www.weybanks.co.uk
www.weybanks.co.ukRadnor and Glencoe Road Residents Website Home News & Views Issues relating to our neighbourhood Downloads Section Contact Us      
abc2xyz IT Support
Rowlett's Development Planning Comments
www.weybanks.co.uk www.weybanks.co.uk www.weybanks.co.uk www.weybanks.co.uk
 
     
www.weybanks.co.uk
Shepperton Lock 21-01-04
www.weybanks.co.uk
Looking through "Wey Bridge" 12-01-04
www.weybanks.co.uk
Up the wey 01-01-04
www.weybanks.co.uk
         
www.weybanks.co.uk Home> News & Views> Rowlett's Dev> Planning Comments>
   

:: NEWSLETTERS

:: ROWLETT'S DEV

:: ONE WAY TRAFFIC

:: PARKING

 

 

 

 

Telephone:
01932 829189

E-mail: weybanks@weybanks.co.uk

Address:
30 Radnor Road
Weybridge
Surrey
KT13 8JU
UK


 
     

Comments Made Regarding Any Proposed Development

The comments listed blow may not be representative of everyone's views, nor are they listed in any particular order of importance. However, they may be of interest to you and worth considering.

1.     Street Scene

 

1.1.   The street scene is like a little time capsule in North Weybridge.  It has escaped the "improvements" to older properties elsewhere in the Ward which were once fashionable (e.g., unsympathetic windows).  In addition, although many people have loft extensions, dormer windows are kept away from the street. 

1.2.   The proposed development would drastically change the “Street Scene” by demolishing the existing Victorian fašade and impose a modern block of flats, which would be out of character with the rest of Radnor Road.

 

1.3.   There is no need to demolish the Victorian fašade and replace it with a modern building.  The existing fašade can and should be retained.

1.4.   This time capsule element is reinforced by the fact that this small late Victorian/ early Edwardian factory building also survived intact up to the present. 

 

1.5.   The dormer windows on the front elevation are out of character with the street.  There is a lack of continuity along the street frontage as no other buildings in the terrace have dormer windows.

 

1.6.   The increased height towards Number 35 and the inclusion of a building above the vehicle access at the same height, together give a scale and bulk which are out of proportion to the other buildings in the area.

 

1.7.   The addition of an additional floor will give it a dominant effect in a street where everybody else has avoided raising the roof line on their front elevations.

 

1.8.   The height of the proposed building is excessive, particularly as the existing vehicle entrance does not have a building above it, raising the roof line by up to 2 metres.

 

1.9.   The street comprise of 90 sq m+ Victorian houses of 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms and the proposal for small 2 bedroom flats is out of keeping with the historical street scene.

 

1.10.   The application makes reference to the maintenance of a Victorian street scene, but does not comment upon the effect of increased height or use of dormer windows

2.     Amenity of neighbours and quality of life

2.1.   Noise from higher density housing (compared with its most recent use as a storage facility) and at different times of the day.

2.2.   Light pollution from obscured windows facing onto neighbouring gardens.

2.3.   Increased height of the long block at, or close to, the bottom of small gardens increasing its dominance of the area, together with loss of natural light to gardens/ properties.

3.     Parking/ Traffic

3.1.   These streets did not anticipate the motor car.   The width of frontage of existing properties means that there is only space for one car outside each house.  Consequently, the roads around here are at full capacity for parking in the evenings and for much of the day.  Passage along the roads is achieved through the courteous behaviour of drivers.

3.2.   A parking allocation of less than one space per flat is totally inadequate.

3.3.   Immediate on-street parking is restricted by capacity, by the location at a 90 degree bend in the road and by the vehicle access to the car park.

3.4.    The lack of alternative parking makes this a good example of where a minimum of 1.5 spaces per two bedroom dwelling needs to be achieved (Elmbridge Replacement Plan 2000), with provision for visitor parking.

3.5.    The enclosure of the vehicle access and reduction in width creates a concealed entrance, with implications for safety.

3.6.   Parking is a sensitive issue, in this area, because cars from other streets already occupy Radnor and Glencoe Roads. In addition, the proposal to make Portmore Park Road residents parking only will increase the problem.

3.7.   The extra cars which would wish to park in the road could mean 10 or so less parking places for current residents, who will themselves be displaced to parking on other roads elsewhere in the area.

4.     Loss of a potential employment site

4.1.   No apparent  effort has been made to find a viable alternative use/ occupier for the site which would maintain its availability for employment. 

5.     Previous Application Planning Application 2008/0861

The Previous application Planning Application 2008/0861 was rejected and one of the main points of objection clearly has not been addressed:

“The unsympathetic layout of the scheme, the development would fail to provide suitable amenity space for future occupants in keeping with the character of the area and would cause loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.  Furthermore, the application has failed to demonstrate that the existing site is genuinely redundant for employment purposes.  As such, the proposal fails to take adequate account of saved Policies ELE9, HSG6, HSG16, ENV1 & ENV2 of the Replacement Elmbridge Borough Local Plan .2000 and national policies PPS1 : Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS3 : Housing .”

 

     
       

Top of Page

 

       
  | Home | Views & News | Downloads | Contact us |  
© weybanks 2007
 
  www.weybanks.co.uk is the residents website of Radnor Road and Glencoe Road in Weybridge Surrey England   Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional  
abc2xyz IT Support