On Tuesday 24th May at the Roehampton Forum (RF) it was voted on and supported that the RF would object to planning application 2016/1385.
Some key moments are as follows;
Kimpton House residents attended and gave their views
Two residents from Kimpton House attended the meeting and provided their views about objecting to the cabins. One of the reasons being because of the noise that was coming from the cabins which had been reported to the University. A recording of this noise had been shared with the University and it seemed that only now, that day, that something had been done by the University to mitigate this noise.
These residents also highlighted that they had created a petition which had been signed by many residents in the Kimpton House building.
The question is, should it get to this stage before the University acts on residents concerns?
Two objections were circulated
These objections are on the the Council’s planning website and one was from The Putney Society and the other from a Kimpton House resident which included a reference to the noise that came from the cabins. Read them below though to see the full objections please refer to the Council website;
|The Putney Society
“Roehampton University makes great play in its advertising of the fine historic landscape setting of its major buildings. Clearly this message didn’t get through to whoever thought that a group of Portacabins would be a suitable setting for the Grade I* listed Parkstead House. That these already exist without consent should not colour a proper assessment of this application. The question should be ‘if they did not exist, would you give consent?’ The only possible answer to that is NO, not even on a supposedly temporary consent.
The gestation period for the other recent developments by the university at Downshire House and on the Main Campus shows that it takes more than three years from the first consultation to completion. Unless there is already an approved plan for permanent teaching space for the Psychology department then there will be another ‘temporary’ application three years hence.
The fact that this is an application for ‘retention’ of buildings erected without consent by a university supposedly well versed in dealing with planning applications and listed buildings should be all the more reason to treat it with proper consideration of both long and short term impact. If they are seen to ‘get away with it’, what chance of enforcement against anyone else?
Our local members report that far from there being surplus parking, the spaces in front of Parkstead House are often full, and that there is a problem with students parking in the surrounding residential streets. All this before the additional rooms at Downshire House come on stream.
* Grade I is of course reserved only for around 3% of the very best of our history”.
|Kimpton House resident
“I’m a resident of Kimpton house and am agent the proposal for three reasons 1) the cabins were put there without prior approval. 2) the noise!!! I occasionally work nights and sleep interested day I’ve been woken several times by loud cheering and screams coming from them. I live on the 4 floor so adding to the hight will bring the noise closer. 3) Parking is atrocious on the estate and a large factor is staff and students parking here because there isn’t enough parking in the college the cabins are already on top of parking spaces they should not be extended they should be taken down”.
There was an overwhelming vote in favour of objecting. Two noticeable votes against were by Councillor Carpenter and Reverend McKinney.
The question is, of those whom voted against the motion, whom do they represent, the University or the residents?
Resident car parking
On the topic of car parking, that is, students parking their cars on the Alton Estate as the result of the University not permitting car parking on its premises, the University mentioned that maybe it was time for residents only car parking which could encourage students to not bring their cars.
The questions are; why should this be the resident’s problem to solve? The University knowingly has a premises which has two entrances that are landlocked by the Alton Estate, should it be its problem to solve rather than making a resident problem? This is well summed up in another objection, also by a Kimpton House resident and the extract is below;
“Residents will rightly feel aggrieved if the Committee were to accept the absurd notion that parking on the roads closest to the University does not pose any difficulty. That is not the case as the relative ease in finding a parking space out of term time is quite apparent. Those residents who expressed a view in about 2008 on whether they wanted a controlled parking zone (permit scheme)in the area to give them priority in on-street parking decisively rejected such a move – and my vote was also to reject a CPZ. This was probably because they thought it unreasonable that they should be forced down that route of having to pay to park as a result of student parking. The University should accept that their short-sighted approach will not endear them to residents should they feel that such a solution is the only way to make parking easier!”
How many objections are there now?
There are now 13 responses of which there are 12 objections, and 11 objections are from Alton Estate residents.
We are aware that there are at least two more objections which have not yet been uploaded, one being the petition from Kimpton House.
Email us at – firstname.lastname@example.org – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.
Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.
Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;
Peter Carpenter – email@example.com
Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk
Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk
Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’
Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk