Heathmere School Keepers House planning application – to be discussed at the Planning Application Committee this week

This Thursday 23rd March at 7:30pm at the Council’s Planning Applications Committee the application for Heathmere School Keepers House, Alton Road, SW15 4LJ (2016/7179) is to be discussed and the Council’s recommendation is to approve Approve with Conditions CIL Liable.

Some comments regarding the supporting document are as follows:

Section: Consultation Summary

This section states 13 objections though it includes representations from the following and this section might understate the level of objections?

  • Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Residents Association
  • Hersham Close Residents Association
  • Roehampton Housing Association Ltd
  • Heathmere Primary School
  • Councillor Carpenter (one would think that if a ward Councillor objected that this would be mentioned and there is no mention at all of this objection???)

Section 2.6 – loss of tree

States the following – “The proposed development would result in the loss of one mature tree of good visual amenity value at the front of the site. Nevertheless, this would be adequately mitigated through the provision of new trees on site – to be discussed in further detail in the ‘Arboriculture and Landscaping’ section of the report”. This tree is gone and was commented on the objections.

Section 4.5 – privacy

States the following – “In terms of privacy, there would be a number of new openings across three storeys in easterly and westerly directions from the site. Nevertheless, a high degree of mutual overlooking already subsists over Alton Road and to the rear (east), from existing properties in the locality. As such, it is not considered that the additional windows would significantly increase this level of overlooking, to the detriment of neighbouring privacy levels”. Not so, Greatham Walk 26-34 would have additional windows facing towards the back of the houses where presently there are none.

Section 4.9 – Heathmere School raises concerns

States the following – “Safeguarding concerns have also been raised by the school. However, a distinct boundary would separate the site from the school grounds. Moreover, it is not considered unusual for a residential site to sit adjacent or near to school premises. Therefore, it is considered that safeguarding can be adequately dealt with in accordance with the current procedures and practices of the school – and legislation if necessary – and would not be prejudiced by the proposed development”. One wonders what Heathmere School thinks of this comment?

Section 5.2 – car parking

States the following – “The new residences make no provision for off-street parking. Given the relatively low PTAL rating, and considering the average car ownership rates in this ward, the development is likely to add a minor increase in parking demand to the area. This area is experiencing car parking pressure and the majority of objections received make mention of this. However with no formal parking regulations in place, and given the small size of the development, the expected vehicle movements and car parking demand is not deemed significant enough to warrant any objections from a highway and traffic perspective”. Residents, what do you think of this comment? It reads as though as there is “no formal parking regulations in place” then this could be translated into, “tough, pay for a permit and secure your car parking space”. This lack of controlled parking was recently highlighted in the article about the creation of student accommodation in Whitelands College (“Student car parking pressures on the Alton Estate, acknowledged in 2002?!”).

Section 5.6 – car parking

States the following – “In light of the above, it is not expected that the development would give rise to an adverse impact on pedestrian or highways safety in the locality. Furthermore, due to its modest scale, the proposed development would not give rise to a severe impact on the local road network through increased vehicle movements or on-street parking pressure. Highways Officers have raised no objection to the application and TfL are not required to be consulted on this type of application in this location. Therefore, the application is consistent with policies DMT1 and DMT2 of the DMPD”. The Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Resident Association objection had many photos which highlighted that the buses have to swerve between cars and travel between cars, plus the ward Councillors are currently being emailed to highlight concerns regarding car parking.

Local representation on the Planning Application Committee

Councillor Jeremy Ambache is on the Committee.

Council documents for this meeting:

Related articles:

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – 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.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

  • Peter Carpenter – pcarpenter@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk
Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: