People who want to have their voices heard at the Public Enquiry, by the way, shouldn’t assume that their objections already voiced to RBK will be carried forward automatically. They need to write separately to The Planning Inspectorate in Bristol. stating objections again, in planning terms. I believe the advice is to send three copies of the letter.

Anyone who has difficulties finding the address, let us know.

re “Surbiton councillors, on the whole, has been that they have modified or prevented ‘ugly, ill-though out and inhuman buildings’”

What about this monstrosity – did it slip through unnoticed?

http://kevindavis.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/should-we-still-be-building-ugly-buildings/

The Surbiton Plaza, whilst not ugly, is simply too big and is overbearing alongside the original cottages. It doesn’t add anything to the town.

You could also do more to enhance the Victorian character of Victoria Road. Stop allowing tacky modern frontage and plastic signage for starters. Take a bus out to the likes of Teddington or Richmond to see what an attractive Victorian town centre can look like with a little effort and stricter guidelines.

You could also start enforcing the existing policy on non-shop premsies. The current trend is for shops to be converted to restaurant / cafe / takeaway usage. It guarantees the demise of Surbiton as a proper town centre.

I also remember that councillors capitulated shamefully by allowing the demolition of a landmark building at the Rising Sun site, and will probably eventually do the same at the Red Lion.

The quality of replacement architecture is usually a long way short of what it replaces, and is also way behind modern designs elsewhere. I walk through More London every day and the quality of modern architecture there is streets ahead of anything in our borough.

I am dismayed that planners are happy with bland “identikit” apartment designs at the garage in The Avenue, and the old showroom on King Charles Road. In both instances, there has been no attempt to fit in with the surrounding attractive victorian streetscapes, yet the planners raise no concerns about the designs chosen.

If councillors don’t pull their socks up and demand higher quality architecture, Surbiton may well end up losing its distinctive attractive character, and just start looking like every other bland suburb.

It is a shame that the moment a large development (or one with very small units) is proposed, there is always a big hoo ha (apologies for slang), increasing developers costs, leaving the site derelict for years to come and with the result of a pretty empty “victory”.

No wonder developers do not take the time and effort sometimes to propose something better in the first place like they do in other boroughs – perhaps it’s about time we courted them more rather treating them like pariahs?

Your point about the station access from St. Andrew’s Rd is well made in part. I do recall hearing it first when the idea of building affordable homes on the station car park was first suggested during the UDP adoption process, round about 2003. I should have thought the cost of tunnelling under the railway would be prohibitive, though.

My experience of Surbiton councillors, on the whole, has been that they have modified or prevented ‘ugly, ill-though out and inhuman buildings’ rather than otherwise. In any event we have to operate within strict planning law. We don’t get many of our decisions overturned on appeal.

More importantly is to ensure that planning officers send a clear message what is desired for the site – and that our councillors in turn do the same when they consider the proposals and make a decision. All too often in the borough we see the result of cuddly “consultation” and too much interference by councillors to score petty points by attacking any development for the sake of it depending on which way the wind blows. And it’s no good blaming the planning inspector for all these ugly, ill-thought out and inhuman buildings because it should never be necessary for a developer to go this far. Our greatest buildings were never approved by the planning inspector.

By the way, the suggestion to access the station car park from St Andrews Road is not a new one – but please note it would have be an underpass UNDER the railway line and not a bridge over it, given the ground levels.

Its dangerous as well.

A belated thought on the carpark development.

If (and that’s a big if) the site is developed, then a very good community benefit would be the integration of the development with Surbiton town centre.

If you look at google maps at

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=st+andrews+road,+surbiton&sll=51.392327,-0.304683&sspn=0.001379,0.003326&ie=UTF8&ll=51.39225,-0.307102&spn=0.002758,0.010815&t=h&z=17

you can see that St Andrews Road links nicely into the site if access is built over the line.

A bridge / over line development would allow access to the carpark from surbiton town centre. It could also possibly allow deeper shops to be developed on Victoria Road.

This improved parking could give Surbiton an economic lift – especially at weekends when the car park would be two thirds empty.

Additionally, access to the station car park could be changed to be from Victoria Road only.
That could mitigate development impact on South Bank, Glenbuck, Arlington roads and the Oak Hill area.