Development of Aldersons Garage.18/3804/FUL

139-143 Station Road Hampton.

PERMISSION subject to conditions and informatives has now been given to the Developers.

It seems all of the comments and objections raised about this redevelopment have been ignored or discounted and that the recommendations of the Planning Officer (AGENDA 4A) were simply an acceptance of the developers summary, it included no acknowledgement to any objections or comments. Quite bluntly, the Planning Meeting was a farce and seemed to be no more than going through the motions and the proceedures required to award Planning Permission.          

In addition to which the Boroughs Transport Officer confirmed that the car-parking, cycle-parkng, proposed servicing and access arrangements to serve the development are acceptable and in accordance with adopted planning policy and that the proposed development would not exacerbate local parking stress or lead to adverse highway conditions. This simply is not and will not be the case and all evidence and the experience currently of all residents is to the absolute contrary.

It appears that the document that supported the Planning Officers Recommendation was not subject to either due diligence or any knowledge of the location/area and the wider community.  A further example of this is the description of the site/location within the Public Document Pack - AGENDA 4A: #104. The application site is situated within a built-up town centre location, sited adjacent to a large commercial building and hotel to the west, the railway tracks and Hampton  Railway Station to the immediate north and residential dwellings to the west and east. 

On challenging the Planning Department about the described location on the day of the Meeting, and to be honest the response was quite alarming, apparently as far as the Council are concerned it is a town centre because there are some shops and restaurants, a main Post Office in Rose Hill (really, now closed), a Premier Inn Hotel, which strangely turns out to be the little Premier Supermarket on the corner of Percy Road and Oldfield, and a Little Waitrose. So this is what constitutes a Town Centre!

On further discussion it transpired that if these conditions aren’t sufficient for designated Town Centre status it is classed as a town centre because it’s near to Teddington!  Seriously?  Have I missed something here or are the parameters a moveable entity to suite an argument?

In conclusion and having watched the Planning Meeting, it is little wonder the Developer had a relatively easy passage through to Permission, the Planning Officer appeared neither interested, up to speed on details, the location, the negative impact on the community and he displayed a complete lack of good design knowledge or aesthetics in his acceptance of what will be perhaps the ugliest building for miles around and an eyesore for generations to come, most of the members of the Planning Committee were equally bored and clueless. 

What a legacy thank you!

Views: 914

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The webcast of the Planning Committee meeting from April 24 is available at the LBRuT website. The Station Road discussion was agenda item 4(a) and starts around 32:25.

I don't need to read it as I know already 9 units - 6 of which get allocated parking the other 3 don't, if and I say IF CPZ comes into force (apparently there is to be another consultation) then those 3 units will not be allowed CPZ.  Not sure that this is legal, so if you buy one of said 3 units then you will not be able to park in Hampton. Apparently too many cars to be parked in this area.  I am against any CPZ as all I will be doing is to pay for not parking in my road - which happens a lot anyway - those that bung up Avenue Road will have permits, so no gain there, the Station Road flats with no parking.  I really cannot see how this could have been passed - so if you buy one of those units and it doesn't show up on searches you will be buying a property which could possibly not allow you to park in the Hampton  so Teddington nearest place.  When will this Council stop all this indiscriminate building, we don't want it or need it, no social housing, with no parking spaces.  Along with the 20mph introduction without a second consultation they are just doing what they want to do sod the people that actually voted for them. The borough also voted for a non 20mph limit.  Maybe a lot of us will have to move.

If a CPZ were to be implemented, residents in Station Road (which include flats) will be able to buy a permit that will allow them to park in any residents bay (in any of the side roads). In addition, there will be more yellow lines at junctions which will remove areas of existing parking. 

So in a nutshell, you'll have less available spaces to park in, the problem will not be solved, and as more flats are granted planning permission the number of permits issued will increase.......and you'll pay for the privilege.

Be careful what you wish for.

I totally agree, be careful, people who have tried to implement this down Avenue Road, think it gives them to right to park 'outside' their houses.  Not so.  No better off as I said above.  Pay for not being able to park.  I am not voting for that.  I have one small car that fits within the boundary of my house.  Shame that others don't have the same it's the two plus vehicle families with big cars that make it difficult.

It's not about a CPZ, that's a separate issue and we should all have the choice to oppose it, of course that's assuming that the LibDems will surprise us and actually accept the result of a Democratic Vote!

I only put about CPZ because that came into it with regards to the Alderson's site

Adding to the frustration of the planning “approval” process (the imaginary Premier Inn, having the decision made by people who don’t live here / don’t know the first thing about Hampton), it was interesting how much weight was placed on a yet-to-be approved (if ever) CPZ around the station. As if the parking around the station is anywhere adequate for the commuter load. Any CPZ probably still couldn’t match the residential load (not helped that the Alderson development is a net loss of parking spaces), which would just see the stretch of commuter parking into Wensleydale and Gloucester Roads (and elsewhere) lengthen. (I just pick those roads as I’m familiar with their parking travails.)

Hello Janice, Hello Ian

A lot to unpack there but let’s have a go

1) Is it legal to condition flats to be excluded from a CPZ installed in the future? Yes. Perfectly legal. It’s very much a case of Caveat Emptor for those who wish to purchase the properties. Of course the developers, if they find themselves unable to shift the flats, could apply for a variation of condition on the flats as was the case with the old club at the Lion Gate (what was that called? Mind’s gone blank. The Rocking Chair?) They had the same condition, couldn’t sell the flats so applied for an variation of condition. But you have to supply marketing evidence.

2) Against CPZs? No, can’t say I’m a fan. You end up paying for the same difficulties to park that you currently get for free. I still don’t buy this idea that loads of people drive from Shepperton to park in Hampton. The vast majority of commuter parking comes from within Hampton itself - people who drive down from Hampton North or even closer to home.

3) When will the council stop all this indiscriminate building? Well we have to abide by national planning law. Already this site has been the subject of several attempts to develop. The council has stood firm as far as it can but we have to operate within national planning law and the developers demonstrated that they’d complied with all the requirements. Parking? The Planning Inspector had already ruled on that at a previous appeal and we can’t override the Planning Inspector.

4) 20MPH. We did say pretty loud and clear that we were going to introduce it in our manifesto. And then we did a consultation which had about 10% of the whole population of the borough participating. It came down to 171 votes between for and against a borough wide limit. So we struck a compromise - 20 MPH but exclude some major roads which we contentious in the consultation. We listened to both sides of the argument.  I doubt a 20mph will cause anybody to want to move house - most people complain that the weight of traffic means they struggle to get to 20MPH at any rate

5) Ian, it wasn’t a vote as such. It was a consultation. We looked at the feedback and amended it accordingly.

6) Matt. I don’t think you’re wrong, to be honest. It’s the knock on consequences of a CPZ. Once they’re in, they spread. It’s unfortunate that Hampton is one of the few stations locally that has no CPZ surrounding it. I think Fulwell is the only other one and that’s just had a few roads close to it included in the Strawberry Hill CPZ which has been a few years in development.

As for the development and the planning committee meeting. I spoke against it and Suzette, who was on the committee, voted against it. As for the planning committee just going through the motions - this issue took over an hour of the committee which itself about 2hours 45 mins and considered 4 items + introductions, agreement of minutes and breaks. I don’t think it’s an entirely fair picture you give Ian.

I know this should probably be in another thread but I want to answer Gareth's comment  4) Why bother having a consultation at all?  I always thought a democratic vote was that whatever side had the most votes won.  Not for one side go away and then 'struck a compromise'.  The consultation said NO to 20 mph and that is what should have been taken. 20mph was passed without being consulted again

Hello Janice

That's precisely why, time and time and time again we stressed that this wasn't a referendum.  The question asked was do you want a 20MPH borough wide. And we took soundings not only through the online version but at the community conversation and direct talks with residents and groups

As a result of those talks and informed by the comments in the questionnaires we took on board lots of comments of 'Yes we want 20MPH but isn't Road X a bit much?'  So we looked at those comments (the vast majority about the A308 as it happens) and thought  'OK. Lets make some changes' and we did - so the A308 is now taken out for the most part.

If we weren't going to take on board the detailed comments then we'd just have had a single question consultation with a Yes/No answer.

Janice Merritt said:

I know this should probably be in another thread but I want to answer Gareth's comment  4) Why bother having a consultation at all?  I always thought a democratic vote was that whatever side had the most votes won.  Not for one side go away and then 'struck a compromise'.  The consultation said NO to 20 mph and that is what should have been taken. 20mph was passed without being consulted again

Thanks for your responses Gareth.

Let me firstly address my view of the meeting and the picture fair or otherwise I gave. I did say .....most of the members of the Planning Committee were equally bored and apologies for not naming those Committee Members who voted against the Proposal.  I was under the impression, given by the Chairman in his declaration, there were just two Members of the Committee who didn't vote in favour but abstained, unless that was a mis-speak on his behalf.  My understanding of abstaining, abstention or abstained means; refrain deliberately from casting one’s vote, 2.a holding off or refraining; abstinence of action, 3.a deliberate withholding of one’s vote.

Secondly The meeting may have gone on for 2.45 hours, perhaps by the time it got around to Agenda 4a they were bored. To be honest having read the Planning Officer’s Recommendations for Permission in Agenda 4a and listen to him waffle and splutter with what appeared to be with utter ineptitude I’m surprised any of the Committee had the will to live. It is alarming to think we employ him!

The legacy we are being given of this ugly building for generations to come is unforgivable, not once was the lack of creative design or aesthetics questioned or even touched upon by the Committee relying instead upon the Planning Officers ‘opinions’.  This is probably one of the laziest and ugliest pieces of architectural design imaginable.  One can only suppose it is the work of a jobbing architect/structural engineer with little or no talent or someone under a strict cost control brief.  An opportunity missed.

I’m not opposed to the 20mph restrictions, although I suspect it will make little or no difference at all, but at least it’s a good bit of PR.  I do understand that it was a Consultation and not a Vote, but I suspect, however opinions may have been gathered, for or against, Referendum, Vote, Consultation et al, the outcome would still have been subject to interpretation!

CPZ’s are little more than money makers for local authorities and an inconvenience and annoyance to everyone else. I agree with all the comments that it simply adds greater stress and burden to those roads not included in them.

Just a point to ponder upon, a few days before the Planning Committee Meeting, the Developers, I was told, were apparently so confident they would get the Planning Permission they were after, boasted about it in a conversation!

A 20mph limit was tried on the A308 a few years ago (hence the 'speed control cameras' that are still outside the Bell pub) and was found to be illegal because it is a major trunk road, wonder if anyone caught going over 20mph ever got their speeding fine refunded?

Reply to Discussion


© 2020   Created by Matt D.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service