Residents' Association Forum

You should look at a new planning application to fill in the gap (former house demolished long ago) between Maison Bleu and Lunch.  Interesting three story design.  Some questions begged.  Planning ref is 2012/4026 and the planning documents are here:  http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2012/4026

Views?

I think its a reasonable design, nothing cutting edge or revolutionary (maybe in an effort to be sympathetic to surroundings) and I'm probably unpopular in saying that I quite like the juxtapose of this with the traditional buildings.

However, before being for or against, I'd be interested to know how it would potentially affect it's immediate neighbours as it would clearly have the most impact on them.

anyone else?

Not sure of the relevance of the 'communal garden' and bike racks in this proposal as that doesn't seem to form part of the site itself. And a bit disingenuous to say that parking is available in the car park so no parking spaces are required. It's still another property on the High St with no dedicated parking which will potentially add to the parking burden.

Looks a bit large for the space to me. However, it may well add to the street scene if it's done well and, as said above, it depends on what the immediate neighbours think

I am concerned that once the shock of the new has worn off this sort of design will soon look dated and out of place.

I was immediately reminded of Forge House on Kingston High Street and 67-69 Maple Road in Surbiton which stand out for just this reason. Of course, it is all subjective.

[img width=500 height=431]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/ScreenShot2012-12-03at194146.png[/img]
*

[img width=500 height=259]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/ScreenShot2012-12-03at192347.png[/img]
(c) 2012 Google

[img width=500 height=409]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/ScreenShot2012-12-03at192739.png[/img]
(c) 2012 Google

* I have spoken with the planning department at Elmbridge Borough Council and they agreed that it is fair to use this image as it forms part of a document that has been submitted for public viewing. The full document may be viewed here: http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2012/4026

This is a sensible plot to build on, being the site of a previous building which appears to have been derelict for some time.  

Nevertheless. I'd be inclined to agree with Ratty, and his excellent examples of similar buildings.  There are two types of building that would work in the plot.  One of those would be something that is designed to fit in and respect the other buildings in the conservation area in a traditional manner.  The other type would be contemporary, but truly exceptional.  In my opinion, this is neither.  

Bloody hell I hadn't looked at those renderings quite so closely, ignore what I said earlier, if anything like that, 
then in the words of Bannatyne.. I'm out!

Curious - anyone know how much the land sold for?

I agree - it looks out of keeping with the surrounding buildings.

I'm in favour of the land being used and I think from a footprint perspective this is a sensible and interesting use of the land  - including some good green/sustainable energy options. 
However I fall into the Rhodrich camp, its visual appearance in my opinion has either got to be something that sits and fits comfortably into the 'traditional' conversation street scene or utterly cutting edge. Not, as identified by Ratty, as something that could quickly look out of place. 

The problem is whoever utterly and irresponsibly destroyed the facade of the neighboring Victorian terrace (housing Maison Blu and the wedding dress shop) with those truly awful and inappropriate windows (and the rest), has both weakened the street scene and potentially set a precedent threshold for lower quality 'infill' design for the site that may otherwise not have been the case. 

It's the same developer who did 2 Ashley Road (currently for sale for 1.35 million!).  That one had a checkered planning history and imo, the house there looks out of character - flat and lacking any architectural feature (e.g. a bay window) - compared with the other Edwardian houses that surround it on the rest of the road.

The Lunch/Maison Bleu one is on a very prominent corner being on the roundabout as you enter TD and I do hope it doesn't end up looking like the office pictures Ratty posted- truly ghastly!

Thank you ! 

I am glad I am not the only one who looks at the house on the corner of Ashley Road and Church walk and thinks what have they done there???

I'm sure it will sell eventually but it must put off prospective buyers ?

The 2 Ashley Road design started off very much in character with the rest of the street - with an Edwardian design not dissimilar to the two very nice sets of semi's next door to it. Unfortunately however (and in my opinion) the locally misled and vitriolic campaign against this application meant the builder/developer eventually achieved a similar sq ft building by stealth (with subsequent applications building on the last). Resulting in a building - though not wholly unpleasant - certainly not to the quality of design or aesthetics of the original application and a missed opportunity for the village.

This new application for the High Street should take its designs cues from the existing local architecture - and not that of the 1980's (as all agreed). There are some good examples of tall slim buildings in TD that could be used as a design concept that will keep it relevant and in keeping with the surroundings. The lovely old three storey house opposite The Swan would be a good starting point. 

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

Something that needs clearing up:
On the site is a notice referring to the "Residents Committee" and, together with the inclusion by the applicant of an outline plan for the community area in front of their property, this seems intended to give the impression that the Association is in some way associated with the application or has endorsed it.

That is not the case.  The RA is in no way connected with the application, which is being treated like any other.  There is disquiet and a response is under consideration - first by the Conservation Area Advisory Committee.

In the 1980s the Association tidied the public part of the site and put the planters there in the 1980s and has kept an eye on it since.  We have retained a strong interest in the community area and some members this year have been looking at ways we might refurbish it; and a plan has been volunteered.  This is an entirely separate matter.

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

It's not unknown for developers to approach the Association for residents' views before an application goes in.  This can be a problem.  Obviously, it makes sense for an applicant to take the trouble to get an application right that will go through without difficulties.  But I am afraid that more often, what happens is that they pay only cursory attention to any preliminary consultation, then go right ahead with an unsuitable plan which most certainly does not have any endorsement, and phrase their application so that "consultation with the residents" implies the residents agree.  Therefore we have to proceed with great care to make it clear that while consultation may be sensible and is not discouraged, there can be no question of endorsement and any eventual application will be looked at separately on its merits when it is made and not before.

Occasionally it works - caring Homes' first application was one example; and PVK & Simon Foster's approaches to residents before the revised (and acceptable) scheme for  the Old Bakery complex was finalised.  That was pretty fair.

Having read a bit more of the application, there are some other interesting points:

The design document sets the context of the development as being a 'self build' for the developer and his wife to live in, a nice story to go with the application.  The relevance to planning should be nil but such statements are designed to influence opinion during the consultation process.  

The applicant is seeking to limit the Section 106 charge (to pay a fee to the local community) due to the site being difficult to work with.

There are four trees mentioned on the application, 2 of which the developer wishes to remove, 2 to replace.  These trees are actually not belonging to the site itself but are on neighbouring property.  Surely permission is required from the landowner of this?  The development itself completely uses the full extent of the plot for building i.e. there is no outside space except the roof garden.  This would be quite intrusive for properties bordering the site.

The site has no provision for parking - the parking outside is already limited and should be used for people visiting shops like Lunch/Maison Bleu.  Access for the development itself will be difficult.

The plans mention cycle provision at the front of the site with other landscaping and a communal area.  This is not part of the application, probably forms part of the public highway and would need to be done under a separate application (which I doubt would ever be lodged).

I do welcome redevelopment of the site.  I personally believe it would be better for Thames Ditton to have a commercial unit at the ground floor with flat above.  I feel the render will end up looking like Ratty's pictures above - like an 80s office block and should be more in keeping with the surrounding buildings/architecture.  The site is in a very prominent position when approaching Thames Ditton so it is important to get this right.

Closing dates for the consultation is 21 December 2012.

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

Of the arguments I've seen so far here and elsewhere, I think peter's point about the building being in a very prominent situation at one of the gateways into the village is a good one; also that for a sizeable  "family house" there's no recreation area for the family unless it's in that glass erection on the roof.

I don't yet know what the CAAC's views are.

Tastes alone are not likely to lend enough weight to objection; it will be hard planning arguments based on Elmbridge's own guidelines that will count; of which the context in the conservation area, and proximity to listed buildings (several), should carry some weight.

My OBJECTION to Planning Application 2012/4026 (emailed to tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk)

I wish to object to the Planning Application on the following basis:
BUILDING
The character and visual identity of the building is surprising, as it very reminiscent of 1980's (mainly commercial) 'vernacular post-modernism' architecture. I can imagine that sensitivity to 'historic qualities' may be viewed as important when designing for a 'Conservation Area' in a place such as Thames Ditton, but 'the 80's'? 

'COMMUNAL GARDEN'
There are several reasons which form the basis of my particular objection to this part of the application:
         -  Consultation
         -  Information on Drawings
         -  Design and Detail

CONSULTATION - There is a sign on the site declaring  "Communal Piazza by PRP Arch. & Residents Committee". I have sought advice and information from the TD & WG Residents Association to clarify the meaning of this and have been informed via residents-association.com Forum that the " Residents Association is in no way connected with the application". I therefore believe that part of the information on the sign may be misleading.

This is further complicated by notes on  Drawing No 1532613 Plan-  Proposed Site Plan titled 'Landscape Consultation' stating that 'Proposed Communal Garden by Others - Consultation Sought for Design & Access' and ' Indicative Outline Scheme Extends in Commentary / Consultation to Residents, Residents Group and PRP Architects'. 

I also believe part of these statements to be misleading. I am a resident, have attended Residents Association meetings, reviewed both printed and online media generated by the Association, and have heard nothing of this proposal. I strongly support public consultation and engagement, particularly when a proposal is for public land, and believe that the use of the term 'Residents Group' in association with the title of the drawing is misleading.

DRAWING INFORMATION - The lack of clarity of the drawn information presented on the two drawings is baffling. I assume, from the absence of 'baseline data', that this drawing was not generated from a professional site survey, nor indeed any site visit at all, as an existing gulley, bollards and lamp standard have all been overlooked.

The drawing has no scale, nor is marked 'Not to Scale' as is the convention, and the use of a 'Letraset style' Tree Stamp to denote everything from 'Specimen' trees to  'Sedum Roof' on bin store lids is quite the stuff of 'Alices Adventures...' Similarly, the opportunity for revealing more about the proposal has been overlooked by excluding any representation of the external space from the 'Street-scene Sketches'.

Of course the most useful piece of information that has been omitted is the land ownership boundaries, without which none of the information can be considered.

DESIGN  & DETAIL
Remarkably, and perhaps revealing some preoccupation with later Twentieth century design vocabularies, the proposal for the 'communal garden' shown on the plan includes 1970's regular curved benches ? And the purpose of the area, despite declarations about 'tables and chairs' seems more of an inward looking space to contemplate many and various ways of arranging bins !

Of course there will be a lot of bins to accommodate. There are seven on site already, plus those stored behind the fence at the side of 'Lunch'. In addition to this area, the  proposal shows just seven bins, as currently exists, but not  the additional bins that the proposal for a residential building will generate. Its a shame that the proposal didn't also include a new bin for public recycling, which would have been of use for people using the seats and eating their lunch.

Generally, I understand that it is typical for a proposal for external space to only include an 'outline' of the proposal, (general configuration, indicative materials and levels, etc.). However, the information included on this drawing, I would suggest, falls far short of this measure and includes significant errors and oversights:

I) Levels - The indicative levels describe a flat area, which is totally inappropriate considering it lies within the 100 year floodplain.  At the corner of Lunch there appears to be the requirement for a step or ramp and in fact the whole area appears to drain back from pavement level 101.537 to face of Lunch at 101.53-101. 
ii) Accessibility - There is also a note on the drawing describing 'Permeable' access between the bench seats, which I believe is not wide enough for a wheelchair to pass through, and as a result would not comply with DDA Part M
iii) Planting - The varying proposals for including planting in 'planters' (raised beds?)  of unspecified heights, some without edging and others of a configuration that would only accommodate a ' specimen tree' with some significant underground engineering is inappropriate. In my experience, 'specimens trees', which are usually considered to be larger than 'standard, heavy-standard' or 'advanced nursery stock' ( the conventional terms for commonly available nursery stock) are unlikely to survive in 'raised beds' and require some serious drainage, and underground guying to do so. Of course, as I have suggested already, it is unlikely that the beds would accommodate the root-balls at all ! 
iv) Surfacing - The extent of the proposed surfacing is unclear, especially considering the proposal to include bicycle stands, which should have alerted the designer for a definition of the continued surface around from the pavement to the front of the new building ! I would also suggest that some indication of material would have been useful, as in my experience only 'poured' or 'loose' materials can be used to achieve the complex curve margins shown on the drawing.

Of course, as this is 'public realm', some indication of any lighting, signage and drainage fittings would also have been useful.

CONCLUSION
I am very concerned that the impact of poor design and delivery on both public and private land is having adverse affect on public realm, as evidenced most recently by Hawkes Yard, also off the High Street. The application for the building and 'communal space' is an important (visible, village-central) opportunity to demonstrate a commitment from Elmbridge to reversing this trend. I would suggest that the production of drawings for the public area by a CMLI Landscape Architect should be considered to overcome the problems of inappropriate and flawed proposals like this one and set a new standard to secure the evolution of the public realm into the future.

That's a very weighty and considered objection, leafy.  Commendable.

I might add that English Heritage has listed the Thames Ditton Conservation Area as one of two conservation areas in Elmbridge which are 'at risk' through deterioration - on the current EBC Administration's watch (the other is Brooklands)

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

Leafy
what a comprehensive document. This report surely will force the planners to re-think the project. Great to see that we have an expert in our midst. Keep up the good work 

......pictures of house up ! (new display curiously appears on site wall !)

almost like a commercial development then

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

I note that she comments that some people support them/the development?

....and what went on here ?

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Other%20Documents-1563805.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1563805&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=12

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

This is very revealing and very interesting. 

See also:
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Consultation%20Response-1560318.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1560318&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=3 (early RA response)

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Letters%20of%20Representation%20-%20Comment-1566440.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1566440&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1  (Conservation Area Advisory Cttee)

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Letters%20of%20Representation%20-%20Object-1560332.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1560332&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1  (PRP Architects who have been very helpful pro bono)

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

IF I were to be building a townhouse for my family I definitelty wouldn't want some kind of mini piazza out the front of it that will attract Abercrombie & Fitch TD youths drinking from cans (apologies for stereotypes, but it's true).  

I am working my way through the letters of objection etc. as I write.  I have just come across a letter from Anna Paziouk, the wife of the applicant, in which she writes:

"We have also met the Peter Hickman of Surrey County Council / The residents forum and Tom Delhanty of PRP Architect before formally applying for permission and it appears like we got to an agreement to coordinate the quality design to make the building and landscape around the house to look remarkably better at this important urban area."

Given the mention of "the residents forum" I must state categorically for the record that at no time have I met Ms Paziouk, her husband or their architects (Visionary Architects Ltd)  nor have I discussed the proposed development with any of the applicants or their representatives.  Nor am I aware of any participant in this forum who, in the name of the forum, has done so either.

Before this post: http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=821.msg9275#msg9275  I checked with Peter Hickman, Andrew Roberts (who, as our Highways convenor, has been looking at how we could smarten up the communal area, the hexagon, and the area by the bus-stop), and Graham Cooke our planning convenor that nobody had given endorsement to the proposed plans for the building in the name of the Association or the CAAC.  Nor was anyone entitled to do so, as the matter had at that time  nowhere been discussed by those bodies.

See this link (http://www.creditgate.com/company_information/sutton+hillside+developments+ltd.aspx): but in the case of the present development I do not see the same (Sutton Hillside) development company mentioned

I've sent in my own objection.

No, I can't find any mention of the development company in connection with this application.

As peter rightly comments, the application (as always) will stand or fall on whether it is deemed to comply sufficiently, or not, with planning guidelines particularly those of the conservation area.  I note that the EBC conservation officer has responded, but has not taken a firm position.

Text if you are interested is below:
"I wish to object to the new building proposed in application 2012/4026 Land Adjacent To 55 High Street Thames Ditton.
I have no objection to a building there, whether shop, office or in this case residential, provided that the building is appropriate and enhances the look of the conservation area.  I would point out that this conservation area has been lately listed by English Heritage as "at risk" through inadequate attention to its appearance and consistency.

EBC Core Strategy 2011: 
CS8 states: "new development will be well designed and contribute to local character and a distinct sense of place.  Specific attention to design and heritage will be given within the ... conservation areas" which include Thames Ditton;  I note the use of the unequivocal "will".  
CS12: "Particular attention should be given to any development that would have a significant influence on the character and environment of the Thames Ditton Village.....Conservation Area."  

The new design proposed might look in place in a post-war urban landscape, but it does not look in place in this old part of Thames Ditton.  Nor is it of sufficient groundbreaking merit as a new design to qualify as an exception on that ground, the more so as it would be attached to the adjacent old  building.

Of Saved Policies in the Local Plan which remain current:

ENV1 states that "the Council will seek to protect and enhance the Borough's character and environment and seek to ensure that new development does not have a materially detrimental effect on the character and environment. 
All development should therefore: 
(i) have regard to the scale, character and materials of existing development in the locality and be worthy of, or enhance, its setting;"

The proposed angular new building does not protect, still less enhance, the character of this conserved part of the Borough

ENV2 (standard of design) states that "in order to protect and enhance the appearance of the area and local amenity, all new development throughout 
the borough should achieve a standard of design which is sensitive to the character of the surrounding area, and which: 
(v) in terms of its form and design, reinforces existing visual characteristics and important features."

The current proposal does not reinforce existing visual characteristics.

Concerning the setting of a listed building - and this site affects the immediate setting of two nationally listed buildings and several locally listed ones::

HEN7 states that "proposals for development will only be permitted if they; 
(i) do not harm the setting of a listed building; "

8.16. elaborates:
"the setting of a listed building .... may often include land some distance from it and may encompass several other properties or even an entire street. The setting of an individual building often owes its character to the harmony produced by a group of buildings and to the quality of the spaces between them. Such areas require careful appraisal when proposals for development are under consideration"

The angular new proposal does not harmonise with this setting.

HEN 9 states that permission will not be given when it would "lead to intrusive or damaging features in the conservation area"
HEN 11 states "all new development within a conservation area should preserve or enhance the character or appearance or setting of the conservation area" and that "significant views within, into and out of the area are safeguarded; "

The angular, 'modern' styling intrudes on the conservation area, and moreover in one of the key viewpoints of the conservation area: the entrance to it from St Leonard's Road.  The proposed building is in a highly prominent situation.


In the recent Conservation Area Appraisal for Thames Ditton:

Appendix 1: Guidelines for New Development 
Contextual Design 

"All development, but especially that in conservation areas, must respond to its immediate environment, its ‘context’, in terms of scale, form, materials and detailing.
and
"The emphasis in any new development or alterations must be on the need to provide a high quality of design. This could be modern design, providing a contemporary statement, or, more generally in historic areas, a traditional design solution.

In this historic area a traditional design solution would be welcomed.  Again I note that the proposed building is not free-standing, but attached to a building of very different character.

The issues here are whether the Council as planning authority takes its own guidelines seriously, or not.
"

I'm told that Peter Hickman has also written to the applicants emphasising that at no time did he give endorsement to the proposal for the building as it stands, and that in his view they have misrepresented the truth.  He has asked that Anna Paziouk's submission be withdrawn. 

As noted in earlier posts, the application stands or falls on the planning arguments and not on the atmospherics, though they make a fine old row!. 

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

agreed very interesting

Everybody has the right to put forward their views as part of the consultation process.  Whether you are a tenant or an owner is irrelevant.  It also does not even matter if you live in the village, you can still express your opinions.  The Planning Department should assess the application based on saved policies.

I agree with Peter. The fact that the applicant's business partner (which he neglectfully fails to mention in his submission) has had to resort to such ad-hominem attacks on the objectors would merely suggest to me that he's failed on the planning arguments for the proposal.
As for calling us the 'resident's troll site', it's just laughable!

Gosh, someone got their knickers in a twist, didn't they? I expect it was all the foot stamping that caused it.

Dear MTG, as others have said you have just as much right to comment/object as anyone else, and IMO it is bordering on the offensive to suggest otherwise.

The worrying thing though is that so much of that latest submission was in CAPITAL LETTERS the planners ARE BOUND to take more notice of it, AREN'T THEY?  ;)

I am inclined to take his latest outburst with a large pinch of salt. 

The same person belittled an objection to the planning proposals for the two storey development of 2 Ashley Road (http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2011/5847) that had suggested extra rooms would be added into the roof space? See link: http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Letters%20of%20Representation%20-%20Comment-989711.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=989711&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=2[/url]

Yet the marketing materials show that this is exactly what transpired with an extra bedroom and bathroom built in the roof space:  [url]http://photos.mouseprice.com/Media/webdadi/WEB/_10/06_/TD0/026/FA_/FLP/_00/WEB_1006_TD0026FA_FLP_00.jpg

This justifies local residents casting a cynical eye over planning proposals for new developments. JMHO.

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

A resident is a resident. Tenant or owner, doesnt matter. 

I'd say that support letter sent in is so clearly biased that the planners will overlook it.

It looks like the developers have tried to show they have had support from a number of places where it turns out they haven't.  Seems to have backfired, drawn attention to the plan and alienated a lot of people who would'nt have paid it much attention normally.

Yes.

There are enough objections to ensure that this application comes before the East Area Planning Committee.  The next meetings are on 28 Jan and 18 Feb and this application is not yet on the agenda for either; neither has the planning officer written his report and recommendation as yet.

I can't understand these people who object - it's an improvement to the area, surely.

Has anyone got to the bottom of the CIL payments and whether they can be used in TD. And if nt, why not??

People, why we are in a recession!

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

"Visionary Architects"  "considering the whole client's front-end business case at inception with the feasibility of project direction; this leads to the design led solution achieving the client's objectives" 

Examples of vision: http://www.visionaryarchitects.com/docs/designbuild.htm

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

The question is decided on planning considerations and the planning officers and committee pay no attention to atmospheric statements such as the applicant made concerning who is going to live there, or for how long.  Their highlighting that doesn't affect the application but has merely served to focus close attention on the applicants rather than on the application.

Post deleted at request of member who has left forum - Admin

Admin, earlier this morning

(http://www.davidsanger.com/images/belgium/8-741-2226.bruges.m.jpg)

LOL.  The harp is a wonderful sweet instrument....

sorry, couldnt resist

Officer recommends refusal. 

The proposal would not provide a level and type of amenity space which is commensurate
with a three-bedroom dwelling in this location and would therefore fail to provide for the needs
of future occupiers, especially families. The application is therefore contrary to Saved Policy
HSG16 of the Replacement Elmbridge Borough Local Plan 2000, the Design and Character
Supplementary Planning Document and the NPPF

interesting, thank you for the update HC

Application refused at sub committee  for the reason above, plus the fact that the building would be harmful to the street scene and to the setting of nearby listed buildings, on the grounds of scale, design, and materials.

Let's hope a more suitable design is now submitted.  

That seems fair enough.  It seems that few if any object in principle to a building there, as long as it fits in better, although the problems of the site (access, footprint) are hefty.  I hope a new application addresses planning concerns constructively, and without the atmospherics which clouded this one.

New application now received for this site, but no details as yet. 

Application ref is 2013/1128

thanks for the headsup

Documents now online, for what is essentially a resubmission of the previous scheme.

punchy opening letter from the architects!

I can't see that the resubmission addresses meaningfully the second reason for refusal of the earlier application, namely (I quote from the EBC Decision Notice):

"The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale, design and materials, particularly in this prominent location, would be harmful to the streetscene, the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings contrary to saved policies ENV2, HSG16 and HEN11 of the Replacement Elmbridge Borough Local Plan 2000, CS8 and CS17 of the Core Strategy, the NPPF and the design and Character SPD."

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

While remaining parts of the 2000 Local Plan are in the process of being replaced by the documents currently under consultation,  the other parts have been replaced by the fresh and current Core Strategy approved by the Secretary of State,  and the Design and Character SPD was approved by Elmbridge only last year.  Quite rightly, Conservation Areas still enjoy a greater measure of protection than other areas even under the new National Planning Policy Framework.

The artists' impression of the detailed facade of the new building that was part of the first submission does not appear to have been included with the resubmission.  It is here: http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans-1532628.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1532628&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1  Are there any changes in that?

22 May is the date by which objections (or endorsements) should be submitted.

Just to let interested parties know that online replies can be logged up until the 22 May and then by email after that. So far, only one reply. 

I received a notification letter from the council today stating that an appeal to the Secretary of State has now been lodged.

Would this supercede the recent re-application, i.e. if the re-application is granted permission but the appeal fails or vice-versa which would be enforceable?

Thanks, in advance.

2013/1128 was validated on 19 March and should be determined within eight weeks and the appeal was validated on 2nd May and will take eight weeks or so. In theory the new application should be determined before the appeal. Each are separate processes. If anyone wants to make representations on the application they should do so. My guess is that the appeal will be decided on written representations already with Elmbridge so you can't make any new reps to the PI.  

It is always possible that the appeal and the application have different outcomes. If the application was permitted I would expect the applicant to withdraw the appeal.  Hope this makes sense and I'm no expert. 

I note that this was rejected for the same reasons as last time - lack of amenity space. By late July we should have the inspector's verdict. 

i didnt look at this in depth but did they just resubmit it with virtually no changes?

There were some changes noted in the officer report.  

understood, thank you

The EBC Decision Notice may be downloaded here:
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Decision%20Notice-1699181.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1699181&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=3

Reasons given in the notice for refusal of this application were:
"1.  The proposal would not provide a level and type of amenity space which is commensurate with a three-bedroom dwelling in this location and would therefore fail to provide for the needs of future occupiers, especially families.  As such, the proposal is contrary to saved Policy HSG16 of the Replacement Elmbriudge Borough Local Plan 2000, the design and Character Supplementary Planning Document and the NPPF

2.  The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale, design and materials, particularly in this prominent location, would be harmful to the streetscene, the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings contrary to saved policies ENV2, HSG16 and HEN 11 of the replacement Elmbridge Borough Local Plan 2000, CS8 and CS17 of the Core Strategy, the NPPF and the Design and Character SPD.

3.  The obscure glazed Juliet balconies to serve bedrooms is not a satisfactory design for future occupiers being the only source of light.  As such, the proposal is contrary to saved Policy HSG16 of the Replacement Elmbridge Borough Local Plan 3000, the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document and the NPPF."

Does anyone know the outcome of yesterday's hearing?

Ratty, it will take the inspector a while to reply. I forgot the maximum period, possibly 4-6 weeks. 

The appeal has been allowed and planning permission has now been granted. 

The planning inspector writes, "I conclude that the design, massing, form and appearance of both schemes would provide an appropriate addition to this conservation area. In relation to the dilapidated building that currently occupies the site, the proposals would represent a marked improvement. Therefore, I conclude that the proposals would enhance the character and  appearance of the conservation area."

interesting development, quite surprised actually.

Yup, doesn't set a great precedent for dilapidated buildings in the area.

Plans have now been submitted for the discharge of conditions attached to the grant of planning permission: 2014/0171 for materials, and 2014/0140 for the construction method statement.

It appears that the the applicants are going back to their original proposal of using zinc cladding for the roofing (and presumably under the oriel window), plus aluminium for the windows and door.  These materials were rejected by the conservation officer in the original application as being inappropriate for the conservation area......

The construction method statement is also most troubling, as they are proposing to close the pavement outside the site for deliveries and erect barriers outside Emma at home.  Unsurprisingly, she has already objected.  Documents below:
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2014/0140

It's difficult to think of a suitable alternative, but it looks like if this gets approved, it's not going to help any of the businesses at that end of the High Street.

I couldn't see anywhere which said whether these pavement closures were now-and-then-as-necessary or for the whole time of construction (estimated 10 months!)

I could understand that they might be necessary on occasion but if they are for the whole period then disrupting half the village for that length of time is unacceptable to both residents and businesses.

As if the residents on the island, don't have enough to contend with the plans to build the house next to Emma @ home involve closing the pavement entirely. This will not only cut off the north side of the village from the high street but will have an enormous impact on Emma's fledging business. The plans involve blocking the parking spaces in front of the cottages. 2014/0140 is the planning application. Also worth noting that the caring home application involves shutting the pavement opposite which makes the whole thing not only hugely inconvenient for residents and visitors to the village but also dangerous.  If you have concerns then please contact the planning officers. 

This is a good point.  I doubt that the planning officers are connecting the requested closure of the pavement on the Lunch/Emma side with the separate requested closure on the HOC side.

I thought I saw the hoardings going up, but they seem to have disappeared now?

hoarding is still up, something is happening in there presumably. It looks like an interesting building and at last a refreshing contrast to the "bland" detached houses especially in Speer Road / elsewhere.

Does anyone know, what's going to happen to Mehras in the high street? 

I personally dislike the design of the building and seriously question the merits of the application being passed.  However, I am firmly of the view that once the planning has been granted we should work together as a community to make the best of the situation.
I am thankfully not involved in the petty politics that seems to flourish in our village and, whilst there are always 2 sides to any story, the behaviour of some people over this site is reprehensible and are the sort of ugly behaviours that summarise all that is wrong in our society.
The end.

From chatting to some members of the RA on Sunday morning who were weeding and tidying the site, and removing the rubble that had been dumped there by the developers, I'd be inclined to agree with you TD.  The actions of the developers were less than exemplary.

My understanding is that the plot of land in front of the site does not belong to the developers, but was built by the RA, and has been tended by them as a community garden for over 30 years.  They had setup a meeting with the developer to ensure that the site was returned to this state following the build, and not simply demolished and turned into a car parking space, but the developer jumped the gun, and without having any sort of agreement in place hoarded off the site, damaging the paving slabs, and dumping rubble all over it.

I'm not entirely sure who then dismantled the hoarding, but I certainly wouldn't be happy if someone were to annex my garden without my permission, dumping rubble all over it, and without having any agreement in place to return it to it's previous state once the build was done!

That's terrible. Very poor show indeed.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=818014031543050&set=a.703451146332673.1073741835.350182988326159&type=1&theater

Were I the freeholder, this would sorely tempt me not to sign the party wall agreement.

Have the issues been resolved? I noticed the hoardings are back up and work seems to be underway behind them.

There is a big placard up on the hoardings advertising a competition to redesign the communal area. 

Is this being done in partnership with the RA or further machinations by the Agents of Skyview?

I seem to remember the RA already had plans for the area through pro bono work provided by PRP architects?

I see permission has been refused for the public place. Hard to argue with the officer's recommendation.  

Hi HC, do you have a link? Thanks.

Can't link to it but the officer report is listed under the application 2014/3739. Main problem is the bin store.