Planning application for 89-91 Guildford Road, Lightwater

My attention has been elsewhere for the past week or so, which has meant that I’ve not kept up to date with the number of objections to the redevelopment of 89-91 Guildford Road – currently occupied by Lightwater Homecare.

The number of letters of objection recorded on the Surrey Heath planning application page is 547, and the total number of objectors I calculate as 931. I’m sure there are more objections to add, as the first page on the Council application site says,

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT DUE TO THE VOLUME OF REPRESENTATION RESPONSES WE CURRENTLY HAVE A BACKLOG IN PUBLISHING THESE TO THE WEBSITE

Great work by everyone in Lightwater. Keep the objections coming, it does help.

Interestingly, I viewed one of the biggest weaknesses of the application as the both the amount and arrangement of car parking. Hmmm, the applicant recognised this weakness in the application, because they’ve submitted amended parking arrangements lessening the danger from backing onto a road junction.

However, while their change lessens the traffic dangers, they’ve reduced the amount for parking provision from 8 places to six, making the application less viable for use as a convenience store. I imagine this is a tactic to improve their chances of obtaining approval on the basis that it’s a plain and simple retail redevelopment, and not necessarily intended for a major food retail store chain.

I’ll need to spend another dayor so pouring over the planning regulations to ensure this change doesn’t weaken our case, and also speak to some people who can help strengthen our case.

7 thoughts on “Planning application for 89-91 Guildford Road, Lightwater

  1. I have found a much better place for a new supermarket to redevelop and that is at Bisley where the Fox Garage and the boarded up pub next door is situated. They have a large site with lots of parking at the rear. It is a much bigger site with a larger residential catchment area. It might be worth bringing it to their attention ;-)

  2. I suspect that the reason for the applicant revising the proposed parking layout is that the Surrey CC Highways department recommended that they do this – the SCC Highways response document is included on the Surrey Heath Planning website. Interestingly, and rather surprisingly, the SCC Highways department seem to be quite happy with this application (apart from recommending this revsied parking layout).

  3. Yesterday demolition work was started at the two properties adjacent to Lightwater Homecare. If planning for the ‘convenience store’ has not been granted what is going to be put on this site?

  4. Whatever happened to good old competition? Why do Budgens feel they should have a monopoly in our village when most of the time their retail offering is very poor. As a recent example, how can a supermarket not have any type of fresh Tomatoes on their shelves on a Monday afternoon? This is only a sample of the constant lack of products offered. Do they believe that offering “Cooks” products is a service to customers when the Cooks shop is less that 100M away? There maybe some downside to the Tesco bid but I would welcome the choice which us comsumers would get from such an alternative.

  5. I believe that the objections to the planning are total fudge to keep proper competition out of the village. I and a number of residents are fed up with being milked by Budgens, most of their prices are well over the top. In fact I shop elsewhere and only visit them in an emergency, but many pensioners do not have the choice.

    As for parking and Surrey C C., if the revised roadworkings outside BP are a improvement over the previous arrangements then the planner needs to go back to school!!!

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