Tag Archives: 2016/4901

Weekly Council Planning applications and decisions – April 22nd 2017

Given there is so much happening in the ward at the moment, it might be worth residents keeping a watch on what is being planned for the Alton Estate. So, on a best endeavours basis, we’ll try to include this section.

The page numbers refer to the Wandsworth Council planning applications and decisions for the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward. Whilst every effort is made to highlight the page numbers and present the information below it is always best for the reader to have a read of the original Council documents just in case any errors have been made.

Applications (page 13)

 Application No: 2017/1470

  • TEAM: W
  • No of Neighbours Consulted: 7
  • Date Registered: 19 April 2017
  • Address: 7 Bank Lane, SW15 5JT, and 2 Roehampton Gate, SW15 5JS,
  • Proposal: Erection of two garages in the rear gardens of 7 Bank Lane and 2 Roehampton Gate.
  • Conservation area (if applicable):
  • Applicant: Mr C Ackley, 1-3 Foxton Mews, 48B Friars Stile Road, Surrey, TW10 6BS,
  • Agent: Brookes Architects Ltd, Upstairs at The Grange, Bank Lane, London, SW15 5JT,
  • Officer dealing with this application: Daniel Piercy
  • On Telephone No: 020 8871 6632

Application No: 2017/1571

  • TEAM: W
  • No of Neighbours Consulted: 24
  • Date Registered: 19 April 2017
  • Address: Templeton, 118 Priory Lane, SW15 5JL,
  • Press Notice(s) Site Notice(s)
  • Proposal: Alterations including redevelopment of existing wardens’ cottages to create 4 x 3-bedroom two-storey (plus basement) houses; erection of 2 x 5-bedroom two-storey (plus basement and roof) detached houses; erection of stable block including 4 x horse stalls, 2 x 1-bedroom two-storey houses, artist studio and associated paddock and jumping ring; associated landscaping and boundary treatment.
  • For Listed Building Consent refer to planning application reference number: 2017/2080.
  • Conservation area (if applicable):
  • Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Rich-Jones, Templeton, 118 Priory Lane, LONDON, SW15 5JL,
  • Agent: Brookes Architects Ltd, Upstairs at The Grange, Bank Lane, London, SW15 5JT,
  • Officer dealing with this application: Ross Meachin
  • On Telephone No: 020 8871 8411

Decisions (page 18)

Application No: 2017/0925 W

  • Decided on: 18/04/2017
  • Date Registered: 24/02/2017
  • Legal Agreement: N
  • Address: Ibstock Place School, Clarence Lane, SW15 5PY,
  • Proposal: Demolition of existing single storey refectory building and replacement with new single storey refectory building including new kitchen, servery, stores, mezzanine and basement and provision of a temporary kitchen and dining facilities on the southern games area during construction.
  • Conservation area (if applicable): Alton Conservation Area
  • Applicant: Mr Stephen White, Ibstock Place School, Clarence Lane, LONDON,SW15 5PY,
  • Agent: NTR Planning, Clareville House, 26-27 Oxendon Street, London, SW1Y 4EL,
  • Decision: Approve with Conditions
  • Decision Taker: Delegated Standard

Application No: 2016/4901 W

  • Decided on: 19/04/2017
  • Date Registered: 30/08/2016
  • Legal Agreement: N
  • Address: Digby Stuart College, Roehampton Lane, SW15 5PH,
  • Proposal: Details of Delivery and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan pursuant to conditions 23 and 28 of planning permission dated 13/10/2014 ref 2014/3330 [Construction of a part 4, part 5 storey building to provide student accommodation, conference suite, academic and support space; construction of a part 4. part 5 closure of existing main vehicular access onto Roehampton Lane, alterations to existing southern pedestrian and vehicular access including boundary walls; formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access onto Roehampton Lane; relocation of car parking; alterations and extension to internal road layout and new pedestrian footpath.]
  • Conservation area (if applicable) :
  • Applicant: University of Roehampton, C/O Agent,
  • Agent: Boyer Planning, UK House, 82 Heath Road, Twickenham, TW1 4BW,
  • Decision: Approve No Conditions
  • Decision Taker: Delegated Standard

Click on this sentence to take you to the Weekly List of planning applications and decisions.

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

 

Roehampton University answers questions about student car parking

Given the volume of objections to various Roehampton University planning applications based mainly around car parking impacts on local residents a Freedom of Information request was sent to the University.

According to the Gov.uk website when a question is asked “You should get the information within 20 working days. The organisation will tell you when to expect the information if they need more time”.

With regard to this timeframe this 20 day timescale was not achieved. The timings were:

  • 23 October 2016 – questions were sent to the University.
  • 16 November 2016 – a chaser was sent to the University asking for progress.
  • 22 November 2016 – a chaser was re-sent as the email of 16 November bounced.
  • 10 December 2016 – a further chaser was sent to the University.
  • 15 December 2016 – finally, a reply received and this also provided answers to the questions.

Was the delay so as to possibly not interfere with the planning applications which were in process, or was it for other reasons?

What the answers seem to be pointing towards is that student car parking is the Council’s responsibility via the planning application process. Does this seem a bit like the University is washing its hands of any responsibility for student car parking in the ward?

The questions and answers are below;

From: University

15 December 2016

Freedom of Information Request Roehampton University and car parking

With reference to your request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, dated 22 November 2016, I can confirm that the University holds some, but not all,  the information requested.

Your request was, in general terms, for the following information, which is set out in  full detail below: car parking arrangements for students.

Our response is as follows:

As a resident of the Alton Estate and the recent acknowledgement by the University  of Roehampton that it does “understand the pressure on parking cars in  Roehampton” (as stated as part of planning application 2016/5377 letter dated 14th  September 2016 signed by Dr Ghazwa Alwani-Starr) following queries are asked of  the University;

1.         What is the current maximum capacity of resident students in the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward that the University can accommodate?

The University has 2,053 rooms on-campus – including Mount Clare and  Whitelands.

2.         Has the University conducted any analysis of how many of these resident  students have a car?

No, we have not carried out an analysis as we don’t offer parking for students  unless they can demonstrate limited mobility which is then approved through  Disabilities Service. We keep a record of this.  A recent travel survey included  questions about modes of travel to the University, and to promote more  sustainable travel, not car ownership.

3.         If the answer to question 2 is yes, can the University share this analysis?

Although as stated above, the travel survey did not ask about car ownership, however the results showed that 75% of our students use sustainable modes of travel to get to and from the University.

4.         If the answer to question 2 is no, can the University explain the reason for not having done this?

This is because the University has no reason to undertake a survey for a  service we do not offer.

5.         If the answer to question 2 is no, does the University have plans to conduct such an analysis?

No, however students are invited to participate in University-wide travel surveys from time to time, as noted above.

6.         If the answer to question 5 is no, what is the explanation for not conducting such an analysis?

This is because the University has no reason to undertake a survey for a service we do not offer.

7.         Given that resident students are not permitted to park their cars on campus can the University provide an explanation of where the resident students park their  cars?

This information is not held.

However, heavily discounted rates are offered in the car park at Queen Mary’s Hospital.  After 4.30pm through to 8am and also at weekends students are  permitted to park on campus

8.         If the answer to question 7 is no, does the University intend to carry out such an analysis?

No.

9.         If the answer to question 8 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so.

This information is not held.   However, the comment in response to question 4 above is relevant; as the  University cannot monitor where students park (other than on campus or at  QMH) there would be no reason (or authority) for the University to conduct  such a survey.  Nor would there be a requirement on students to respond to  such a survey in respect of parking in roads without parking restrictions.

10.       Regarding the wording “we strongly discourage students from bringing their  cars on campus” it is asked that the University detail how it discourages students  from parking on campus.

In the accommodation handbook and on the web we discourage students from bringing cars due to the parking restrictions and the strong public transport links, as described below:

“Handbook:  Student cannot park on campus between 8:30am and 4:30pm (Monday to Friday) during term time.  The University advises resident students not to have a car.  Everything you need is available locally or is easily accessible by public transport.”

The University’s Travel Plan sets out other methods of transport, including bus routes and timetables.  There is significant on-going investment in provision for cyclists, including secure racking and shower facilities.  In particular, covered secure  cycle racking for 100 bikes has been provided at Elm Grove Hall, and the University  now has over 500 cycle spaces across the campus

11.      Regarding the wording “The University’s contract with resident students prohibits them from applying for a residents parking permit in the local area”, is the University aware that such permits are limited to a very small part of Roehampton as highlighted by the following Council webpage –

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200459/parking_zones/218/locations_of_parking

_zones/11 ?

This information is not held.

12.       Given that planning application 2016/1385 and 2016/4901 are connected to this planning application in that they involve car parking as a concern as expressed by residents. Will the University seek to address these concerns with residents?   The University will continue to discourage car use by its students, and the parking arrangements are not affected by the planning application.

13.       If the answer to question 12 is yes, then please explain how this will be done.

14.       If the answer to question 13 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so.

In response to Question 12, as the planning application does not change parking arrangements, the University does not intend to seek to address any concerns with residents and relies on the planning application process.

Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/queries_to_the_university_about#outgoing-604992

 Related articles (to read the articles below click on the underlined sentence)

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

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch

 

Roehampton University portacabins – still time to object

20161211d-1-medium

From the above photo it can be seen that last date in now 22nd December. This photo was taken on Holybourne Avenue.

To have a read of the planning application and the many objections to date, click on this sentence.

Also, a Forum has started on putneysw15 which is regarding this planning application. There are many comments which provide food for thought, though one sums it up quite interestingly.

“I’m not saying I have a better option, but when I break it down like this, it doesn’t seem fair:

 Problem – local residents having issues with the availability of parking outside their houses.

 Cause – the increase in demand for parking by university students.

 Solution – make the local residents pay to park outside their houses”.

To read the Forum comments click on this sentence.

 Related articles (to read the articles below click on the underlined sentence)

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

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch

Roe Uni portacabins – suggestions for objections to planning application

Requests have come in from readers asking for suggestions for how to phrase objections to this planning objection. Two suggestions are provided by roeregeneration below, and it is stressed that these are suggestions and you are of course free to choose how you amend the text.

Some examples are provided already by those that have objected as highlighted by the progress screen shot below;

20161119

Source: https://planning.wandsworth.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=planning&appNumber=2016/5912

To assist, you can click on each of the below to read the objections.

Suggestion 1

You could write something along the lines of the below;

Dear Planning Team,

Regarding:

Planning application: 2016/5912

Location: Parkstead House, Whitelands College, Holybourne Avenue SW15

I am emailing to object to this planning application for the reasons outlined in planning objections provided by Howitt, Salt, the ARW, the Putney Society and Reigo.

Suggestion 2

You could email the Planning Team using some or all of the objections outlined below;

Dear Planning Team,

Regarding:

Planning application: 2016/5912

Location: Parkstead House, Whitelands College, Holybourne Avenue SW15

I am emailing to object to this planning application for the reasons outlined below;

The portacabins impact the setting of Grade I Parkstead House. The University has circa a dozen listed properties within its remit and yet this has been allowed to occur without permission hence this retrospective planning application. The University should have known better and what message does this send out to large institutions in the area if this is permitted.

These portacabins contributed to contravening the Wandsworth Council Local Plan DMS1, especially sections (c ), (j) and (l).

This represents poor management by the University of understanding how to service its needs. It seems to have focused on building student accommodation at the expense of teaching facilities.

Uncertainty of when the requested three years permission begins. Surely, it can’t be from the date of the planning application decision given this attempt for permission began early this year, if not earlier.

A key part of objections to the University planning applications 2016/1365 (previous portacabin objection), 2016/5377 (resident students not permitted to have parking permits) and 2016/4901 (the University Travel Plan) was that these did not address issues raised regarding the University’s students parking in and around the Alton Estate. This latest planning application completely fails to address this point and in fact acknowledges this absence in this planning application. This shows disregard for the local residents.

There is no mention whatsoever of the noise pollution issue raised by Kimpton House residents at the Roehampton Forum this year and how the University intends to fulfil its promises to mitigate such anti-social behaviour.

The portacabins are too close to Kimpton House and in fact peer over the University’s gate and above the garages referred to in the planning application in an un-neighbourly fashion.

There is no mention whatsoever of how these car parking issues will be co-ordinated with future impacts such as the Alton Estate regeneration, the potential Medfield Street controlled parking zone, and the lifting of the student cap. Without addressing these concerns the existing car parking pressures will likely increase.

Where to send your objections

Email it to: planning@wandsworth.gov.uk

For more details about how to object click on this sentence.

Related articles (to read the articles below click on the underlined sentence)

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.

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

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch

 

Queries to the University about car parking

Given the recent series of planning applications by Roehampton University the following questions have been raised with this institution.

“As a resident of the Alton Estate and the recent acknowledgement by the University of Roehampton that it does “understand the pressure on parking cars in Roehampton” (as stated as part of planning application 2016/5377 letter dated 14th September 2016 signed by Dr Ghazwa Alwani-Starr) following queries are asked of the University;

  1. What is the current maximum capacity of resident students in the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward that the University can accommodate?
  1. Has the University conducted any analysis of how many of these resident students have a car?
  1. If the answer to question 2 is yes, can the University share this analysis?
  1. If the answer to question 2 is no, can the University explain the reason for not having done this?
  1. If the answer to question 2 is no, does the University have plans to conduct such an analysis?
  1. If the answer to question 5 is no, what is the explanation for not conducting such an analysis?
  1. Given that resident students are not permitted to park their cars on campus can the University provide an explanation of where the resident students park their cars?
  1. If the answer to question 7 is no, does the University intend to carry out such an analysis?
  1. If the answer to question 8 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so.
  1. Regarding the wording “we strongly discourage students from bringing their cars on campus” it is asked that the University detail how it discourages students from parking on campus.
  1. Regarding the wording “The University’s contract with resident students prohibits them from applying for a residents parking permit in the local area”, is the University aware that such permits are limited to a very small part of Roehampton as highlighted by the following Council webpage – http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200459/parking_zones/218/locations_of_parking_zones/11 ?
  1. Given that planning application 2016/1385 and 2016/4901 are connected to this planning application in that they involve car parking as a concern as expressed by residents. Will the University seek to address these concerns with residents?
  1. If the answer to question 12 is yes, then please explain how this will be done.

14. If the answer to question 13 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so”.

To keep an eye on the progress of the query click on this sentence.

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.

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

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch

Roehampton University planning application 2016/5377

untitled-picture

It seems that Roehampton University is again testing the parameters of what is acceptable with regards to student car parking requirements. There was the portacabins by Whitelands College (2016-1385) then the Travel Plan (2016-4901).

As far as we know, there are hardly any resident parking permits in the local area.

The link below refers to the areas that do have such restrictions, these being the location of parking zones.

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200459/parking_zones/218/locations_of_parking_zones/11

Questions to consider:

  • What is the point discouraging students from parking in the area, as these are only words?
  • Are students really restricted from parking in the area? They could still park their car on the Alton Estate.
  • This plan is to do with Elm Grove Students Halls and that is 358 rooms. Imagine if 10% of these students have cars, that is 36 cars, and where do they park?
  • Is this the University really taking responsibility for its own requirements?

How to comment on a planning application

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/516/view_planning_application_by_address_or_map/1369/commenting_on_a_planning_application

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.

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

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch

Roehampton University Travel Plan 2014-2019 (part 2)

So far, the objections to Roehampton University’s Travel Survey as part of planning objection (2016/4901) stand at;

  • Hersham Close Residents Association (covering 48 properties on the Alton estate)
  • Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Residents Association (covering 49 properties on the Alton Estate)
  • Councillor Carpenter
  • One resident of the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward

Whilst this a good turnout, given the impacts for potentially all car owners in the Putney & Roehampton Heath ward, as well as West Putney ward, this is a low turnout.

Click on this sentence to take to you to the planning application and the associated documents.

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.

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

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk

Roehampton University Travel Plan 2014-2019

uni-1

If you are not aware Roehampton University has provided a Travel Plan as part of its planning application (2016/4091). This document is interesting more what is does not refer to, that being student car parking in the local area and links in with the recent application for the planning application of the portable cabins (2016/1385).

This document might be of interest to the entire ward and below is what one resident has written about concerning the Travel Plan.

START OF LETTER

Introduction

The Roehampton University Travel Plan is a glossy document lacking in any substantive information that is meaningful. It is devoid of any mention of the impact on the local community and the environment and in short is a document which needs to be rewritten to provide something more meaningful for the ward in which it resides. Additionally, given the lack of detail it would appear that there is no holistic strategy for car parking in the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward.

The following comments and questions regarding the document are based on the sections of the document.

Forward (Page 4)

The 2014-2019 Strategic Plan highlighting seven points. None of which addresses the need for suitable parking capacity on the University premises. The point which most closely resembles any reference to this is point 2, “Utilise the campus teaching and research space as effectively as possible”.

Comment: This needs to be updated to reflect the need to provide suitable car parking capacity for staff and students, especially for those students whom live on campus and have cars.

Policy and Best Practice (page 5)

With regards to the comment “student residence with 356 bed spaces (C2 Use Class)” there is no comment of how many of these students will have cars.

Question: How many of these 356 bed spaces how many students will be estimated to have cars?

Question: Added to this question, for the other campuses which are being used, how many students are estimated to have cars?

Question: For the “200 delegates with 30 bed spaces for overnight guests”, it is assumed they will be parking on campus?

Question: “The new development will effectively be car free with the only vehicular trips relating to deliveries and disabled students and visitors”. Given the library is supposedly to be open to the public to use (http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/14382268.Work_begins_on___34m_library_project_in_University_of_Roehampton/?ref=mac ), if driving to the premises where will the car park?

Benefits of Developing a Travel Plan (page 6)

“Reduces the demand for parking spaces” is a questionable comment. By not having car parking spaces on premises for students this is not reducing demand, rather this is shifting the problem to the residents of the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward as the parked cars will be scattered about the ward, especially in areas such as Dover House Road area, the Alton Estate, and Roehampton Village.

“Helps to reduce congestion on local roads” is a farcical comment. The university does not permit students to park on campus, see below;

uni-3

Source: http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/Campus/Security-Service/Parking-and-Transport/Parking-on-Campus/

Given this, it was part of the reason for the 250 plus objections to the University’s planning application (2016/1385), and was referred to at the Putney Society event (September 2015) titled “Roehampton University and how it relates to the local community” at the University by Dover House Road area residents which commented on students parking their cars there and walking to the university (https://roeregeneration.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/roehampton-university-and-how-it-relates-to-the-local-community-24th-september-some-comments/), and could be part of the explanation for a Medfield Street resident commenting at the recent Let’s Talk event in Roehampton on September 12th that there was a severe shortage of car parking spaces in the area. There are those on the Alton Estate that believe that this is causing problems for locals parking and is resulting in fines being issued to them for parking in spaces where they should not. This comment “Helps to reduce congestion on local roads” is whimsical at best and does not address “the environment and the local community”.

Site in context (page 7)

The comment “daily users expects on site each day include approximately 2,000 staff, 8000 students and 100 visitors and deliveries”. This comment is very important as it relates to comments later in the document.

Public Transport (page 10)

“Barnes is the nearest station which is located in Travel Zone 3”. It should be worth mentioning that if coming from to Roehampton via Putney, it might be tempting to use Putney Station, East Putney or Putney Bridge and take the buses from there. The reason being that these stations are zone 2 and that this would be cheaper. This is also important and will be referred to later.

Travel patterns (page 13)

The below table raises many questions that need to be addressed.

uni-2

There are Student figures for 2014 which do not provide any substance as it does not have any comparative data.

Based on the table data, this implies that on any given day there is a need for student parking of 816 cars a day! This is worked out by car share 1.4% + drive alone 8.8% = 10.2%. And 10.2% of “daily users expects on site each day include approximately …….8000 students” (page 7) is huge amount of parking requirement, especially bearing in mind that student car parking is not on the university premises.

Question: Where do the students park? This needs to be included within the Travel Plan and addressed, especially with regards to how this impacts the “”the environment and the local community” (page 6).

Please note this data may not include the parking requirements of those students living on the various campuses whom have cars.

Question: Where do these students park their cars? This needs to be included within the Travel Plan and addressed, especially with regards to how this impacts the “the environment and the local community” (page 6).

It is assumed that the number of students with cars would likely be higher for if the table highlighted an aggregation of how the journey to the University is completed this would  increase the numbers of “car share” and “drive alone”. For instance, if the question was how many students traveled by one or more of “walk, cycle, underground, train, bus” the volume of students as a percentage would be less than what is indicated in the table. Between these forms of transport they add up to 68.6% which does not represent the volume of students as a student whom took a train to Barnes then walked or took a bus to the university has used two forms of transport. The number of car users might be higher than what has been approximated earlier.

Question: of the 42.0% of students whom walk to university, how many live within student accommodation? It is assumed that these figures are included and should be treated separately.

Question: This provides no detail regarding which stations are subject to increased student traffic flow and what is the reason for this lack of information. For instance, “train” features across both students (16.3%) and staff (17.9%) highly, and which station is used more frequently, Barnes or Putney, and how does this fit with the TFL transport strategy for the area, for instance, does this cause bottlenecks for the are at a given time, such as the 72 or 265 being capacity constrained during certain hours of the day. A resident remembers going to Kingston University to study and during the morning rush it would be difficult to catch the 85 bus from in and around Medfield Street to university and would have to miss one or two buses as it was filled with students going to Kingston University.

Analysis (page 14)

It is worrying that there is an increase in staff using cars to get to work at the University as stated within the Analysis section.

This raises the prospect that there might insufficient parking needs for the University staff, if not now perhaps at a later point. There is a possibility that staff could also be parking in and around the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward contributing to additional car parking pressures on locals.

Question: Given staff are allowed to park on University grounds, I would expect to see this survey include numbers on how many car parking places there are versus the number of cars it needs to cater for. Can it be explained as to the reason(s) this information is not included within the survey?

Objectives and Targets (page 15)

Both the Staff Target and Student Target tables are almost meaningless without volume numbers next to the percentages. For instance, using the (likely conservative) 10.2% referred to earlier, this equals a requirement to cater for 816 student cars during on any given day. Reducing this to 9.5% is 760 on the assumption of no increase in student numbers. Now, if the student number of 8000 increases say to 8200 that is 779. Meaning, rather than 56 car parking reduction this becomes 37.

Comment: These tables should have volume figures against the percentage figures along with volume differences, e.g. The 56 and 37 numbers mentioned.

Management and Monitoring (page 17)

It is interesting to think that the only survey years mentioned are 2010 and 2014, and students figures are not available for 2010. The 2014 figure is based on 31st January to 7th March which is two and a half years old.

Given the amount of new properties being built in and around the area and the supposed interest in encouraging the reduction of cars coming to the area it is surprising to think that data this old is being provided.

Question: “November” is mentioned as the next date for such a survey though there is no comment as to when the results will be published by and this should be included within the document.

Other considerations

A need for more exacting numbers should be considered as the lifting of the student cap could impact the car parking numbers directly or confuse the understanding of what they mean, especially in terms of any significance.

The Roehampton regeneration is yet to happen and there could be student housing contained within it and of course this would raise the prospect of yet more car parking capacity constraints.

The portacabins at Whitelands College, planning application (2016/1385), which was withdrawn and not yet resubmitted at the time of writing this, have temporary teaching facilities on top of 78 car parking spaces. Putting that into perspective that would cater for about 10% of the 800 students which is estimated to need car parking throughout any term day.

Neighbours consulted

It is not accurate that no neighbours should be consulted. Given that there is clearly a gap in matching University student numbers and where they park, all residents within the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward should be considered as neighbours, especially if there is a linkage between local residents now being fined as the result of a lack of overall understanding of the ward’s car parking requirements.

Conclusion 

This document is glossy and is insufficient in detail to obtain any meaningful information from it, especially from the perspective of a local resident. There needs to be a comprehensive strategy which links in with the University as a whole and not this piecemeal approach. There needs to be a ward strategy in place for car parking. If the University wishes to expand it needs to cater for its students parking requirements, and provide comfort to locals that public transport will not be adversely impacted, rather than leave the issue with the residents surrounding it.

END OF LETTER

If you wish to comment on the application the instructions can be found by clicking on this sentence.

To locate the documents and the planning application, click on this sentence and enter the planning application number 2016/4901.

Feel free to copy and paste any parts of the letter that you think is appropriate though bear in mind the cut off date of 20th September 2016.

Related documents of interest:

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.

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

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Alton Regeneration Watch website – http://www.altonwatch.org.uk/page5.html

Alton Regeneration Watch Twitter – https://twitter.com/altonwatch

 

 

Weekly Council Planning applications and decisions – September 3rd

Given there is so much happening in the ward at the moment, it might be worth residents keeping a watch on what is being planned for the Alton Estate. So, on a best endeavours basis, we’ll try to include this section.

The page numbers refer to the Wandsworth Council planning applications and decisions for the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward. Whilst every effort is made to highlight the page numbers it is always best for the reader to have a look for themselves.

Comment regarding this week is mainly to do with the Roehampton University application. How can a Travel Plan be provided after the buildings have been built, and how can no neighbours be consulted given the implications for car parking on the ward?

Applications have been made regarding the following property (page 21);

 Application No: 2016/4192

  • TEAM: W
  • No of Neighbours Consulted: 53
  • Date Registered: 01 September 2016
  • Address: 8 Roedean Crescent, SW15 5JU
  • Proposal: Variation of condition 8 pursuant to planning permission dated 28/06/16 ref 2016/0751 (Alterations including demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a three storey (plus basement level) 6 bedroom detached dwelling house. Associated landscaping) so as to allow the approved drawings to enable alterations including enlargement of single storey rear element towards the northern boundary.
  • Conservation area (if applicable):
  • Applicant: Mr Nikolaus, 8 Roedean Crescent, LONDON, SW15 5JU
  • Agent: WEA Planning, 98 Victoria Road, LONDON, NW10 6NB
  • Officer dealing with this application: Sam Nevin
  • On Telephone No: 020 8871 7372

 Application No: 2016/4706

  • TEAM: W
  • No of Neighbours Consulted: 51
  • Date Registered: 01 September 2016
  • Address: 8 Roedean Crescent, SW15 5JU
  • Proposal: Demolition of existing two-storey dwelling and erection of a three-storey (plus basement) 6 bedroom dwelling with additional living accommodation at lower ground floor and lightwells to the front and rear, roof terrace balcony on rear first floor level. Alterations to previously approved scheme 2016/0751 to include enlargement of ground floor and first floor rear extension elements and alterations to front lightwell and lowered ramp.
  • Conservation area (if applicable):
  • Applicant: Mr Woloszczuk, 8 Roedean Crescent, London, SW15 5JU
  • Agent: WEA Planning, 98 Victoria Road, London, NW10 6NB
  • Officer dealing with this application: Sam Nevin
  • On Telephone No: 020 8871 7372

Application No: 2016/4901

  • TEAM: W
  • No of Neighbours Consulted: 0
  • Date Registered: 30 August 2016
  • Address: Digby Stuart College, Roehampton Lane, SW15 5PH
  • Proposal : Details of Delivery and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan pursuant to conditions 23 and 28 of planning permission dated 13/10/2014 ref 2014/3330 [Construction of a part 4, part 5 storey building to provide student accommodation, conference suite, academic and support space; construction of a part 4. part 5 closure of existing main vehicular access onto Roehampton Lane, alterations to existing southern pedestrian and vehicular access including boundary walls; formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access onto Roehampton Lane; relocation of car parking; alterations and extension to internal road layout and new pedestrian footpath.]
  • Conservation area (if applicable):
  • Applicant: University of Roehampton, C/O Agent
  • Agent: Boyer Planning UK House, 82 Heath Road, Twickenham, TW1 4BW
  • Officer dealing with this application: Sarah Westoby
  • On Telephone No: 020 8871 6639

 Decisions have been made regarding the following properties (page 18);

Application No: 2016/2514 W

  • Decided on: 30/08/2016
  • Date Registered: 25/08/2016
  • Legal Agreement: N
  • Address: 3 Medfield Street, SW15 4JY
  • Proposal: Alterations to front elevation including installation of replacement door and windows. (In conjunction with Listed Building Consent application 2016/2631).
  • Conservation area (if applicable): Roehampton Village Conservation Area
  • Applicant: Mr N Das, 191 Kingston Road, London, SW19 1LH
  • Agent: D J Green and Assoc, 25 Worsley Road, Frimley, GU16 9AS
  • Decision: Approve with Conditions
  • Decision Taker: Delegated Standard

Application No: 2016/2631 W

  • Decided on: 30/08/2016
  • Date Registered: 25/08/2016
  • Legal Agreement: N
  • Address: 3 Medfield Street, SW15 4JY
  • Proposal: Alterations to front elevation including installation of replacement door and windows.
  • Conservation area (if applicable): Roehampton Village Conservation Area
  • Applicant: Mr N Das, 191 Kingston Road, London, SW19 1LH
  • Agent: D J Green & Assoc, 25 Worsley Road, Frimley, GU16 9AS
  • Decision: Approve with Conditions
  • Decision Taker: Delegated Standard

Application No: 2016/3919 W

  • Decided on: 31/08/2016
  • Date Registered: 13/07/2016
  • Legal Agreement: N
  • Address: 42 Roehampton Gate, SW15 5JS
  • Proposal: Demolition of existing house and outbuidlings. Erection of a detached three-storey house (with top floor within roofspace) with additional floorspace at basement level, with roof terraces at first and second floor rear. (NB:This is an alternative proposal to that being considered under application ref. 2016/1472, with the main differences being to elevational treatment and materials; alterations to layout including reduced floor area and general removal of split levels between storeys, and provision of a double garage).
  • Conservation area (if applicable):
  • Applicant: Mr & Mrs I Lanceley, 42 Roehampton Gate, London, SW15 5JS, United Kingdom
  • Agent: Brookes Architects Ltd, Upstairs at The Grange, Bank Lane, Wandsworth, London, SW15 5JT, United Kingdom
  • Decision: Approve with Conditions CIL Liable
  • Decision Taker: Delegated Standard

Click on this sentence to take you to the Weekly List of planning applications and decisions.

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.

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

Or email the Wandsworth Council team managing the ‘regeneration’

Team Roehampton – Roehampton@wandsworth.gov.uk