Here’s my letter of objection to the redevelopment of 88-91 Guildford Road – currently occupied by Lightwater Homecare – into a convenience store. Let me know what you think of the letter, and if I’ve missed an argument. Hope you think I’ve done a good job.
I hear that the application isn’t due to come to the planning applications committee until June this year. So we’ve a little longer to polish our arguments.
UPDATE: Grrrrr! I’ve spotted a typing error on the letter. Just shows you always need others to proof read. Comments really welcome.
Tim,
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this letter! Great work and good to see that councillers are listening to the residents…now all we need is the planning officer to understand. I’ve been keeping a keen eye on this but it seems that environmental health and planning policy have not objected so it looks likely they will approve the application.
Where did you hear about the hearing in June? Are the public allowed to attend and air their views?
By: James H on April 13, 2011
at 8:09 am
A quote from GL Hearn’s website…
Tesco Store Expansion: GL Hearn are one of Tesco’s preferred agents and are actively seeking for Express, Metro through to Superstores inside the M25 and in East Anglia, Surrey, Kent and Essex.
http://www.glhearn.com/people/Pages/Person.aspx?person=45
And below is Paul Manning who is the acting agent on behalf of this development…
http://www.glhearn.com/people/Pages/Person.aspx?person=40
key quote…
Tesco Stores Paul advises on a range of mixed use complex redevelopment instructions in and around London e.g. a large town centre regeneration scheme and a mixed use food store development with separate garden centre, hotel and flatted developments. Paul also advises on smaller scale mixed use developments as well as store extensions and oversees the Tesco Express work.
By: James H on April 13, 2011
at 8:17 am
James – if that’s true, I find it astonishing that planning policy haven’t objected, given Tim’s reference to the Lightwater plan.
If you’re right and this gets waved through, perhaps we should think about different ways of manifesting our protest – clearly the usual means of expression have no impact.
By: Chris on April 13, 2011
at 9:18 pm
A bit more information shows that Archer Architects have also done work for tesco in both their superstores and their express format of stores…
http://www.archerarchitects.co.uk/
It seems that the transport authority have raised some issues these can be seen in the planning application documents…
By: James H on April 14, 2011
at 8:32 am
if you are so sure it is Tesco why not organise a physical protest outside Tesco HQ or local Tesco store?
i am still awaiting callbacks from Tesco and the planning office…
By: rob whitney on April 14, 2011
at 11:30 am
I have just heard a rumour that Tesco’s is also moving into Bagshot on the Jacks Chip Shop site too! Jacks is rumoured to be moving to the Bird in Hand public house building that Tesco allegedly bought for them as part of the deal. Only rumours but these rumours are normally pretty accurate.
So why do they need to come to Lightwater as well? They are just trying to take over everywhere
By: Chris G on April 14, 2011
at 7:08 pm
I’ve noticed what appears to be an issue with the drawings as they relate to the proposed parking arrangments.
To provide 8 (total) spaces as drawn ion the application drawings it is necessary to block the main entry and exit doors to the store.
Also there is no provision made for the external location of shopping trolleys.
These factors alone will reduce the maximum provision to 6 spaces !!!
By: Michael P on April 15, 2011
at 11:55 am
I hope the planning commitee also takes into account the already granted planning permission for 93-95 Guildford road (08/1133 if anyone wants to view it) and the material difference this will make to the application should both go ahead.
Good work Tim !
By: Kevin Warner on April 15, 2011
at 3:16 pm
Firstly thank you for your support on this. Hope you don’t mind me adding my tuppence worth but I can across this when looking at other villages which have been subject to the threat of tesco.
PPS4EC15.1(c) – the applicant must “ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre site to accommodate proposed development preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of pedestrian access”.
Judging by the amount of empty units in camberley and the a30 has this been done?
Also with regards to pedestrian access think it would be hard to find a place with less pedestrian access from the town centre as we are flanked by the m3, a322 and red road none provide pedestrian access. From what I have read applications have been refused and one even withdrawn using this.
Also looks like the rumour with about jacks has a LOT of merit. If this is the case then under the competition commission using isochrone analysis they would not be able to have stores in Lightwater and Bagshot. Tesco should make there intentions known (but doubtful they will), and make a choice Bagshot or Lightwater!
By: Missc on April 17, 2011
at 10:02 am
Watching this with interest. No doubt you will be aware of the battle against Tesco in Ash Vale – despite 700 objections, PP was given and the Tesco Express store will go ahead. Clearly, we need as many Lightwater residents as possible to write to the Council.
Our personal objection letter to the Council refers to the Lightwater Village Design Statement 2007 which, if the development of a single large retail unit on the Lightwater Homecare site is allowed through, becomes not worth the paper it was written on. It states that residents would like to see smaller retailers (baker, greengrocer, florist etc) in the village and, of course, less traffic. Assuming the Lightwater Homecare site has to be redeveloped, surely it would make more sense to have three small units – and maybe the Council could offer advantageous business rates to encourage smaller, local retailers. And three small individual retailers would not have the large delivery lorries or the late opening hours
By: Jacqueline C on April 18, 2011
at 4:33 pm