Residents' Association Forum

I saw the front page about the latest application for the Harrow site.  I looked again at the 14 flats in application 2006/2822 and the boring 7 houses in  2008/2555 and what the plans show now looks loads better than what they started with.  The Residents have done well to bring this about .

New plans to build six homes on the site: http://tinyurl.com/6jwf6v7

There's a new application in this long-running story: ref 2011/6418.

The developers' architects this time have made a substantial effort to take into account earlier reasons for rejection and seek permission to build three detached houses and a chalet bungalow (the first application was for a three-floor block of 14 flats and a subsequent one for nine-barracks-like houses, if I recall correctly.  Later proposals were for six houses of disproportionately overbearing character) .  Screening will be retained.

Your views?  My own personal view is that this new proposal is a runner.  It represents a very good example of why it is worth a sustained effort on the part of residents and the Association to resist inappropriate development.  Almost nobody wanted the Harrow and its bowling green to disappear, and the manner in which that was manipulated by the company owning it at the time was ruthless.  But while accepting the inevitability of residential development there, the opposition to earlier proposals has now produced a far, far better proposition than was originally the case; and subject to any detailed comments from those living near it, this time we may reach 'closure.'

..... however, after taking a much closer look, it seems that while the number of houses has been reduced, the remainder have grown in size!  Two of them are taller than the houses refused in earlier appeals for being overbearing in size and mass adjacent the common.  Another is taller than all neighbouring properties and almost as wide as the 2 houses proposed for the plot in the previous application.  So my initial optimistic view has changed.  It still looks better than the first few applications but it seems those clever developers have found a different way of squeezing a quart into a pint pot - and I am assured that the new application does not fairly reflect the consultations with residents and with the EBC Planning Staff.

What do others think?

Appeal now lodged against refusal of planning permission.......  Watch this space!

...and the appeal hearing is tomorrow at 10am, if anyone is interested.

Anyoen knwo how the Harrow appeal went?

Thanks - I've now read the judgement.  I guess that it was inevitable that the developer would get its planning permission in the end for what the inspector refers to as'previously developed land [PDL] within an existing urban area'

That's not what I'd describe it as, given that half the site is a former bowling green on the edge of the Green Belt, but such is life......

The Harrow is a long story, and while the judgment will not please everybody, particularly those affected by the giant chalet bungalow in the back,  the latest proposals that are now passed on appeal do represent a very significant improvement over the original ghastly development proposed by earlier developers some six years ago.

Some residents who prefer instant results may beef about the quite often protracted periods when reasoned objections result in a site lying fallow for a while; others may levy the charge of "NIMBY," but those of you who have followed this for a while will have seen planty of examples where the attrition results eventually in a much better outcome than would have been the case without it.  Apart from the Harrow, we have in recent years had far better outcomes on the former Cottage Hospital and even the long-dragged on affair of Hawkes' yard which gradually has resulted in improvement.  You may also have seen the latest indications , though not in our planning district, of improved proposals for the Seething Wells site.  This again followed the initial tussle when there were people aplenty saying "go on, let them do it, anything's better than what is there now," and others who took a firmer and further-sighted line.  The Boatman site is another example, and while the situation remains serious and fragile, there is hope that this protracted and very worthwhile battle will eventually, by a combination of pressures, produce a happier result.  The computer-generated image of what Gladedale's dreadful flats will look like, fronting the palace across the river, must surely have shaken all but the most philistine observers.

It may not be over yet...

A new application has appeared on EBC website planning ref 2012/4550

It appears they want to increase the height of the houses again!  There are other changes additions and amendments that are less than helpful!

Will try and do a more detailed review over the weekend

Yes I gather that having pocketed the Inspector's appeal decision, they are now reverting to an earlier feature that was turned down: to increase the height of the houses now approved.  No doubt they hope that the appetite for objection has diminished.

This I am afraid is a typical "ratchet approach" by some - alas, many - developers.  We look forward to your brief, Montreux.

got to grips with it now.

There are two new applications 2012/4549 and 2012/4550

2012/4549 includes Planting, Screening, 2nd floor overlooking Velux windows details, bin sighting and paving.

As this currently stands this need to be objected to as:


Bin storage areas and composting devices have been moved to areas which will surely cause problems to neighbours eg within 10 metres of kitchens

velux windows are being included at a height from floor level of just 1.1m making overlooking guaranteed contrary to guidance

new trees that may grow to a height in excess of 20 metres will block out light to neighbouring gardens

it should be noted the "planting scheme " includes a huge amount of paving in fact this once c50% green site will surely end up less than 25% green

also some of the paved areas to the north of plot 4 will require ground works which will seriously damage the ground root system to the large prominent saved tree - sadly this tree will surely be lost 

we should also be concerned that the promised screening of the houses to the south has failed to materialise in any substantive form


2012/4550

More simple.  As part of 2011/6418 rejected by EBC two houses facing Weston Green Road (plots 1&2) were designed as 9.45m above GFL making 9.7m from ground level.  As part of the appeal process and done at the last moment these were reduced to 8.9m from GFL.  The appeal was allowed and now the developer wants to reinstate to the previous height.  forum guidelines preclude me from using the expressions I should like to!

As they currently stand we must object in numbers to both.


As and when these properties are built I do think it would useful to view them and see how destructive backland development can be and how vigilant we all must be if we are going to try and prevent Thames Ditton losing forever its identity and becoming much like some of those other under-planned and over-developed boroughs.

Thanks 'Montreux', those observations will really help inform residents' objections.

Thanks for the quick and detailed brief.  Flagged up on home page headlines.

I think it is important that residents object to this application.  While to some, the raising of the heights of the houses already approved on appeal will seem a minor detail, in fact it is of importance because:
- earlier applications were refused partly because of this element
- the Inspector upheld those objections
- the applicant has purposely waited until an application without that element was approved on appeal
- the applicant now wants to reinstate an element which, if it had been honestly included in the previous (approved) plan, would have made rejection of that plan on appeal likely

This ratchet approach is I think to be resisted.

The Association will be objecting and as this matter is likely to go through the EBC committee and probably to appeal, if rejected, others who wish to make their own submissions are encouraged to do so.  Montreux above has outlined the grounds.  Objectors should cite the earlier refusals and appeal judgments  on the basis of height and mass.  I'm sure that Montreux will be able to provide references and exact quotations from the all-important documents during the earlier process.

Hi is there anyway that someone could put a link onto this thread so that I can click on it and get to the objection page at the council.  (like the link that the person put about objecting to the Hampton Court Station development)  I don't know how to object to developments without a good link.

The planning reference is: 2012/4550

Link is: http://www2.elmbridge.gov.uk/Planet/ispforms.asp?serviceKey=SysDoc-PlanetApplicationEnquiry

For online submissions, the closing date is end of tomorrow 31 January.  After that, send submissions by email to tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk.  In the email you need to state your name and address, the planning application reference 2012/4550, and the reason for your objection.

The Planning Inspector's decision is here (http://residents-association.com/pdfs/Harrow_decision.pdf).  Planning Inspector mentions heights in para 22 and places a condition (condition 7).  Note the last sentence “a high and deep building so close to the greenbelt....”. The height for plots 1 and 2 was 9m. If they were refused at 9m in 2009, how can they be approved under the new plans at 9.5m? They were also refused by EBC on height. The depth on plot 1 (new application) is only 1m less than 2009/1827

Application refused by sub committee on the grounds that an increase in ridge height would harm the setting of the green belt.

Good.  Although to anyone who hasn't followed the saga in detail this might seem a small matter, it is important that the basic principle behind the Inspector's rejection of earlier appeals continues to be upheld.  Let's hope that the developers now get on with the application as approved, and don't keep trying to claw back things that were rejected.  This tussle has gone on far too long in my view.

The Harrow was demolished today

Sad. With the bowling green a loss to these villages and to our history.

Perhaps a bowling green can be repositioned in the Home of Compassion for both their residents and village residents use, if they want support from us, they will have to start proposing such things.

In terms of the plough, TD had too many pubs and still does, I think the Crown will will be the next to fall or perhaps the old cricketers, can we have a cafe rouge maybe?

The Crown/Ba Siam has been shut for some time and Cafe rouge Esher is about a mile away.

Buildings close to being finished but several things not in accordance with approved plans which at appeal were used to convince the Inspector that there were no overlooking issues.  Trouble for future owners since alterations may well have to be made.

For all those interested the developer has put in a planning application for "all" those parts of the build not in line with the planning approval.

This can be viewed by entering 2014/3237 here http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/online.htm

Through this planning application they are attempting to get the Planning Inspectorate ruling at appeal changed see 2011/6418

A few neighbours have already noted their objections to this scandalous approach which as one has noted will set a disastrous precedent that must be opposed strenuously.

More details to follow, but the major objections would mention the above but should also note that the original concern was over the scale/size of windows in plots 3 and 4) and by their nature allowing overlooking.  The appeal was presented with plans that allayed these fears, and were therefore material to the appeal decision.  What has been built is not in line with these plans and there reintroduces all these concerns.

It would appear that in their "wisdom" EBC have notified just 8 properties of this application.

This seems quite strange, sad and at the same time disturbing since respondents to previous applications on this site numbered more than 50.  Lets hope they get to hear of it.

On a lighter note it should be noted that 4 of the 8 above are to the soon to be finished houses.  Lets hope the "owner/developer" doesn't get a vote!