling, and (b) BlueSky expressing heartfelt thanks to him for it !

It's nice that forum posters are so helpful and civil to each other.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 08, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
hahaha ;)

Well I was reading with amusement last night, willing myself not to post this...

(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/10/5/3e5fae10-77e5-4302-91c5-a7f606bb1429.jpg)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 08, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
I thought it was Thai at the crown, what are they "fusing" with it?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 08, 2012, 09:01:21 PM
Opening night party there tonight!

In spite of all the planning issues I still want them to do well - this would make resolving any issues easier as well.




Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Flex on February 08, 2012, 09:23:22 PM
All the signs are they will just offer excuses for not doing anything to obey planning procedures.  I don't want them to do well if they don't obey the proper regulations.  I want them to do well if they do obey them  Make your own linkage there.  

That "pergola" is horrible.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Dittonian on February 08, 2012, 09:29:18 PM
The people who support them can't complain when other developers then do the same thing and go right ahead without planning permission.  Could be on your own road juninho.  You wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: rudi on February 09, 2012, 07:17:29 AM
Flex - I assume with such a mean spirited comment as that you must be a Daily Mail reader!...with that attitude you clearly don't care if this village withers and dies from lack of investment. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 09, 2012, 07:52:11 AM
That's rather harsh, rudi. I don't think Flex was being mean spirited.

Not all investment is good investment and there is middle ground between inappropriate development which spoils the character of the village and no development/investment which, as you say, causes its own problems.

The tricky part is finding the balance so that we can continue to have a thriving village, but one which retains its charm and character. 

That's why we have planning regulations and why many of the people on this forum are not very happy about the developments at the Crown, investment or not.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 09, 2012, 08:56:49 AM
Hi Dittonian - if you read my two other posts on this thread you would understand that at no point did I say I am supporting them.  

I simply was trying to convey that ideally they will do well enough to be able to sort the issues out - if the planning permission comes back and says they have to re construct (perhaps tear down the structure) then I would like them to do well enough to be able to afford to do so and be able to do so in a manner fitting.

So in answer to your question - if this happened on my road then yes I would still be in the same boat. Its better in this situation - for the  company/venture/business that is doing well (as opposed to not doing well and perhaps unable to spend the money to rectify the problem).
Quote from: Dittonian on February 08, 2012, 09:29:18 PM
The people who support them can't complain when other developers then do the same thing and go right ahead without planning permission.  Could be on your own road juninho.  You wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


In case you didn't read it - here is my earlier post on the matter:
Quote from: Juninho on February 02, 2012, 03:24:09 PM
Ah I see ok. 

Still not great as the picture I am getting is of someone building first thinking its more likely to be passed that way rather than following the proper process. I still hope I am wrong and its just down to incompetence.



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 09, 2012, 09:11:15 AM
Hmm I think we are all getting a little riled and arguing at each other. Is all too easy I think sometimes.

From reading the opinions on this thread I think we are all in agreement that we oppose the construction without planning permission. 

I am going to purposely ignore BlueSky’s post as I think he/she is a troll (apologies if this is not the case BlueSky – in which case I am going to ignore it regardless as it does not suit me!! ;) ).


I apologise for going slightly off topic in conveying that I want the business to do well (as have others) whereas others would rather they didn’t until the issues are resolved. Both are opinions that are actually perhaps a little irrelevant in the scheme of things so lets not argue that point.

Instead can we keep focussed on the planning issues (which I have to confess I am reliant on others to fully understand).

We all want the planning issues resolved and I think we are in danger of sending the wrong message to the owners (who are reading this forum) by arguing between us.
Quote from: rudi on February 09, 2012, 07:17:29 AM
Flex - I assume with such a mean spirited comment as that you must be a Daily Mail reader!...with that attitude you clearly don't care if this village withers and dies from lack of investment. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 09, 2012, 09:24:20 AM
I agree.

I respect people's decision on whether to patronise them or not. Thats a personal thing.

I've made it clear that I dont agree with what they've done or how they have gone about it and for that they will have to follow due planning process regardless of whether we all use their restaurant or not.

However, these are tough times, I think the statistic is 1 in 4 new restaurants go under in their 1st year and as much as I'm not impressed with how they have gone about this, I wouldnt want to willfully contribute to anyone's failure in a new business and therefore I will use them as and when I decide to.

I didnt go to the launch last night but I understand it went well.

I also agree that squabbling amongst ourselves gives the wrong message, healthy debate is a different thing.

Bluesky, as per Juninho's comment, I am disregarding as I too believe he/she/they are trolling.

The daily mail comment made me laugh though 

happy Thursday all!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 09, 2012, 09:28:17 AM
Two issues here:

1.  New investment in the village of the kind that brings life to it.  I think we all gladly welcome that.  (And like others, I like Thai food).  I don't think there is any argument there.

2.  Flouting planning regulations with a structure the size of a house, and in the conservation area.  In November, Elmbridge asked for a retrospective  application to be made.  A proper application with proper supporting documents was not made.  Elmbridge say they received some sort of application at the beginning of January.  They asked for the required supporting documents.  They were not received.  On 1 February they gave notice to the developers that unless the required documents were submitted within seven days, EBC's legal department would be instructed to take enforcement action.  I called Planning Department late afternoon yesterday, 8 February.  They confirmed that no documents (or reply) had been received.

There may be a couple of days' grace for postal delivery both ways, I suppose, but yet again there is no cause to conclude that the developers are in any way serious about conforming to planning regulations.  Their development remains without lawful permission.

Many residents do not think the appearance of the "pergola" is appropriate to the conservation area but they have been denied the opportunity to object to a planning application and have the arguments heard.  They strongly suspect that the "pergola" is but a device to try improperly to circumvent planning regulations - one that will be eventually roofed over and enclosed for extra dining covers.  Hence the heavyweight structure.

If planning regulations are ignored in the Conservation area then within a few years there will be nothing worth conserving.  Many of us may chafe individually about this or that regulation, but I ask you all to consider and take a responsible view of their necessity as a bulwark against the ruin of the village.

"Linkage"
It is for individual residents to decide whether they are prepared to overlook the flouting of planning regulations and give their support to the venture. As for me, like several here I have made my own decision.   I received an invitation to the opening, and declined it.  This in no way reflects a curmudgeonly view of inward investment. When I go out to dine, I want to give my custom to responsible investors in the village - and we have a choice of good eating places that have earned our custom, and need it.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 09, 2012, 09:30:58 AM
I will be completing and posting a piece on the website news pages today, summarising the current situation and giving the text of yesterday's letters to Ba Siam from the Residents' Association and the Chairman of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee.



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 09, 2012, 10:16:18 AM
presumably now that they council's 7 day deadline is up the planners will do something then?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 09, 2012, 11:24:55 AM
Yes - Elmbridge's legal department will now be instructed to issue a legally-binding enforcement notice.  Flouting that would then become a criminal matter, as I understand it.

Last time this happened was over the serious non-compliance with planning conditions by the developers of the new office building at (is it 27?) High Street.  A stop order was issued, and although the premises could be bought and sold with the order on them, they could not be rented.  A few minimal changes were then carried out to the exterior for slightly better finishing.  There have followed a few years of standoff and stagnation, but those developers have now gone, it's in the hands of a bank and there are moves afoot at last to get it moving on a better level.

These things are a pain, and some eventual compromises may occasionally be reached; but weakness will be met by worse and worse disrespect of the guidelines.

The news page is now up, and you may download texts giving details of various letters.



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 09, 2012, 11:31:30 AM
would that mean they had to cease trading in the interim?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 09, 2012, 11:32:27 AM
not sure link is working btw


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 09, 2012, 12:04:08 PM
Quote from: craigvmax on February 09, 2012, 11:31:30 AM
would that mean they had to cease trading in the interim?

Possibly - but I can't second guess what exactly the EBC legal team will do, and I'm no lawyer myself.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 09, 2012, 12:05:36 PM
Quote from: craigvmax on February 09, 2012, 11:32:27 AM
not sure link is working btw

Well spotted.  Thanks.  Now fixed.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Bax on February 09, 2012, 12:56:50 PM
Looking at the photo in the article from Admin you can see the extraction unit just above the car on the left.
This is barely above head height and faces directly onto a wall.
The outside area and surrounding gardens are really going to stink!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Rhodrich on February 16, 2012, 01:32:04 PM
I see that the planning application is now showing on Elmbridge's website:

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2011/8326



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 16, 2012, 01:35:00 PM
well spotted that man


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Dittonian on February 16, 2012, 02:19:24 PM
Amazing what a little pressure will do.



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 16, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
the gates were open to the garden a few days ago. looks a nice job considering what they had to work with.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 16, 2012, 04:27:42 PM
Not a lot of detail in the planning apps.

Makes you wonder what the extra info they were waiting for was!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 16, 2012, 04:40:32 PM
Opening night feedback ?


Quote from: tdres on February 16, 2012, 04:27:42 PM
Not a lot of detail in the planning apps.

Makes you wonder what the extra info they were waiting for was!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on February 17, 2012, 01:52:10 PM
I have objected on the grounds of it not being in-keeping with the conservation area. I have no intentions of eating there until this is resolved. I'm completely baffled as to how a business can continue to operate despite breaching planning legislation!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 20, 2012, 02:45:33 PM
Three letters of objection on the site already.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 20, 2012, 07:30:54 PM
I sent mine in this evening after researching the relevant EBC guidelines.  With photos.  The grounds for objection (to extension, signs and present config of aircon units) seem irrefutable to me.  The question is: will the Council be robust enough to ensure the integrity of its publicly stated approach to these issues?  I believe it will, and will go to law if necessary.  The alternative is planning anarchy - and in the Conservation areas to boot.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 20, 2012, 08:00:47 PM
Should others wish to make use of my research to support their own objections, the letter is available as a Word doc here: http://residents-association.com/pdfs/crown_objection.doc

Indeed, I could have written that the site is surrounded by five nationally listed Grade II buildings and one nationally listed grade I.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on February 20, 2012, 11:23:08 PM
Can two people from the same household object?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 21, 2012, 04:09:06 AM
Quote from: deborahtosler on February 20, 2012, 11:23:08 PM
Can two people from the same household object?

Indeed they can, and frequently do!

I would encourage all who care about the look of our village and about Conservation Areas please to read my a/m letter (http://residents-association.com/pdfs/crown_objection.doc) setting out the case and (if they agree) to add weight with a letter of objection to Elmbridge.  Presumably because they decided to backdate the application to 2011 in the database, the system is not offering online submission via the usual form.  Neither is it showing a date by which comments have to be filed.  You can however submit your letters as emails or attached to emails to tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk

I might add that our Planning Convenor Graham is understandably preoccupied by a serious family matter at the present time and so it is likely that a letter from the RA will issue via Chairman Libby and one from the CAAC via Chairman Peter.

A reminder that the extra care taken over planning in Conservation areas is the main bulwark against wholesale and cumulative deterioration of those areas and that if the present application gets away with it there will be a truly disastrous precedent.  All those who value the quaintness and history of Thames Ditton, not to mention the higher property values that stem from being in or near a conservation area,  should think very carefully before abstaining or worse, supporting the grim and inappropriate structure that has been erected without any permission nor real attempt to make it harmonise with its setting.  And for which an application has been submitted retrospectively and only under duress from the Council; an application which does not seem to me to be a valid one for the Conservation Area, for the Design Statement, like the design, makes absolutely no attempt to justify the structure architecturally or in relation to its heritage context as planning documents require it to do.

It should be removed.

I repeat that if Ba Siam were to comply properly with planning regulations and guidelines on all three issues, and submit a plan for a decent and harmonious building to exploit the space between the former Crown and its neighbour for additional dining; then they would enjoy my support and I would imagine the support of a substantial majority in the village.  As it is, they have failed to earn that support.  

Man does not live by prawns alone.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 21, 2012, 04:56:20 AM
Very useful and comprehensive letter!

When I looked at the application online the date for submissions was listed as 7 March and the 'Submit comment' button was working fine, so you may have just hit a temporary glitch.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 21, 2012, 05:38:35 AM
Quote from: tdres on February 21, 2012, 04:56:20 AM
Very useful and comprehensive letter!

Thanks
Quote:
When I looked at the application online the date for submissions was listed as 7 March and the 'Submit comment' button was working fine, so you may have just hit a temporary glitch.


Ah - thanks.  Or maybe Firefox-related.

You're up early too, I see. With this infernal lergy I have been unable to sleep, and so I left the bedroom to catch up


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 21, 2012, 08:54:13 AM
Sorry to hear you're still feeling rough.
Hope you get a chance for a catch up on some zzzzs later.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 22, 2012, 01:46:35 PM
Im a bit slow on these things but have managed to register my objection on the website.

I focussed my objection on the white pole/steel construction itself.

Just hope it was not too expensive for them to put up and also to take down if the planning permission is declined.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 22, 2012, 02:24:24 PM
I finally ran out of any residual sympathy when I saw the travesty of a "Design and Access Statement" accompanying the application.  It consists of two very short parts under the heading "Heritage, Design and Access."  It contains no consideration at all of heritage and surrounding context (as is clearly required by the planning regulations).

Part 1   consists merely of a weak case for arguing that "the AC units would not materially affect external appearance and therefore would not require planning permission."  
A case easily refuted by a simple photograph.  It gives no consideration to the other aspect of the AC units - noise and smell, specifically mentioned in planning guidelines for restaurants.

Part 2 under the rubric "Heritage and Design" gives no consideration to the setting of five adjacent Grade II listed buildings (not counting the Home of Compassion), the grade I listed Church which is visible immediately behind the structure, and the Conservation Area.  Indeed no consideration at all to the context, no justification of design 'decisions,'  no evidence that the developers have even consulted the recent Area Appraisal and planning guidelines for the Conservation Area.   Describing this large structure, the size of a house, as a "lantern pergola" it simply says that it "at present lacks the softening of the lanterns and planting that would complete the decorative piece and allowing it to harmonise with its surroundings, protecting the quality of this Heritage/Conservation Area."

In other words, this horrible stark angular structure that bears absolutely no relation to its historic surroundings would look better in dim light and covered with ivy !

A reminder of what this "decorative piece" looks like in reality is here: http://residents-association.com/news/crown.php


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on February 22, 2012, 02:59:12 PM
Is it safe? Wouldn't Building Control have something to do with it?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 22, 2012, 03:33:53 PM
That's a different matter and not part of the planning process, as I understand it.

Developers often like to submit an 'artist's impression' of how a development will look.  These are often fanciful and tend to provoke chortles among seasoned planners.  A recent one for the development proposal for the Harrow had so many trees added by the artist that you could barely make out any frontage at all (the applicants in that case were obliged to submit another one).

In view of the fact that the Ba Siam case seems to hang entirely on dim light and plantings, perhaps an artist's impression would help their case?  I have here supplied a before-and after set:

Before (i.e. the "decorative piece" as it really is):
[img width=500 height=370]http://residents-association.com/images/artists_impression_before.jpg[/img]

and when the simple and classical design of the pergola, drawing its inspiration sensitively from its surroundings, is clothed in planting, with the lanterns dancing becomingly in the breeze (artists impression)
[img width=500 height=370]http://residents-association.com/images/artists_impression_crown.jpg[/img]



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on February 22, 2012, 04:09:03 PM
:)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 23, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
the latter photoshop does actually make it look nice at least


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on February 23, 2012, 10:11:23 AM
You only like it because it has a Cayenne in the picture!


:P
Quote from: craigvmax on February 23, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
the latter photoshop does actually make it look nice at least


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on February 23, 2012, 10:17:59 AM
Bad karma?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 23, 2012, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: Juninho on February 23, 2012, 10:11:23 AM
You only like it because it has a Cayenne in the picture!


:P
Quote from: craigvmax on February 23, 2012, 09:48:50 AM
the latter photoshop does actually make it look nice at least


Nah, its the bargain basement one, no turbos, no interest ;)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 28, 2012, 09:30:50 AM
Although this feeble retrospective application is certain to be promoted to the Elmbridge Area Planning Committee, a few more letters of objection would underline the case.  And the case is a very significant one if you do not want to see this sort of thing happening all over the Conservation Areas.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on February 29, 2012, 09:08:57 AM
That's interesting - the (extremely thin) "Design and Access Statement" is suddenly "page not found".  It looks like it is being tinkered with.  Will Elmbridge allow that, or re-start the process?

Edit: back again now, unchanged....


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on February 29, 2012, 09:47:56 AM
happens on that website from time to time, I think its maybe when they are adding updates


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on March 02, 2012, 10:26:07 AM
Chairma's submission to EBC on behalf of the RA can now be downloaded here (http://residents-association.com/pdfs/TDWGRA_Crown_ objection_2011_8326.pdf)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on March 07, 2012, 11:57:45 PM
Just asked my daughetrs views on this. She thought because of the lights she had seen when passing that it was a club! She wouldnt think of going there because its ugly!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on March 08, 2012, 10:58:07 AM
that doesnt make a lot of sense really. I dont like the way it looks but the way a building looked wouldnt affect whether I (or I'd wager most people) ate there or not. Im not sitting outside looking at it whilst eating?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on March 08, 2012, 11:21:44 AM
It actually does make some sense to me:

This may sound a little shallow - but the other half and I often judge places on how they look outside (this if we have no other information to go on) on whether or not we would like to eat there. 

This is especially true of country pubs or eateries we pass in areas we don't know well.

If a place has a decent review or better yet a recomendation of course that would be a far bigger factor. Or even looking at the menu can give an idea at times of the sort of food...

But the way it looks outside (and inside if we can have a peek!) is definately a small factor!! Like I said ... its shallow but in absence of any other way to judge a place it does give one way at least!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on March 08, 2012, 11:35:46 AM
I agree if you dont know the place and are chosing on drive by factor, then yes of course I'd be the same, but if you know it has good food and its nice inside, then the exterior aesthetics wouldnt come into it would they?

Different situation if for example the swan was painted fluorescent green, because its a place you'd sit outside and have to look at, but that wouldnt be the case at the crown, you're inside there.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on March 08, 2012, 11:38:55 AM
I couldn't sit inside there without thinking of the appalling blot on the Conservation Area and the way they have flouted planning regs - because to me the village is more than just another restaurant.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on March 08, 2012, 11:44:37 AM
my comments arent based on the planning, we've discussed that and I'm quite sure the planners will do what's right and appropriate for our village with regard to that. 

I'm purely saying that saying a building is ugly isnt a reason not to eat there if you know the interior is suitable and the food is good.

Out of interest, do you still use Siam Gallery in Esher?



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on March 08, 2012, 11:50:33 AM
Not been there for quite a while.

And I confess to eating in some ugly gaffs in my day....distinctly recall a cafe bar halfway along the highway from Belmopan to Belize City used as a hangout by Belizean Ministers off-duty, so good for gossip but the grilled swordfish left a lot to be desired and the bamboo thatch was tatty


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on March 08, 2012, 03:42:04 PM
was it called Al Pona ? 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on March 08, 2012, 04:23:43 PM
Quote from: craigvmax on March 08, 2012, 03:42:04 PM
was it called Al Pona ? 

Nope - I can't remember the name, think I have an old photo somewhere (we're talking 1986-88 here)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on March 23, 2012, 11:29:15 AM
Final decision was yesterday (application  2011/8326) - for the "Retention of lantern pergolas" and it looks like it was refused.

What happens now? Do they have a time period to make the changes? Perhaps submit new plans?

Just hope they are able to resolve it quickly.


Edited to add reason from Elmbridge:
"This retrospective application for 2 lantern pergolas is not in keeping with the character of the premises and as such adversely affects the appearance of the conservation area and surrounding listed buildings. As such it is not considered that the development complies with Policy CS17 of Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011, Saved Policies HEN11 and ENV2 of the Replacement Elmbridge Local Plan 2000 and Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) - Planning for the Historic Environment and warrants refusal in the public interest."


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on March 23, 2012, 12:16:42 PM
i'd bet they will appeal and from memory you have up to 6 months to do that.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on March 23, 2012, 06:19:51 PM
As it has already been built, legal enforcement notice will now be served for its removal.

They have right of appeal, which might delay the process, but frankly - and rightly - there is no chance of the Inspector overturning such a solidly based refusal.

They would be best advised to comply and get it over with, and we can all eat there happily.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on March 29, 2012, 07:32:29 PM
I am informed that the enforcement notice has now issued.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on March 30, 2012, 07:34:50 AM
Shame the council decided to ignore the aircon issues.

The evenings are lighter and the weather's been lovely, but I'm not inclined to sit in the garden when all I can smell is five spice and garlic.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on March 30, 2012, 08:38:52 AM
is it that bad really? thats terrible, is there nothing they can do if you talk to them (do appreciate you shouldnt have to)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on March 30, 2012, 08:52:08 AM
tdres: I suggest you also talk to Karen Randolph and to EBC, based on the planning guideline that refers to restaurants specifically which I included in my letter of objection.  The main attention was focused on 'the structure' but if you gather like-minded residents who are also affected by the effluent and noise, and persist with the council, you may get some meaningful action so that the charming and peaceful atmosphere in the garden of your listed building is not spoiled by this.

Karen, by the way, is a qualified mediator and even short of firm action by EBC she may well be able to explore ways of mitigation.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on March 30, 2012, 09:07:38 AM
Quote from: craigvmax on March 30, 2012, 08:38:52 AM
is it that bad really? 


Well, it's subjective isn't it? When I'm in the garden I want to smell flowers not cooking. I agree it's not an 'offensive' smell, like sewers, but it is an obtrusive smell which will spoil my enjoyment of the garden if it continues.

I haven't spoken to anyone about it yet, as it's still early days so I'll see how it goes for a little while.  I know the chap at Riverside was having a problem too as he mentioned it in his planning objection, so if it continues then I'll have a word with the neighbours first.

But, to be honest, I'm getting a bit complaint weary. It makes me wonder if I'm just being to fussy. It's not that I expect everything to be perfect, but it does seem to be one thing after another over the last few years.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on March 30, 2012, 09:33:31 AM
Yes, these things are very toilsome and it seems a lot of work and effort that one shouldn't have to put in.  But if we don't make that effort, things will get worse faster.....


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on March 30, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
I agree, by my use of the word "really" I wasnt questioning you btw. You have a right to enjoy peace and quiet and a non smelly garden as much as anyone else. good suggestions above.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: rudi on March 30, 2012, 07:56:26 PM
Be careful with what you wish for, regards extractor fans etc. We are close to The Rose and though the smell is intermittent - and never offensive, I do find the extractor noise hum very irritating. We haven't spoken to them about it (yet) but the shape and obtuseness of the structure was the subject of a planning dispute last year. I have accepted that living in a village environment, with mixed use development and businesses that bring life to the village, also bring other less welcome attributes.

Nevertheless I think noise/smell etc need to be taken in context and balanced against your own views of what is acceptable and not. I have resigned myself to the fact that i can't have it all..but when things go over a personal threshold - then action needs to be taken. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on March 30, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Yes, I agree with that rudi - you do have to be reasonable and know where to draw the line.

That is why I will wait  for a while and consider whether there is a need to say anything - things might get better, or it may be different in different weathers. 

Maybe I'm just getting old, but as I said above, over the last few years the 'less welcome attributes' seem to be increasing.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: jds on June 01, 2012, 11:51:59 PM
Quote from: Admin on March 29, 2012, 07:32:29 PM
I am informed that the enforcement notice has now issued.


Having walked past tonight, there does not appear (to my layman's eye) to have been any progress on removing this eyesore. All forgotten about?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Rhodrich on July 02, 2012, 03:04:10 PM
Indeed.  I cycled past yesterday, and there had been no progress in my eyes either.  The enforcement notice gave them until 30th June to remove it: 

Statement or summary of alleged breach of planning control and requirements of
notice (including period within which any required steps are to be taken)
Without planning permission: The erection of two four metre high structures within the last four years
Remove both of the 4 (four) metre high steel structures from the land within 2 months

Date specified for notice to take effect
4/30/2012

Unless an appeal has been lodged that is not showing on the website, they now appear to be in breach of an enforcement notice, which is a criminal offence.  Have the police been informed I wonder?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on July 16, 2012, 11:19:56 AM
I had a letter last week saying that, as the structure hadn't been removed by the 30th June deadline, legal action would now be taken.

A second letter arrived today saying that the Crown have now appealed the decision to refuse planning permission and so legal action will be deferred while that is considered.

So what is the point of deadlines and Enforcement notices if late appeals can still be heard? 
Makes me rather cross - they seem to have been given plenty of chances and it's just a waste of time and (our) money.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on July 16, 2012, 04:38:54 PM
There was word that the ownershi0p may have changed, but i don't have confirmation or details.

And yes, it does seem extraordinarily feeble of the council at first sight.  But I am sure that the structure will be demolished at the end of due process, however long that process might take.  It is a glaring case.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: nurseryparker on July 30, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
Went past the crown this morning and, as expected given previous comments, the structure is still there.

However it has had some wood removed (about four small strips) so you can now see through into the garden area and has, at least from the outseide, been painted white.  Anyone would think they are expecting to be able to keep it?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: rudi on August 25, 2012, 02:11:14 PM
Went past the Crown today - been away on holiday so what i saw might be 'work in progress' - but it appears the 'structure' has been partially removed. 

But if the present monstrosity that now results is the replacement or minimum required to meet their obligations under the planning permission, then unfortunately Thames Ditton residents and the RA have scored a spectacularly ugly own goal. I just hope I am wrong and I the owners intention is not to leave it as it is currently.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on August 25, 2012, 06:20:13 PM
They have appealed against the planning decision, which will be the structure as it was when the retrospective application was made.

If they are then going to say there is now a different structure, they would I believe have to start the process over again with a new application.... (but should be required to remove the first one first)

If they are continuing recalcitrant then this will take a long time.  But it would be mistaken to think it was over in any sense.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on August 28, 2012, 10:00:39 AM
I cant see that the structure has changed, only the lanterns have been taken down?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Dittonian on August 28, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: rudi on August 25, 2012, 02:11:14 PM
But if the present monstrosity that now results is the replacement or minimum required to meet their obligations under the planning permission, then unfortunately Thames Ditton residents and the RA have scored a spectacularly ugly own goal. I just hope I am wrong and I the owners intention is not to leave it as it is currently.


This is a mischievous comment or laughable.  The Ba Siam erected a horrible structure without permission.  Did you really want the RA not to object?  The planning people would have turned it down anyway.  I hope the appeal goes against them, or the village will be ruined if this is a precedent, and that council will have the guts to make sure they remove it, following the  legal processes.  You would do better to direct fire at the people who erected the thing, rudi, rather than knock the good people who oppose it.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on August 28, 2012, 03:22:34 PM
They have not put in a new plan as far as I could see.

Is it confirmed whether or not the ownership had changed? How does that work on a legal basis?

If it was 'sold' on without planning permission I am guessing some sort of indemnity insurance would've had to have been taken out (there is no way a solicitor would've missed that - assuming the searches to a commercial business are similar to the residential process?) which at least would pay for the removal of the structure? 

One can only hope I guess.

I can't speak for anyone else but I know we (as in the OH and I) are eagerly awaiting the resolution so we can try dining there.

Such a shame it has come to this really - I remember the excitement (on this forum and elsewhere) when it was first announced who the new (now old??) owners were and what was to be put in place.



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on August 28, 2012, 04:04:15 PM
as I understand it, the change of ownership was internal between partners.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on September 10, 2012, 10:17:57 PM
Had a letter today from Elmbridge about the appeal. Comments and representations can be placed on the planning portal at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs or by emailing teamp6@pins.gsi.gov.uk. This has to be done by 16th October 2012. Appeal reference is APP/K3605/A/12/2181200/NWF. The inspector will be doing a site visit. Neighbours can contact Kerr Brown on 0117 372 8267 if they would like the inspector to view the structure from their property.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 11, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
I dont really get why they dont just take it down or reduce it in size and then do a big relaunch embracing the community.

The daft thing to me is, they could easily create a better effect with something more temporary and kill two birds with one stone. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on September 11, 2012, 02:42:59 PM
Daft they are.  Stubborn.

Contrast with the approach by Dominic, the new tenant at the Red lion.  Keen to work with the community, has asked Graham our planning convenor and others for views, taking the old conservatory down (in disrepair) and replacing with a better one, removing those horrible oversized red signs, making the place look nice.....  Briefing neighbour next door at an early stage.... At once creating a positive atmosphere of goodwill.  I am rattling my knife and fork already!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 11, 2012, 02:46:29 PM
yup I'm looking forward to that too and indeed thats the right way to do it.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on September 11, 2012, 03:14:40 PM
I am a neighbour of the Red Lion and have heard nothing from them of what their plans are, or had my opinion asked.

It certainly does look improved, and I am very hopeful that the noise issues are a thing of the past, but I would be keen to know how it is intended to take it forward and to let them know how we've been impacted before - in particular the noise from people drinking/smoking late outside the front of the pub and when leaving.

Do you know if Dominic is usually onsite, so I could pop in and say hello?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on September 11, 2012, 03:32:46 PM
Can't speak for his movements but I'm sure it would be a jolly good thing to make your number there.  I know he's met the occupants of #85.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 11, 2012, 04:09:04 PM
in my experience of this industry, any sensible and responsible licensee will take noise and nuisance complaints extremely seriously as they're the one thing that can cause a huge headache for them.

I've known 2 places that virtually got closed solely on this basis.

That said, there has to be some acceptance if living near to a pub that there will always been some element of volume emitting from there.

I think it comes down to being reasonable, a bit of chatter at 9pm on a sunny evening shouldnt be an issue but shouting and singing at midnight is. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on September 11, 2012, 04:31:51 PM
Agree absolutely craigmax - it's where the lines are drawn.
I like people to enjoy themselves and that is what pubs are for.

However, since the smoking ban and the later licensing hours people who had happily lived alongside pubs suddenly found that the jollity of others which had previously been earlier and mostly inside, was suddenly outside and much later. So when you get the comments 'the pub was there before you moved there' it can be a bit irksome, as the pub might have been, but the potential level of nuisance wasn't. (I know that's not what you said, btw, but others have.) 

Anyway, as I said I am hopeful that the proposed establishment will in all respects be an improvement and, from what has been said above, it looks like local residents will be considered. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 11, 2012, 04:51:56 PM
yup, take all your points on board, can see how annoying that must be. 

It may be that with the change in ownership, ambience, decor and probably prices, that the clientelle change somewhat too which might work in your favour.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on September 11, 2012, 05:03:51 PM
Can only hope!

Though having spent a large amount of time in the vicinity of City bars (never crossing the threshold myself of course!) I can confidently certify that the correlation between money and good behaviour is not always in the direction implied.  ;)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 11, 2012, 05:13:55 PM
ha this is true, although I dont see too many city geezers in TD thankfully.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 13, 2012, 09:20:11 AM
http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/news/news.htm?mode=10&pk=4485

worth a read


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on September 13, 2012, 10:26:10 AM
Thanks, craig, that is interesting.
Although it is a voluntary code, at least it shows the types of noise nuisance that they think should be considered, including that made by outside smokers and 'loiterers' (lovely word!)  later in the evening. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 13, 2012, 10:38:14 AM
could be a great goodwill scheme for landlords to sign up to


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on September 18, 2012, 10:49:18 AM
Were the lanterns on the Crown's carbuncle removed or stolen?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Thames Dittonite on September 18, 2012, 11:28:55 AM
Maybe some shipbuilder might come back and steal the rest of it.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 18, 2012, 02:45:45 PM
it does look worse without them!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: rudi on September 18, 2012, 08:55:28 PM
Craigvmax - That was really my point but i got shoot down in flames (couple of posts ago) .....but it was probably due to my inference that this wasn't a successful RA fight this time! 
They (Ba Siam) have clearly made no effort - actually quite the reverse i think - to make the place look presentable after the partial removal of the structure, (probably as a two finger job to the residents) or maybe they have given up interest - which would be a shame.... as we need thriving businesses in this village - but the boycott by some residents might have taken its toll! 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: nurseryparker on September 18, 2012, 10:30:34 PM
Rudi - not sure how you can say wasn't a successful RA fight as the entire structure does not have planning permission and, subject to the outcome of the appeal which should go the same way as the original retrospective planning application, should be removed in its entirity.  


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 18, 2012, 10:40:19 PM
Rudi didn't say it was an unsuccessful RA fight, it was just taken that way 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 19, 2012, 09:40:38 AM
just passed it again, they really need to do something with it, I'd love to get hold of that space, could be made quite special


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on September 19, 2012, 10:56:26 AM
From what I can tell, these are their grounds for appeal?

[img width=500 height=366]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/Screen%20Shot%202012-09-19%20at%2010.33.05_zps9d0c5bab.png[/img]


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 19, 2012, 11:51:17 AM
so why not have candles in hurricane lanterns on tables, illuminated seating which they have and low level dimmable led lighting.

Nobody outside the area would be aware of anymore of a glow and the atmosphere and lighting levels would be fine to eat by.

The steel structure could be cut down lower, clad in some sort of sustainable hardwood. An abundance of tropical plants and shade sails overhead to keep any noise in.

From outside it would look like little more than a flat roofed gazebo, the church wouldnt be affected, nor would the house next door (anymore than having a traditional beer garden next to them).

It would also imho be a much nicer place to sit.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on September 19, 2012, 12:15:17 PM
It's weird isn't it? They seem to be totally ignorant to the reasons why permission was refused.  Don't they get that the problem is the 4m high steel framework they built to "support" the candles? The more they delay, the more they lose face.

Their appeal is just a waste of time and money.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 19, 2012, 12:27:46 PM
I think the fact is, the framework was intended for to support more than those candles. if it was its very much over engineering to an extreme. I'm not sure why the appeal other than not wanting to lose money on the structure, but that would seem an inevitability anyway.

I've said before, I hope they do well, the village needs more businesses to keep it alive.  After eating from them a huge amount when they opened I havent for some time but thats not because I'm boycotting them.

I just think they need to accept defeat graciously, get the steel cut down and embrace what it could be in a positive way, do a huge relaunch and try to win people over. Anything can be done, you just need to do it.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on September 19, 2012, 01:49:27 PM
Many have drawn the conclusion that the massive ugly framework was erected as "a pergola" with the intention, once that was slipped through, of putting some roofing on it and by degrees establishing, without permission, a cheap permanent structure that would increase floorspace.  

If there had been a genuine pretty garden or indeed a proper proposal submitted to develop that space in keeping with its surroundings, the story would surely have been a happier one all round.

While most in the village would want to encourage businesses, and there are plenty of examples where we do, there is and should be resistance to businesses that to all appearances demonstrate contempt for the planning process or other adverse aspects of development and practice especially within the conservation area.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on November 22, 2012, 02:45:53 PM
A resident writes in: "there is a chap outside the Crown working on dismantling the “lantern pergola” today.  Well done with sticking with this."

And so I nipped along to check: no sign of the chap, but the oxyacetyline torch has removed the large crosspiece at the front.  Let's hope the job will be completed and we can all dine there to show it was worth it!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on November 22, 2012, 05:11:48 PM
Thats brilliant news!

We would love to try it out!

Hope they won't mind us bringing along a crying/screaming todler!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Evergreen on November 22, 2012, 06:57:45 PM
Very good news and well done all those who didn't cave in.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on November 23, 2012, 08:39:03 AM
im wondering if its a permanent fix, looks like Stevie Wonder did it


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on November 23, 2012, 09:07:41 AM
Do encourage them to get villagers onside about what might take its place.  I will too.  E.g. they might get a lot of support for creating a really nice garden space for al fresco dining (perhaps with a local design competition?), or even a proper, in-scale, traditional-looking building there that fills in the gap and positively adds to the conservation area without being obtrusive or greedy?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on November 26, 2012, 12:39:42 PM
It looks like they have just cut the top off. Is this what they were required to do?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on November 26, 2012, 01:00:26 PM
I don't know - we haven't seen the ruling yet, or EBC correspondence on same.

But I hope it can be made into an attractive space by the summertime.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on November 26, 2012, 01:49:09 PM
It looks quite ugly!

So now I guess we should support them so they can get in some funds to at least square off the tops?

Just hope they don;t mind a screaming todler!

;)

Edit: reading back at my previous posts looks like I already made that joke.... must be a sign of old age!

Quote from: deborahtosler on November 26, 2012, 12:39:42 PM
It looks like they have just cut the top off. Is this what they were required to do?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Rhodrich on January 23, 2013, 07:53:19 AM
Appeal dismissed!

Pressure now needs to be applied for them to remove the ugly stumps of the construction, which no doubt they will claim are allowed under permitted development.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on January 23, 2013, 10:30:00 AM
The Planning Inspector's reasons for dismissing the appeal are here:  http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Appeal%20-%20Decision-1580255.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1580255&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

This has been a long business which would not have been necessary if the new owners of the Crown had capitalised on an initially welcoming village and set about devising an attractive scheme with local support and paying proper respect to planning considerations in the Conservation Area.  Instead they erected a grim angular structure without permission, where the massive steelwork showed every sign of being prepared for additional enclosure at a later stage.  They failed even to reply to concerns by local village bodies expressed in writing at the outset, submitted a weak application late and only under pressure from Elmbridge, and likewise dragged their feet over an appeal.

It is regrettable that by these tactics they alienated many of their prospective customers.  Contrast this case with that of the Red Lion, whose new management has been keen to work with the village and has done a tasteful job, and that of the rather good and very agreeable Dolce Italian restaurant.  Both are assets to the village.  There's still time for a sea-change and some project that will make the area alongside the former Crown both pretty and well populated with summer customers - but as yet no sign that that is about to happen.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on January 23, 2013, 10:47:22 AM
its a shame because it could be great in there with not a lot of effort


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on January 23, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
Was the illuminated sign on the wall semi-removed because it didn't have planning consent? Is there any reason why the carcass of it has been left with the wires hanging out? 

It's been a few months now and along with the charred stumps it's not doing them any favours in terms of enticing customers.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: rudi on January 23, 2013, 07:08:41 PM
Quite frankly the whole thing is a disgrace to the village....not just the half deconstructed structure and the wires hanging out of the wall but the messy car park areas, untidy bins and general sad appearance! We won't eat there as they now seem to have completely disrespected the village and its unique charm with all their actions or lack of them!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Flex on January 23, 2013, 09:08:14 PM
After the first burst of diner enthusiasm the place has been pretty deserted lately and it wouldn't be surprising if they close down.  Then of course people will criticise the residents for not supporting them, but that would be a stupid distortion of the matter!  In the long run we will get some better use made of the old Crown I'm sure.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: rudi on April 12, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
Stumbled upon this....!!!

http://property.vivastreet.co.uk/commercial+thames-ditton-kt7/affluent-village-location---a3-a4-use/67126804

The Crown is for sale for £250K -


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on April 21, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
Might explain why they are finally taking the fence down properly.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on April 21, 2013, 11:48:42 AM
Not for sale - for rent, with a premium!

A quick calculation on the back of an envelope, assuming:
chef & two staff to be paid
amortization of premium over ten years (not compounded)
income of £60,000 for tenant/owner of business before tax
ancillary maintenance/business rates
less annual rental value of upstairs flat
nothing for equipping or working capital/wine store etc

Suggests that with every table occupied 365 days a year you would need to take about £15 per day profit off each cover.  With average 50% occupation the figure rises to £30 per day from each cover.

Looks overpriced.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: mg on April 21, 2013, 10:27:42 PM
Slightly concerning when you read the original ad and it says "confidential staff unaware" or words to that effect.  Presumably, if they read this forum, they know about the potential sale of The Crown now.  


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on April 22, 2013, 08:38:28 AM
yup its been there a while, I wonder what they are doing with the garden bit now.

Dont see people rushing into it at that price.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on April 22, 2013, 12:06:38 PM
Quote from: mg on April 21, 2013, 10:27:42 PM
Slightly concerning when you read the original ad and it says "confidential staff unaware" or words to that effect.  Presumably, if they read this forum, they know about the potential sale of The Crown now.  

As soon as the agent put the info on the web it's in the freely-available public domain.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: mg on April 22, 2013, 04:48:57 PM
I was just wondering whether the agents should have actually put the ad on the world wide wait if someone had actually taken the trouble to tell them that they staff were unaware that the pub was going to be sold.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on April 22, 2013, 05:02:57 PM
The Crown seems to have a history of weird postings on the internet...!

I remember reading a gumtree ad from the chef of the crown who I assume had been let go wishing them luck?

This was before it became Ba Siam.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on May 07, 2013, 11:59:44 AM
Quote from: Ratty on April 21, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
Might explain why they are finally taking the fence down properly.


I spoke too soon. Now diners can enjoy the good weather by sitting outside surrounded by orange plastic mesh. Who could possibly resist?  ::)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on May 07, 2013, 12:21:51 PM
its that trendy deconstructed look


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: P Lawson on June 05, 2013, 03:53:37 PM
Ba Siam is now closed down. No Thai in TD anymore. What will it become in future?  Will it re-open and stay open or will it continue to open / close?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 05, 2013, 04:18:54 PM
has it really? didnt know that. Mind you, I hadnt seen anyone in there for weeks.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: P Lawson on June 06, 2013, 09:12:10 AM
Oh yes, a few weeks ago now. From what I heard there is little chance of anything re-opening there for a considerable period of time. What will the residents support there, what do they want there?  Or will the residents support any application to turn into residential?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 06, 2013, 09:29:44 AM
Do we need more residential? There is a massive lack of parking and a lack of school spaces.

Would support a good sensibly priced Italian restaurant.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on June 06, 2013, 09:55:06 AM
It's more a question of who and what type of business is prepared to take the Crown on.  Whatever business it may be, I hope they pay proper respect to planning criteria in the conservation area.

The fact is that there are rather too many pubs in the village to be viable and the Crown was the least viable as a pub.  Since then it has gone through three (IIRC) incarnations focusing on food and none of them has worked.  Looking at my back-of-envelope calculations above, it is hard to see how they would work unless a very high quality, very high profit-margin restaurant with an excellent PR approach were to set up in the Crown.

Car parking is one of the problems any restaurant would face, so again only one that offered compelling dining attractions would overcome that.  It has to be the sort of place that is so sought-after, people compete for bookings.  And its offering must be sustainable - that is, remain attractive even after we have all been there once to see what the new place is like.....

There is the space adjacent to the Crown where the ghastly angular pergola was illegally built.  Again writing personally, I could see a suitable infill extension building in the style of the Crown and harmonious with it, having a chance of passing the planning process.  That would be an investment only an owner, i.e. the landlord, could be expected to undertake.  

Offered, as it is, as a tenancy it seems to me unlikely to be viable.  As to any potential conversion to residential, there has been no sign so far of landlord interest in doing that as far as I am aware.  The site doesn't look promising.

What we really need is a good foundry exporting bronze sculptures......


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: P Lawson on June 06, 2013, 04:29:13 PM
Thats a difficult one then....don't want more residential but the Crown just won't survive whether it changes from this to that....The more it fails the more chance it will have of becoming residential because that is where the value is and the land lord won't want it sat doing nothing earning nothing. Lets hope the next operator is a success!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 06, 2013, 04:40:06 PM
Sadly I think the only people who could hack it out as a restaurant / maybe buy the whole thing would be the chains, zizzi, pizza express, cafe nero etc, I wouldnt want that though.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on June 06, 2013, 04:43:00 PM
As the newly refurbed / reinvented Red Lion has proved / is proving - there is/was scope for another pub... is there still? Possibly... but its going to be tough.

I like the niche the Red Lion has grabbed as the go to place for families especially during the day. If you have a baby/toddler - and fancy a nice coffee and cake then the red lion is ideal on a Saturday morning! Loads of space for a pram and a changing table - whereas the village coffee shops are a bit small and busy (lets be honest... you're not going to be popular if you bring an oversized pram like a Bug eerrree Boo into the Lime tree whereas walk into the Red Lion and you're welcomed with a smile!).

What could work? 

Personally we liked the food at the old crown (i.e. before it became Ba Siam) - but it was fancy so it would be a couple of times a year treat for us. That proved to be non sustainable?

I could be wrong but my assumption is that an upmarket restaurant cannot survive on just the patronage of villagers as well it needs to be frequented more often and then the car park becomes an issue. People will drive from Kingston/Norbiton for the Albanny because of the location and because it has a car park. The food would have to be fantastic to convince people to drive in and park at Ashley road car park... 

So in my opinion it has to be something that has a lot of repeat visitors and rely mostly on custom from the village itself. 

A la the Rose... ? A Thai restaurant was a good idea but not one that was so expensive it becomes more of a treat... (and yes people will point out that alienating some of the clientele due to the planning issues was not the best idea but I would say that ultimately would not have had that much of an impact and it would only have been a matter of time...).

Personally I am saddened to have seen it fail (if that is indeed the case and its not just shut for a small refurb)...


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: P Lawson on June 09, 2013, 11:29:29 AM
Its definately shut. No refurb needed, except the cellar but they haven't served draught beer for a year so they have done with out that for a year. Only other thing needed is the garden but you can still have furniture outside now. For those who enjoyed it there its sadly gone and little or no chance of coming back...  We will have to open a book on what will be there next....



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Juninho on June 11, 2013, 09:37:36 AM
Perhaps the Swan should take it on!

They can build an enclosed walkway thereby extending the existing Swan to the Crown!

Hmm - I might try and suggest that to the Swan landlord!

;)



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 11, 2013, 09:38:22 AM
that premises will never be seriously viable for anyone as leasehold I dont think.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on June 11, 2013, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: craigvmax on June 11, 2013, 09:38:22 AM
that premises will never be seriously viable for anyone as leasehold I dont think.

That's my view too - at least at the present rather exorbitant lease.

You see how unrealistically high residential property prices seriously distort the market, not just in residential but in adjacent properties that *could* be converted?  It's all seriously to cock....  Unrealistically high values --> unrealistically high leases --> unrealistically high business taxes --> unrealistically high product prices --> few businesses.  The only bulwark is a flimsy set of planning rules, now even flimsier, which inhibit the process of arguing that a property is 'not viable' for business letting and can be converted to a 'take the money and run' residential use.  But it is not enough to force landlords of business property to revalue their holdings realistically in order to get business tenants.

On a brighter note, I gather that the Adiva shop may have a new tenant soon but am sworn to maintain confidence.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 11, 2013, 12:27:09 PM
yup, they will have


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on June 11, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
I am ducking as I type this, but would it be so terrible if the Crown became residential?

It's not in a great place for a shop, being quite out of the village, and I do struggle to see the need for another restaurant/pub/cafe and the competition is fierce.

I can see that there is the 'thin end of the wedge' danger, but apart from that...


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: mg on June 11, 2013, 02:29:40 PM
OK Keith - I understand your need to maintain confidence - but as a shopaholic I need to know -  is it a shop I can go to and actually buy things from?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on June 11, 2013, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: mg on June 11, 2013, 02:29:40 PM
OK Keith - I understand your need to maintain confidence - but as a shopaholic I need to know -  is it a shop I can go to and actually buy things from?


Yes!

Back on the Crown: the problem is the rather ridiculous convention of planning precedents.  You/we can't consider one application in isolation and find the most sensible solution to that one, because if that one is allowed, it ratchets up the precedents.

I was talking to Ruth L about this a couple of days ago, but can't offer much hope that the way the policy works can be changed (which in a small way is like the way common law works)

So we might agree that it's OK for the Crown to go to residential - then what if the Wellington Pub Co which owns the Lion and the George saw that (as they would) and said - "aha!  - we have two pubs there with car park space etc which can now be sold off for dense residential development, and we make a nice profit."?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on June 11, 2013, 03:46:56 PM
That's what I thought you'd say.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 11, 2013, 03:58:21 PM
It would however make a great b&b/small hotel


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on June 11, 2013, 03:59:09 PM
If 'localism' meant what it said, we would be able as a community (the word 'community' appears to have been annexed by the Elmbridge Council planning staff) to make sensible decisions such as: "in TD village High St we have four pubs with restaurant areas and consider that (a) a viable number is three, and (b) if the owners of EITHER the Crown OR the Lion come up with an acceptable application between now and 2026  then, EXCEPTIONALLY,  ONE conversion to another use would be within the plan.  

But apparently we can't.  There seemed to be no enthusiasm for a Parish Council and a Neighbourhood Plan when I raised the suggestion nearly two years ago.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on June 11, 2013, 04:01:35 PM
A small hotel would be a good idea - but would the numbers work? The Crown and the Lion started as small inns and partly served the angling fraternity, along with the Swan Inn (there was a separate Swan ale-house, adjacent).  The Lion was also a venue for property auctions - but auction rooms seem to have dwindled in the past few decades.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on June 11, 2013, 05:07:49 PM
It would not be popular, but there seems to be a market for a "rough" pub that the Crown and Lion have alternatively captured in past years.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on June 11, 2013, 06:25:28 PM
Whats a "rough" pub? Do you mean a traditional one that serves beer, where you can play pool and darts? I really miss such an establishment - I would love to re-gain skills I had in younger days. I used to get a lot of satisfaction out of beating men at pool and playing in the university darts team  :(


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Keith on June 11, 2013, 06:40:31 PM
Aye, lass, an' they weren't so rough neither, what wi' a sit-down privy an' all, even if t' clay from the lads' boots were all over t'sawdust and the spittoon weren't emptied but once a month when t'Health Inspector come round.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: mg on June 11, 2013, 07:23:52 PM
That's a terrible Northern accent Keith - I should know coming from Lancashire.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on June 11, 2013, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: deborahtosler on June 11, 2013, 06:25:28 PM
Whats a "rough" pub? Do you mean a traditional one that serves beer, where you can play pool and darts?


Plus, a good chance of a lock-in or at least a pint when everywhere else is shut. Yes, that would pretty much sum up the positives.  :)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: tdres on June 11, 2013, 08:32:34 PM
And the negatives include late night/early morning noise, glasses and beer bottles (and one occasion people!) in your garden, general anti-social behaviour.

There's a difference between 'traditional' - all for that - and 'rough'!


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on June 12, 2013, 12:14:08 PM
Plus, fights in the street, car vandalism and lots of eyeballing when you enter. Yes, that would pretty much sum up the negatives.  :(


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 12, 2013, 12:29:02 PM
and from what I gather, the sale of dubious substances leading to undesirables hanging about


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: maryss on September 12, 2013, 01:45:23 PM
As members are aware Ba Siam is now shut. It is looking worse than ever outside with a broken sign, dusty and dirty on the building itself. Flies litter the window ledges inside and the garden looks a complete mess! Horrible orange mesh and just the one huge gate removed but just dumped there. 
The upstairs flat is now being rented on an individual basis to numerous people yet it does not have a HMO (House of multiple Occupancy) license. If others feel like I do then can you please join me in writing to our local councillors and the Elmbridge Council to make a complaint and hopefully they will action these points. 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: BlueSky on September 12, 2013, 06:25:48 PM
Who is the Landlord please?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: maryss on September 12, 2013, 11:16:02 PM
http://www.wellingtonpubcompany.co.uk/

info@criterionasset.co.uk


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Montreux on September 13, 2013, 06:44:21 PM
they owned Ye Olde Harrow so expect the obvious...sell to developer and residential


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 13, 2013, 06:48:19 PM
New planning laws coming to make that process a lot easier too


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: BlueSky on September 19, 2013, 12:15:43 AM
Craig - are you a Planning Lawyer, your comments here seem to give the impression you are or that are a know it all. I think the latter.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Dictun Mearc on September 19, 2013, 07:55:54 AM
Bluesky, I get the impression that Craig is 'well informed', and intelligent enough to do his own research on matters.  Sadly, I don't see the same thing in any of your comments.  

Please stop trolling, it's very tedious.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on September 19, 2013, 11:09:48 AM
Admin - do we have some rules about not being personally offensive on this forum? If not, I do think we should have some (I'm quite willing to offer to help formulate them). 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Dictun Mearc on September 19, 2013, 11:23:52 AM
Quote from: deborahtosler on September 19, 2013, 11:09:48 AM
Admin - do we have some rules about not being personally offensive on this forum? If not, I do think we should have some (I'm quite willing to offer to help formulate them). 


See here: http://residents-association.com/legal.php

Under 'Submissions'
Quote:
You agree not to upload, post, distribute or otherwise publish on this site any material that (i) is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, pornographic, threatening or an invasion of privacy; (ii) infringes the intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, any copyright, patent, trade secret or trademarks, of any person or entity; or (iii) is illegal in any way or advocates illegal activity. You are and shall remain solely responsible for the content of any Submission you make.




Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on September 19, 2013, 12:03:14 PM
Then Blue Sky, I think an apology is in order and that you agree to abide by the rules of the site. A tip - always read back to yourself what you are writing and think about whether you are offending anyone. Something I have learnt!



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: BlueSky on September 19, 2013, 12:26:24 PM
Sorry, I have done nothing wrong.  It's Craig who has incited the islanders against the Taggs application without really understanding the structure of the business deal and the current business operation dilemma. They have done the right thing in a recession and good luck to them.

I'm just saying Craig is being a nimby, there is truth in this so lets leave it there. I was just trying to explain to him it seem to me pro-river.



Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 19, 2013, 12:55:35 PM
oh dear oh dear oh dear. I was going to bite my tongue against your ramblings but when you start to make it this personal then I cannot stand by.

1. I would suggest you are very careful before putting anything in the public domain from hereon which could be deemed defamatory or libelous. There comes a point where your accusations and insults begin to cross the line and you could very well land yourself in trouble.

2. I have incited nobody, I have however, spoken to my many neighbours and friends on and off the island about an issue that affects us all both now and into the future.  I have been approached by a lot of people ref this and have given my thoughts to them. Equally I have been very transparent with the people at Taggs.

3. I know the people at Taggs well, but what I do or don't know about the business structure currently & proposed is absolutely nothing to do with you. Nor will I discuss it here.

What I will say is, I'm very mindful of what is best for the village. I've done & do many things for the good of the village, some you might know about, many you won't, nor do you need to. The potential loss of the boatyard, boat rental and all the businesses that reside there will have a greater knock on impact to the many other businesses and shops in our village than any benefit you might perceive from 8 flats being built there.

As far as being a Nimby then I'm quite sure if you were faced with the impact this will personally have on me and others,  then you would feel very similar. I've had a pretty traumatic year and today particularly isn't a good day to rile me so I would respectfully suggest you tread very carefully in what you say from this point.

Bluesky since you appeared here, you have consistently proved yourself to be little more than a troll despite your protestations that you are not. In amongst the ramblings there are flashes of normality and sense from time to time but generally you come on to provoke and argue with the odd insult thrown in. There are plenty of forums for that, this isn't one.  Play nicely or play somewhere else.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: BlueSky on September 19, 2013, 01:28:09 PM
Okay, I agree - let's let it be.

The council may or may not include some conditions to deal with your observations.

This kind of project in undoubtley good for the economy.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on September 19, 2013, 02:41:43 PM
I trust that we can all find ways to express differing views without getting up others' noses, whether accidentally or deliberately.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Admin on September 19, 2013, 04:45:46 PM
Now I have ended my day's jobs and am reviewing this and other recent threads to which bluesky has contributed:

- it would be appreciated, bluesky, if you would perhaps draft your posts in some text editor then make yourself think how to present any serious points in them less belligerently, less offensively, particularly where other villagers are concerned.

- I don't mean to discourage you from putting your views and suggestions on issues, however.  They are quite often very distinct from the mainstream view, but serve a useful purpose for all that (e.g. the link to consultants on village parking lately)..

- craigvmax is a valued contributor who has put in a good deal of time on village matters, including research on council and other websites to get facts before posting.  His views are always seriously, and sometimes lightheartedly, expressed.  Inflammatory accusations that he is a 'nimby' (in fact he has as often as not been an advocate of sensible development) or that he is 'inciting' islanders on the issue of Taggs boatyard are very wide of the mark, and unworthy of you.

In general, it has long been the custom of the Residents' Association to give particular weight to those residents who are most affected by proposed developments or changes, whether that is residents on a street who face a nearby phone mast, or residents on the island faced with an oversize development on the mainland overlooking them, or residents of the High St concerned that they will be all the more inconvenienced by parking restrictions.  I think that's a good thing - other residents may care less about something that does not affect them personally, and so their individual views should be given less weight.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: BlueSky on September 19, 2013, 08:34:30 PM
Dear all - l will now spoke my pipe and let see what unfolds.

I for one  know that this is a great village and has a unique character but there are many things that can be improved. So what if a few uppy developments goes up, I have a more issues with one of the biggest care homes in London dominating the village. Their residents will certainty not enjoy the river, most won't be able to get up from their chairs.

Craig, I am actually in admiration of you using the river as a business venture yourself, please don't spoil it for other people. Peace will be on the River, please.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: angel on September 19, 2013, 09:32:45 PM
Sorry but have to take issue with Bluesky's remark about the residents of the care home.  My parents, and others, loved siting by the river watching the pleasure boats and cruisers go by.  I hope the new residents will have that pleasure, just because they are elderly it does not mean they do not enjoy life.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 19, 2013, 09:52:48 PM
I won't comment more but thanks all for the kind remarks and private messages people. Appreciated.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: waysider on September 20, 2013, 09:11:13 AM
I do not open this website to read abusive comments on local residents!  Informative news - yes. 

As for the remark regarding the elderly - I just hope Bluesky never has to go into a home.  The HoC residents loved sitting on the veranda looking across the river watching the boats go by and the activities of the local grebes.

Stick to serious comments everyone and respect your neighbours.  (And do not get old!)


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on September 20, 2013, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: BlueSky on September 19, 2013, 08:34:30 PM
Craig, I am actually in admiration of you using the river as a business venture yourself, please don't spoil it for other people. Peace will be on the River, please.


Not to resurrect an argument but how exactly would I spoil the river for others?


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on May 02, 2014, 11:29:29 AM
Has anyone heard anything more on the future of the Crown? 

There seems to be another painfully slow refurb going on which is always a worry.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Deborah on May 02, 2014, 06:59:05 PM
Several months ago I heard it was going to be an upmarket Indian restaurant.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on May 02, 2014, 08:57:37 PM
I had heard similar and wondered if that was related to the lease on The Rose being up for sale? 


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: Ratty on June 26, 2014, 09:58:48 AM
Is the state of the Crown a final two fingers up from the outgoing owners or a worrying indication of things to come with the new owners? It's not nice having an open tip in the middle of the village.


Title: Re: The Crown
Post by: craigvmax on June 26, 2014, 12:37:55 PM
Dare I say,it looked better with the wooden fence up!

Does anyone know whats happening with it?


Residents' Association Forum | Powered by SMF 1.0.7.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.