I went to look at the presentation Monday 7th December.  What are your thoughts?

They plan to squeeze 30 homes various sizes onto the site of the old Police Traffic office and car park / garage with just 35 parking spaces, some under a central pond.  Legal requirement is for 50% "affordable housing" but they will pay as there is none.  Most homes require parking for two cars so new residents will grab spaces in Station Road, Plevna Road, The Avenue etc, forcing us to revisit residents permits at our cost.  The site is not high enough above river level for an underground car park, the rather austere flat-roofed building they propose to build on Station Road adjacent to the existing 'Old Police Station' will block the iconic view from the High Street.

I discussed this with the architects from Reading.  They've worked with the chap on just one house conversion in Streatham before.  The developer, whom I also met, is in his early thirties, stands behind a new company created specially for this project and looks and sounds like a very aggressive estate agent.  At the presentation his main focus was on selling the houses and flats to the people there as hard as possible.  The usual hook: flatter and distract from issues.

The planning proposal doesn't seem to be on Richmond's website yet, if you find it let me know.  It will take about two years to build and requires extensive groundwork first to comply with environment laws due to former "contaminated" use (automatically assumed with all garages).

If you haven't heard of the development or seent the presentation materials I very much recommend that you stay alert and have your say when it reaches planning proposal stage.

Views: 4625

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think we should feed in en masse to the planning application when it appears. That is where all this will bite (I fear any approaches prior will just be ignored). The council's take on other applications suggest they take a dim view of excessively outsize developments, and I would anticipate that they would look to cut this one down to size. Particularly the way it encroaches onto the street. I think of Warfield Court (102 Station Road) as the only comparable site nearby and how far that is set back.

Look at that east-facing view towards the church. As Jane says, a box. A cash-generating box.

Warfield Court wasn't a new build they refurbished the old building.  Thanks for putting the picture up. I agree it looks appalling and should line up with the police station, maybe they are lining up to the houses beyond it, oh where has the police lamp gone?  I thought that was agreed to be kept.

Hi. I went along to the consultation at the Cheese and Wine Shop too. I found out about it a via the Traders' Association. There isn't a specific planning application for the old police station site yet but I did say at the consultation that parking was the main concern of residents in the area. I also added that I would like to see some social housing.
The architect (?) did say that they were following Richmond Council's car-parking standards as set out in the Local Development Framework. This is one parking space per three bedroomed property and 1.5 spaces if a large number of houses are being built. This is the maximum standard but also in Richmond the normal standard. Any 4 bedroomed properties usually need to provide 2 car parking spaces. Of course I would hope to see cycle parking as well.
If anyone wants to pass on any views or concerns about this (other than those stated on this site already) I am due to meet someone about the site on the 11th January and I would be very willing to pass on any views.
Cllr. Suzette Nicholson

"This is one parking space per three bedroomed property and 1.5 spaces if a large number of houses are being built. This is the maximum standard but also in Richmond the normal standard. Any 4 bedroomed properties usually need to provide 2 car parking spaces"

This is contributing to the general parking problems in Hampton, it simply isn't enough. 

I would happily vote for any party / individual who could get this amended to a more realistic standard.

Agreed Murdoch

I don't see how the council can allocate 1.5 spaces if a large number of house are being built - who buys half a car??  Or is it that 2 houses are expected to take turns parking in the extra space whilst the other parks on the road!!  I agree with Murdoch that this only adds to the parking problems and the developer should be looking at at ways to alleviate this by providing 2 car spaces or lowering the number of properties being built on the proposed site.  

I'm not sure your comment is correct Murdoch, it appears to me that the parking problems around Avenue Road and Plevna Road are caused entirely by these properties having 0 parking spaces.

Murdoch said:

"This is one parking space per three bedroomed property and 1.5 spaces if a large number of houses are being built. This is the maximum standard but also in Richmond the normal standard. Any 4 bedroomed properties usually need to provide 2 car parking spaces"

This is contributing to the general parking problems in Hampton, it simply isn't enough. 

I would happily vote for any party / individual who could get this amended to a more realistic standard.

Indeed Bill.

Although that is an existing issue, something you either choose to buy into or not when looking to move house. However, what I am opposed to is the situation worsened by new developments, and the lack of parking provision required.

Just because existing units are a problem, doesn't mean its ok to keep adding to it, in my view.

Certainly when I moved to the area I accepted that there would be issues with commuters, but what I didn't anticipate was the rate of residential units (flats) being given planning permission in Station Road (with in adequate parking provision)

Sorry for the ramble, hope that makes sense!



Bill Rosborough said:

I'm not sure your comment is correct Murdoch, it appears to me that the parking problems around Avenue Road and Plevna Road are caused entirely by these properties having 0 parking spaces.

Murdoch said:

"This is one parking space per three bedroomed property and 1.5 spaces if a large number of houses are being built. This is the maximum standard but also in Richmond the normal standard. Any 4 bedroomed properties usually need to provide 2 car parking spaces"

This is contributing to the general parking problems in Hampton, it simply isn't enough. 

I would happily vote for any party / individual who could get this amended to a more realistic standard.

Those of us that live in Avenue and Plevna Roads, do realise we have 0 parking, but we also have parking from people who live in the flats in Station Road and the businesses that park down our roads, we would be quite happy if only the residents parked down them as then we would be able to park.  I knew this to a degree when I bought my house, but like Murdoch I feel that any extra pressure is too much and when our houses were built we didn't have 1.5 parking allowance.  Most of us bought our houses because the atmosphere of a village - not that every conceivable space would be filled in with new builds

Bill Rosborough said:

I'm not sure your comment is correct Murdoch, it appears to me that the parking problems around Avenue Road and Plevna Road are caused entirely by these properties having 0 parking spaces.

Murdoch said:

"This is one parking space per three bedroomed property and 1.5 spaces if a large number of houses are being built. This is the maximum standard but also in Richmond the normal standard. Any 4 bedroomed properties usually need to provide 2 car parking spaces"

This is contributing to the general parking problems in Hampton, it simply isn't enough. 

I would happily vote for any party / individual who could get this amended to a more realistic standard.

Given the large number of residents parking spaces that the developers are going to provide (and that they appear to be in line with the council's policies) I can't see how parking issues could be a basis for the council to reasonably refuse permission, once an application is submitted?

As for the 1.5 car per household - no-one buys half a car - comment, I would assume the spaces wouldn't be allocated to individual properties, but would be unallocated within a car park that had enough spaces in it.

As for design, I would agree that the building should line up a little better with the police station, and personally I would prefer a red brick, pitched roof, dormer design to complement the police station building.

The issue was stated at the beginning of this discussion. 30 units (yet to be revealed how large) and 35 parking spaces. Within the council's remit that would suggest all 30 units are one bedroom.  The max amount of parking needed to be provided is 1.5 which would be 45 spaces.  As discussed this then goes up according to the size of the properties.  To my mind not a great deal of lee way for larger houses with only 35 spaces.  Unless of course they are all one and possibly two bedroom units.  Let's see when we have the floor plan as to what is going to be built there, I doubt if all flats, as too many are still up for sale in the 'village', look at those next to Alderson's and some on the business estates where they have altered from commercial to residential without needing planning permission until the Council saw sense and put a Schedule on them so they now have to get planning.  I know of those, plus other offices near the playground plus a large conversion from shop to residential next to Dexters, how many more before we lose a village atmosphere

I agree with Murdoch's comments regarding the new developments with the lack of parking provision.

Recently we have had Oldfield Road, Geoff Howe, and Castle Mews converted from offices to residential along with a few others.  Add both the Kingsbury development and the Police Station to the mix, besides parking it will affect school places and dental/medical facilities too.  What consideration is being given to these as well?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2019   Created by Matt D.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service