Residents' Association Forum

Some time back the block of garages behind the high st were for sale. Well actually about 8 of them with one being retained.

This drew my attention as I looked into buying them with some friends (with a view to using some of them and renting some out for storage or cars). 

They did need a little work to sort out but were not too bad.

We missed out as they ended up being sold without needing the right of way for cars... (hence why the 'other' buyer was a better proposition as we wanted to keep them as garages).

Turns out it went to a developer and here are the plans:
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2013/0923

For me its a shame as I think we still need garages but then again its not like these have been used in well over a year.

Thoughts from the rest?

A shame the garages couldn't be used as such given the problems with parking and lack of garaging in the area.
The access to them is still marked on the plans as vehicular access.
And three more properties with no parking in an area that is already struggling.

Not ideal.

Ah thats interesting - I did not spot that in the plans...

I just know what the agent told us - we were asking about the right of way (as the owner wanted to keep the nearest garage and the land in front of it which we would have to cross) - and got told the other offer did not need it.

tbh we were probably bidding a little too low but we didn't get a chance to raise the offer as tehy accepted the one from the developer.

But I can see how the land is a lot more valuable as housing than garages... 

Apart from the glaring error of no parking it looks like quite an attractive and carefully considered scheme.
All they need to do is lose on of the 3 houses and create 4 parking spaces and it would get my vote.
But that will probably lose them £250k in sale proceeds so unlikley me thinks.
Let's hope the Council see sense.

It does look quite attractive as shown.  Three more season tickets for Ashley Rd car park would be a good thing, as the car park is still under-used.........

Three houses with no parking on a small plot like this one doesn't sound great to me. These houses are likely to use the High Street for parking, placing further pressure there, and we also lose the potential to use the garages which again doesn't help parking on the High Street. I have heard there is a great demand for such garages in Thames Dittton so this is a real shame.  Three houses on this plot will feel very over crowded given the size of the plot, particular for the neighbours that live around this land. And it appears that you will look straight into the living room of these houses from the public footpath, as the wall along the path will be waist high? I also feel that this land and the garages have been left over the past year to become the eye sore it is now, so that people feel they want to accept the alternative being offered.

As a resident of Thames Ditton High Street, with no garage on our property I had frequently tried to rent one of these garages. On at least two occasions I was told there was a waiting list and that I would be added to it. This is either proof of the demand for these garages in the village or I would suggest a ploy while they were deliberately being run down. You only have to look at the Heritage Statement......... do they really think we are that gullible?

"It is also hoped that the proposals will seek to tidy the currently unkept and unused area of land within the village location with no detriment to the area."

Well I don't know if they were emptied when they were put up for sale - but when we looked at them to buy them (with a view to using some and renting some out, i.e. keep them as garages) the ones we saw were empty... 

The doors barely worked on some and the roofs on both blocks needed attention so I would be very surprised if people were using them for storage.

I did notice that people used to park in front of them but I assumed that was just shop owners etc? And then they put up a bollard to prevent this.

yup as I understand it they needed to be pulled down regardless of the future use

We also looked into this land with the potential to refurbish and rent the garages and had an offer accepted. It was then Gazumped by the agent for another higher offer, the current owner/developer.  We know for a fact that the area was effectively zoned for commercial usage and therefore you needed to prove that it wasn't as such used in this way to use it for residential purposes. We always felt that the owner put up the bollards in front of the area to prevent people using it and it became run down over the past year or so (perhaps deliberately?) so that a future residential application could be accepted.  This is only a view though. It is just a real shame when there is probably a demand for garage space and parking on the high street.  In any case it looks like the application has been refused for now by the Thames Ditton CAAC,which is good news, and they mention the parking issue.  However I guess the owners will now go back and rework the plans.

The Heritage statement is s bit of a joke as the land is definitely in a worse state than what it was a year or so back!

The CAAC only give their recommendations - the planners approval or refuse not the CAAC. 

I don't know all that much about planning issues, that makes sense though as it was a letter of representation from them.

On a general point relevant to this thread: I detect a groundswell among the Residents' councillors in Elmbridge against the current policy of the borough and county councils towards parking provision for new housing.  Currently the policy of the councils' ruling administrations is based on the idea of discouraging car use.... insufficient parking provision is seen as supporting that aim.  Residents however think increasingly that this is a daft policy, or at least needs adjustment.  The facts are that car ownership is indispensable to most people and that the cars owned have to be garaged or parked somewhere, irrespective of whether your car is used less, or more.

On that kind of argument, parking provision within the development of this site should be made there for new houses proposed.

Will this developer be lighting the pathways and provide better hardstanding down to the G and D?

I'm surprised it's taken this long!

FYI - This application was approved at the East Area Sub Committee level on Monday......

...and now there are new plans to introduce 'cinema rooms' in the basements of these buildings.  I guess they have to call them that, as there is virtually no natural light down there!  The design and access statement admits that they will in fact be kitchens.  There is a poorly described 'light well', which would only make the meagre gardens provided for these houses even smaller.  I guess people live in basement flats with less natural light though.  Plans are here:

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2013/4219

A bit cheeky. For "affordable" one bedroom houses either a cinema room or a large basement kitchen seem like an unnecessary extravagance. I can't imagine that the added value would justify the expense. However, were they to ultimately function as a second bedroom...

Throughout the years I've seen this more and more often, no provision for car parking due to the 'good transport links'. Who are they kidding, anyone likely to be able to buy one of the properties will no doubt have a car. Will they pay to park it in Ashley road car park? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. I would also suspect that despite being listed a single occupancy, with the price of properties these days more likely 2 persons, again with another car.
If you park in the high street now, be prepared to lose your place.

Midibob  >:(

Basement parking would be the sensible option, but this is the Council we are dealing with.

I liked someone elses suggestion and an easy and cheap 'win' for the developer. Buy a parking permit for each of the houses in Ashley Road car park - would the council 'sell' for example a 5 year permit that effectively belongs to the house?

The cost (when considering the profit they will make on the site) is negligible.