Author Archives: Cllr Ashley Tilling

The Future of Local Democracy

Posted on by
2

You may have recently received a leaflet through your letterbox from Surrey County Council headed “Summer 2020”. On the third page you will see that the Leader of the Council (our Conservative Weybridge County Councillor), Tim Oliver, is proposing a major reform of local democracy. 

There is no doubt that the proposed imposition of a single council for Surrey, a ‘unitary authority’, will have been discussed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Robert Jenrick, and the leaders of Conservative-held counties. Indeed, Cllr Oliver caught even his own Conservatve councillors by surprise when he announced at Council in July that there would be a re-organisation of local government structures and that “this would be in line with the government agenda” and would require “working with government as it presses ahead with the devolution white paper”. 

While a unitary authority would undoubtedly bring some financial benefits by eliminating the eleven borough and district councils in Surrey that have seen their financial support from central government reduced significantly over the last ten years, the key question is how a monster council serving 1.2 million people would be able to serve the interests of local residents. The SCC leaflet supports the plan by stating that ‘We want a council that gives real power to local communities’.  The Leader, in his statement to the council envisages “A new model of local government, combined with increased powers devolved down to a much more local level” – one wonders how much community power could be asserted, given the size of a single Surrey authority.   

Are the government’s proposals in fact another manifestation of the Johnson/Cummings desire to centralise as much as possible – a trend started under Margaret Thatcher? Is it  a thinly-veiled attempt to eliminate those troublesome borough councils that are not Conservative controlled? If we get one unitary authority across the whole of Surrey it is likely that Surrey would forever be in the hands of a Tory majority. This proposal, however, is not the only way of rationalising the two tier system in Surrey.

Liberal Democrat councillors in Surrey support the development of single-tier authorities across Surrey as the most cost-effective and customer-centric way forward. They note that one county-wide council would be remote and unaccountable. They suggest instead that we should  explore dividing the existing Surrey boroughs into three or four authorities. So, for example, Spelthorne, Runnymede and Elmbridge councils could be combined into a single administrative area taking on all the responsibilities currently divided between the boroughs and the county. 

Full government proposals will be revealed in a ‘Recovery and Devolution’ White Paper on local democracy to be published in early autumn. It looks certain that there will be changes. Please let us know your views. Please also contact Tim Oliver and your local MP so they can gauge the response of residents to their proposals. 

You may also like to join #Residents Against Surrey Single Unitary (#RASSU). You can find out more information at: https://rassu.org.uk/ . You can sign their petition: http://petitions.surreycc.gov.uk/unitary/ and join the campaign:  https://rassu.org.uk/join-the-campaign

 

Planning refusals: 85 Queens Road (former Café Rouge)

Posted on by
Reply

85 Queens Road: four applications 2020/0265, 0473, 1288 and 1333

At the South Area Planning Sub-Committee held on Thursday 20th August four applications for changes to the former Café Rouge building were considered. Three of these were for more residential accommodation on the site and one was for extending restaurant seating space. The planning procedure allows a developer to make multiple applications for the same site but requires that each application has to be taken on its own merits. In this case there were two very similar applications, one to provide five flats on the site, the other to add three flats. The planning committee could have permitted both and it would then be up to the developer to choose which one to implement.

The application to convert the first and second floors into four flats and add a flat in a rear extension whilst retaining a smaller restaurant (2020/0265) was refused. Councillors believed there would be a significant increase to the parking stress already experienced in this location, particularly in Princes Road and South Road. This was in light of an application for nine flats on the Wessex site in South Road, recently permitted on appeal, and concerns over the cumulative effect this could have on demand for parking spaces. 

The developer had also applied to build a mansard roof with dormer windows (2020/0473) for a two-bedroom flat. Councillors raised concerns about the increase to perceived overlooking of gardens and properties on South Road. However, it was deemed there were insufficient technical grounds to support this reason to refuse. The argument was that, as there were already windows on the second floor, windows in the mansard roof would not add to overlooking. Additionally, the separation distance was greater than the 22 metres recommended as a minimum separation distance between facades. Despite the building not being a locally listed building, i.e. a heritage asset, the majority of councillors supported refusal due to the effect the roof would have on the character of this unusual art deco building and on the overall impact to the local street scene. 

A further application for three additional flats (2020/1288) was rejected for the same reason – parking stress – as that for the five flats. 

Finally, the application for an extension to the restaurant (2020/1333) was approved given that, under the current Covid-19 circumstances, additional space in the restaurant could be of significant benefit to the long-term success of the business.

 

 

Planning refusal: Clive House, Queens Road

Posted on by
Reply

Clive House, 12-18 Queens Road: applications 2018/2252 and 2019/2286

Clive House is a two storey, flat roofed construction set back from Queens Road so that it doesn’t dominate the street scene. The proposals put forward from Pegasus Life were to demolish the existing office building and replace it with 31 or 30 ‘age restricted’ apartments.

Councillors on the South Area Planning Sub-Committee refused the applications on the grounds that the proposed buildings would be in conflict with the Council’s design policies in that they would be predominantly three storey buildings with steeply pitched roof spaces which would appear oversized in the street scene. They would also harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area particularly with regard to the neighbouring Salisbury House.

The developer appealed and a few weeks ago the result of that appeal was received from the government’s Planning Inspectorate.

The Inspector dismissed the appeals. She agreed with the councillors’ reasons to reject the applications and made particular reference to the effect on the adjacent Salisbury House. This is not a heritage asset of the highest significance, but it was deemed that the proposed developments afforded it significant harm as it is of local historic value and an irreplaceable resource.

 

 

Planning appeal upheld: St Catherine’s, Thames Street/Beales Lane

Posted on by
3

St Catherine’s, Thames Street: application 2019/0386

PA Housing, who administer the majority of social housing in Elmbridge, made an application last year to demolish the two storey, brick built St Catherine’s House on the corner of Beales Lane and Thames Street and replace it with a part two and part three-storey building for 28 residential dwellings: 9 x 1 bed, 13 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed units.

The Area Planning Sub-Committee refused the application on the grounds that its height and mass would harm the character and appearance of the area as well as its adverse effect on traffic flow and increase to parking stress. There were also concerns on overlooking and loss of privacy to houses opposite on Beales Lane. The developer appealed and the Planning Inspector arranged a hearing at which all parties could express their views. The Inspector also visited the site and the surrounding area.

After quite a long wait, we were informed that the appeal was allowed and planning consent given.

 

 

Surrey’s Parking Proposals for Weybridge

Posted on by
5

Surrey’s two-yearly parking review proposal for Weybridge is planned to be advertised this August. We’ll send out another notice when we get the date. Apart from a minor permit change in one scheme, all the proposals bar one is recommended because of safety.  The exception is the proposal for Wey Road which some people say is a solution looking for a problem.

When the proposals are advertised you will be able to offer your comments, objections or support for any of the schemes.  You do not have to live in the street concerned.  The Weybridge streets with changes are:

Anderson Road. Allow additional properties to be eligible to apply for permits with the parking scheme 142 Oatlands Drive and 120 Oatlands Drive

Barham Close

Castle Road

Cedar Grove

Churchill Drive

Cross Road.  Allow additional properties to be eligible to apply for permits with the parking scheme 142 Oatlands Drive and 120 Oatlands Drive

Drynham Park

Egerton Road

Fortescue Road

Kemble Close

Oatlands Chase

Oatlands Drive

Park Lawn Road.  The restrictions being “revocated” (zigzag lines on the map) which are “No parking for certain periods” are being replaced by “No parking at any time”.

Parkway

Pennington Drive

Radnor Road

Ronneby Close

Rosslyn Park

Round Oak Road – see Wey Road

Rylands Place

St George’s Avenue

St Mary’s Road

The Paddocks


Vale Court. Allow additional properties to be eligible to apply for permits with the parking scheme 142 Oatlands Drive and 120 Oatlands Drive

Vale Road

Wey Road

The history.

The parking engineers do not believe that comprehensive parking controls are required for Wey Road and Round Oak Road.

The reason is quite simple, parking controls are introduced to meet concerns about the four main criteria:

  • Safety
  • Access
  • Congestion
  • Parking stress

Even a casual observer would recognise that Wey Road in does not fall into any of these criteria (except at the entrances which were dealt with already).

However, a petition was submitted by Michael O’Sullivan of Wey Road to the
5 December 2019 committee:

Expand further, as part of its 2019/20 Elmbridge Parking Review, the existing Controlled Parking Zone presently covering Elmgrove Road and Oakdale Road in Weybridge (and soon also to encompass Dorchester Road and Gascoigne Road) to include Wey Road and Round Oak Road. 

The petition raised 64 signatures.  Surrey does not verify the petitioners’ location.

Surrey parking professionals replied.

The existing parking scheme in Elmgrove Road and Oakdale Road, which will also be introduced shortly in Dorchester Road and Gascoigne Road is not technically a controlled parking zone, but a resident permit parking scheme. It is the county council’s policy to introduce resident permit parking controls in roads where residents with insufficient off street parking face undue competition from non-residents for the existing on-street parking space, which is the case in these four roads, but is not the case in Wey Road and Round Oak Road. Therefore to extend the scheme would not be appropriate. In the additional details supplied by the petition creator, there is a suggestion of introducing some sort of short stay parking in Wey Road and Round Oak Road, although the details are not clear. However it is generally considered that the type of parking most lacking in Weybridge is free long term parking (for employees working in local businesses and shops, for example), not short stay parking, of which plenty is already provided for free on the High Street and in other surrounding roads, as well as the various off street car parks in the town. So it is not necessary to introduce more short term parking in these two roads.

The possibility of introducing new parking controls or restrictions in Wey Road and Round Oak Road, and in other roads in the area, or changing existing controls, may be considered as part of the next parking review. This will provide sufficient time to allow for the new parking controls in Dorchester Road and Gascoigne Road to be implemented, and for the impacts of them to be assessed, before making any decisions about the introduction of any more parking controls in the area.

In response Mike O’Sullivan told the Surrey Local Committee that between 750 and 1000 commuter vehicles park in Weybridge each year  The town needs long stay parking, but not at the expense of short term parking and inconvenience for residents.  He is not requesting a resident only parking scheme and wants to make space available for short term parking for those wanting to access the town for shopping or business.

Mike O’Sullivan’s estimate of how many commuters arrive in the town centre might even be an underestimate but as many residents drive outside of Weybridge in the morning.  The net requirement could be negative.  Initial surveys suggest that for all we know more people could leave central Weybridge than enter).

Committee Decision
The Surrey Local Committee decided that the Parking Strategy and Implementation Manager to consider and agree the details of parking restrictions in Wey Road and Round Oak Road to be added to the 2019/20 parking review, in consultation with the divisional member and Local Committee Chairman.

Professionals‘ proposal
As the committee asked the parking professionals to come up with a special scheme they naturally did so.

Introduce a controlled parking zone covering Wey Road and Round Oak Road, operating Monday-Saturday 9am-7pm. Introduce DYLs (No Waiting At Any Time) and singe yellow lines and double yellow lines to prevent obstructive parking. Introduce parking bays – ‘Monday-Saturday 9am-7pm permit holders or 3hrs no return to zone’ ~ 27 spaces. This will allow permit holders (i.e. residents) to park in these bays for an unlimited amount of time, and anyone else to park for up to three hours for free. Introduce parking bays – ‘Monday-Saturday 9am-7pm 3hrs or pay by phone for longer stay’ ~ 63 spaces. This will allow anyone to park for up to three hours for free or pay a small fee to stay for longer, with a tariff of 50p/hr for the paid for period. An administration fee of 19p would apply to each transaction.

Road marking and signs
The controlled parking zone would require signs at the entry and exit points, and the parking bays would require upright signing. Key permit eligibility details (full details are listed in the draft TRO):

  • Residents eligible to apply for all permit types are those occupying any residential address in Wey Road or Round Oak Road.
  • The cost for a resident permit is £50pa for the first permit, and £75pa for any subsequent permits issued.
  • The maximum number of resident permits issuable per place of abode is calculated by the number of vehicles registered to the property minus the number of off street spaces at the property.
  • The maximum number of resident visitor permits issuable per place of abode per year is 120, at a cost of £2 per permit. Each permit lasts all day and is specific to the registration number of a visitor’s vehicle.
  • Permit types available within this scheme are residents, visitors, carers and operational.
  • There are no business permits.

Only one Weybridge Riverside councillors was permitted to speak.  Cllr Ashley Tilling made a good speech but only a couple of other councillors raised concerns and those demonstrated their lack of understand the parking controls implementation process.

After a final roundup by Cllr Tim Oliver the committee decided the following.

That the Local Committee (Elmbridge) agreed that:

  1. The county council’s intention to introduce the proposal shown in Annex 1 (map above) is formally advertised, and subject to statutory consultation.
  2. If objections are received the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager is authorised to try and resolve them;

iii. If any objections cannot be resolved, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

Reasons: To better manage parking demand in Wey Road and Round Oak Road, so as to improve access for short term parking for visitors to the Weybridge area, whilst maintaining parking as needed by residents and their visitors.