FT03 - review
This temporary page relates to the FT03 Elmer Works plot in MVDC's Housing & Traveller Plan Consultation
MVDC's site profile can be seen on this link, which will open a new window:
At the bottom of the Council's article there is a link to greater detail about the site.
That section is copied below, although only MVDC's original contains all the explanations that go with this detail:
That section is copied below, although only MVDC's original contains all the explanations that go with this detail:
The full document listing all Mole Valley sites under consideration is available at: www.molevalley.gov.uk
Physical copies can be seen at Pippbrook and at the Council's Help Desk in Leatherhead Library.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Below are one person's views, accepting that Sumitomo & East Surrey Water are determined to sell the plot for development, and that MVDC will agree. The best we can do is ask for enough protection to our green environment, and to point out some of the things that could go wrong with an over-ambitious planning application. Developers know their requests are generally trimmed during the planning process, so the suggestion of 57 homes has to be their first stab for this site.
You are welcome to use any parts of the comments below in your own submission.
FAQ: Why don't we just get a petition together as most of us agree ? - A petition counts as one single objection in this process. The more people make comment the stronger the case for the arguments each chooses to make.
FAQ: How do I send MVDC my comments ? - Here is the Council's paragraph on the subject:
Physical copies can be seen at Pippbrook and at the Council's Help Desk in Leatherhead Library.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Below are one person's views, accepting that Sumitomo & East Surrey Water are determined to sell the plot for development, and that MVDC will agree. The best we can do is ask for enough protection to our green environment, and to point out some of the things that could go wrong with an over-ambitious planning application. Developers know their requests are generally trimmed during the planning process, so the suggestion of 57 homes has to be their first stab for this site.
You are welcome to use any parts of the comments below in your own submission.
FAQ: Why don't we just get a petition together as most of us agree ? - A petition counts as one single objection in this process. The more people make comment the stronger the case for the arguments each chooses to make.
FAQ: How do I send MVDC my comments ? - Here is the Council's paragraph on the subject:
|
How can I comment on this Consultation Document? You can give your comments by:
Visiting www.molevalley.gov.uk and following the link to the page on the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan page. For those people viewing this document on line, please just click on the “Add Comments” tab. Requesting a comments form and returning it to the Planning Policy Team, Mole Valley District Council, Pippbrook, Dorking Surrey, RH4 1SJ or in person to the Council Offices in Dorking or the Leatherhead HelpShop. (See www.molevalley.gov.uk for opening times). E-mailing your comments to planning.policy@molevalley.gov.uk Each site in this consultation document has a unique reference number. Please use it when commenting on a site as it helps us to be certain we know what your comments relate to. During the consultation period the Council will be holding drop in events where you can talk to Council representatives about the sites and find out more about them. For further information check our website or call us: 01306 885001. Please note that all comments on the consultation document will be made public via the website as soon as possible after they are received. Addresses and other contact details will not be published. We apologise but we are unable to acknowledge comments received through non-electronic means unless you specifically request it. Please submit your comments by Friday 7 th March 2014. |
FT03 Elmer Works, Hawks Hill, Fetcham
Area 2.3 hectares
Estimated capacity: 57 homes
References here to the “Hawks Hill Court Development” refer to the properties built on land sold by Sutton & East Surrey Water Company which was developed between 1994 and 1997 and is now known as 23-37 Elmer Cottages and as 38-61 Hawks Hill Court, all of which are marked on some maps as “Hawks Hill Court”.
1) I have lived in the Hawks Hill Development for 16 years. The northern boundary of plot FT03 meets the boundary of my own property.
2) General amenity: the view across the River Mole from Church Grounds Leatherhead and from the West Door of Leatherhead Parish Church is of the Hawk’s Hill part of Fetcham’s overall green canopy, with the limited interruption of some existing waterworks structures. Every effort should be made to protect this green canopy in the interests of the amenity of the people of South Leatherhead and of visitors to this 1,000 year old church.
3) Plot FT03 includes some mature trees and some stands of trees which should be protected by TPO’s. It is the responsibility of any utility company to preserve amenity, including ensuring the protection of trees. Sutton & East Surrey Water Company is a subsidiary of Sumitomo Corporation of Japan. The Company’s decision to dispose of this site gives rise to a conflict of interest between the duty to preserve amenity and the duty to maximise profit for that Company and its overseas owners. This could best be resolved by the swift intervention of the Council’s Tree Officer before any further modifications to the plot are made by those who intend to sell it. The loss of eleven mature trees on a plot at the end of Hawks Hill Close and the loss of a substantial number of trees between Cannon Way and Mole Road Fetcham late in 2013 are appalling precedents for what can happen to mature trees which are left without protection. The spectre of a Tree Officer placing a warning notice on one of the few remaining stumps is not something the residents of Fetcham wish to experience again.
4) Questions were raised after the Water Company undertook tree works on the existing Hawks Hill Court Development plot prior to its disposal as a development site. Many local residents felt this was not handled correctly and that the company had indeed favoured business aims above tree protection and public amenity at that time.
5) Existing contamination of the site should be reviewed. Here too, local residents, including some with experience of the Water Company’s activities on the site, felt that in the 1994-97 development clearing of the materials and residues previously held on the site was not undertaken according to appropriate standards.
6) The aquifers under this plot must be protected in ways similar to the protection imposed on the Hawks Hill Court Development.
7) The southern edge of the site is home to a number of foxes and their cubs. Consideration must be given to re-homing this and other wildlife or to protecting their habitat.
8) 57 homes is certainly too dense for this site. Far from providing a transition from the surrounding mansion-style density to the higher density housing that typifies Elmer Cottages, Elmer Mews and Sunmead Close the suggested quantity seems to be attempting to rival those densities. This over-ambitious scale of development is further evidence of the water company losing sight of amenity value on the plot they intend to dispose of.
9) To preserve the privacy of the existing homes Nos 12-20 and 29-33 Elmer Cottages and 38-45 Hawks Hill Court and give a degree of privacy to the residents of the proposed development itself the existing thicket along the northern boundary of the site should be retained and in places improved to protect the privacy of Nos 12-20 and 29 Elmer Cottages.
10) On occasional summer evenings a sound like that of a diesel engine starting up and running can be heard in the houses along the existing northern boundary to the site. The proposed housing will be a great deal closer to the source of that noise and therefore the Water Company must be required to minimise that source of nuisance.
11) The existing green screening of the Water Company’s structures and activities should be improved along the southern boundary of the site to provide better amenity both for the new properties and for the existing properties in Elmer Cottages and Hawks Hill Court.
12) The existing access turn-in part way up Hawks Hill is not suitable to service a large development. Consideration might be given to providing access to part of the development from an extension of the roadway at 12-22 Elmer Cottages. This solution would be particularly suitable if the included new social housing were to be managed by Hyde Solon which manages the existing properties. Some improvement to parking provision along and facing 1-9 Elmer Cottages and proper junction marking at the internal junction of Elmer Mews and Elmer Cottages would then be required.
13) Consideration would need to be given to the safety of vehicles heading North down this steep hill and then turning into the proposed site entrance. Surrey Police may be able to advise the level of speed logged by the equipment they regularly place on Hawk’s Hill near to the site. Prior to construction of the Hawks Hill Court Development Surrey Highways insisted on construction of the present refuge for right-turning vehicles near the far more level entrance to Elmer Cottages. A similar construction could only be made part way up Hawks Hill / Guildford Road by encroaching on the existing verges and by the possible loss of mature trees. Even then, drivers coming down the hill could be dangerously surprised to find a vehicle waiting in the middle of the road at that point.
14) One of the lessons to be learned from the existing Hawks Hill Court Development is parking provision. The existing development has households with up to four vehicles where the assumption of the original plans looks to have been households of one or two vehicles, plus just one visitor space per five properties at any time. Hyde Solon have had to redesign the layout of the social housing at 12-22 Elmer Cottages to insert additional parking spaces there. While Hawks Hill Court’s visitors can park along the access road facing 1-9 Elmer Cottages, parking outside the proposed development FT03 would place visiting vehicles on the steep Hawks Hill / Guildford Road. This would clearly be a dangerous outcome.
TOPICS others have mentioned:
- Bats have been seen in neighbouring gardens over the 16/17 years since the Water Company sold the plot that was to become Elmer Cottages 12 - 37 and Hawks Hill Court. A survey of bat and other wildlife habitats on the site will need to be carried out before heavy machinery begins to invade it further.
- Once developed, water run-off collected from the site will add more load to the existing drainage system. The system may be added to to collect the water, but will the overall capacity increase ? At the moment, this rainwater goes into the ground. Does the River Mole need this additional water to be collected and fed into it rapidly ?
- The waterworks was built on Green Belt land, with a provision in the original planning permission that trees would be put in to screen the structures. These trees are beginning to approach the sort of maturity which means they will start to do that job. We must make sure they are not removed simply because they fail the girth test for tree protection orders.
- Why does the Council's document keep insisting on the term "inert materials" ? Is MVDC certain that other materials have NEVER been held on this site, and are not held or even currently used on the adjacent working site ?
If you wish to contact the campaign's organisers, please use the email address: musiconthursdays (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Area 2.3 hectares
Estimated capacity: 57 homes
References here to the “Hawks Hill Court Development” refer to the properties built on land sold by Sutton & East Surrey Water Company which was developed between 1994 and 1997 and is now known as 23-37 Elmer Cottages and as 38-61 Hawks Hill Court, all of which are marked on some maps as “Hawks Hill Court”.
1) I have lived in the Hawks Hill Development for 16 years. The northern boundary of plot FT03 meets the boundary of my own property.
2) General amenity: the view across the River Mole from Church Grounds Leatherhead and from the West Door of Leatherhead Parish Church is of the Hawk’s Hill part of Fetcham’s overall green canopy, with the limited interruption of some existing waterworks structures. Every effort should be made to protect this green canopy in the interests of the amenity of the people of South Leatherhead and of visitors to this 1,000 year old church.
3) Plot FT03 includes some mature trees and some stands of trees which should be protected by TPO’s. It is the responsibility of any utility company to preserve amenity, including ensuring the protection of trees. Sutton & East Surrey Water Company is a subsidiary of Sumitomo Corporation of Japan. The Company’s decision to dispose of this site gives rise to a conflict of interest between the duty to preserve amenity and the duty to maximise profit for that Company and its overseas owners. This could best be resolved by the swift intervention of the Council’s Tree Officer before any further modifications to the plot are made by those who intend to sell it. The loss of eleven mature trees on a plot at the end of Hawks Hill Close and the loss of a substantial number of trees between Cannon Way and Mole Road Fetcham late in 2013 are appalling precedents for what can happen to mature trees which are left without protection. The spectre of a Tree Officer placing a warning notice on one of the few remaining stumps is not something the residents of Fetcham wish to experience again.
4) Questions were raised after the Water Company undertook tree works on the existing Hawks Hill Court Development plot prior to its disposal as a development site. Many local residents felt this was not handled correctly and that the company had indeed favoured business aims above tree protection and public amenity at that time.
5) Existing contamination of the site should be reviewed. Here too, local residents, including some with experience of the Water Company’s activities on the site, felt that in the 1994-97 development clearing of the materials and residues previously held on the site was not undertaken according to appropriate standards.
6) The aquifers under this plot must be protected in ways similar to the protection imposed on the Hawks Hill Court Development.
7) The southern edge of the site is home to a number of foxes and their cubs. Consideration must be given to re-homing this and other wildlife or to protecting their habitat.
8) 57 homes is certainly too dense for this site. Far from providing a transition from the surrounding mansion-style density to the higher density housing that typifies Elmer Cottages, Elmer Mews and Sunmead Close the suggested quantity seems to be attempting to rival those densities. This over-ambitious scale of development is further evidence of the water company losing sight of amenity value on the plot they intend to dispose of.
9) To preserve the privacy of the existing homes Nos 12-20 and 29-33 Elmer Cottages and 38-45 Hawks Hill Court and give a degree of privacy to the residents of the proposed development itself the existing thicket along the northern boundary of the site should be retained and in places improved to protect the privacy of Nos 12-20 and 29 Elmer Cottages.
10) On occasional summer evenings a sound like that of a diesel engine starting up and running can be heard in the houses along the existing northern boundary to the site. The proposed housing will be a great deal closer to the source of that noise and therefore the Water Company must be required to minimise that source of nuisance.
11) The existing green screening of the Water Company’s structures and activities should be improved along the southern boundary of the site to provide better amenity both for the new properties and for the existing properties in Elmer Cottages and Hawks Hill Court.
12) The existing access turn-in part way up Hawks Hill is not suitable to service a large development. Consideration might be given to providing access to part of the development from an extension of the roadway at 12-22 Elmer Cottages. This solution would be particularly suitable if the included new social housing were to be managed by Hyde Solon which manages the existing properties. Some improvement to parking provision along and facing 1-9 Elmer Cottages and proper junction marking at the internal junction of Elmer Mews and Elmer Cottages would then be required.
13) Consideration would need to be given to the safety of vehicles heading North down this steep hill and then turning into the proposed site entrance. Surrey Police may be able to advise the level of speed logged by the equipment they regularly place on Hawk’s Hill near to the site. Prior to construction of the Hawks Hill Court Development Surrey Highways insisted on construction of the present refuge for right-turning vehicles near the far more level entrance to Elmer Cottages. A similar construction could only be made part way up Hawks Hill / Guildford Road by encroaching on the existing verges and by the possible loss of mature trees. Even then, drivers coming down the hill could be dangerously surprised to find a vehicle waiting in the middle of the road at that point.
14) One of the lessons to be learned from the existing Hawks Hill Court Development is parking provision. The existing development has households with up to four vehicles where the assumption of the original plans looks to have been households of one or two vehicles, plus just one visitor space per five properties at any time. Hyde Solon have had to redesign the layout of the social housing at 12-22 Elmer Cottages to insert additional parking spaces there. While Hawks Hill Court’s visitors can park along the access road facing 1-9 Elmer Cottages, parking outside the proposed development FT03 would place visiting vehicles on the steep Hawks Hill / Guildford Road. This would clearly be a dangerous outcome.
TOPICS others have mentioned:
- Bats have been seen in neighbouring gardens over the 16/17 years since the Water Company sold the plot that was to become Elmer Cottages 12 - 37 and Hawks Hill Court. A survey of bat and other wildlife habitats on the site will need to be carried out before heavy machinery begins to invade it further.
- Once developed, water run-off collected from the site will add more load to the existing drainage system. The system may be added to to collect the water, but will the overall capacity increase ? At the moment, this rainwater goes into the ground. Does the River Mole need this additional water to be collected and fed into it rapidly ?
- The waterworks was built on Green Belt land, with a provision in the original planning permission that trees would be put in to screen the structures. These trees are beginning to approach the sort of maturity which means they will start to do that job. We must make sure they are not removed simply because they fail the girth test for tree protection orders.
- Why does the Council's document keep insisting on the term "inert materials" ? Is MVDC certain that other materials have NEVER been held on this site, and are not held or even currently used on the adjacent working site ?
If you wish to contact the campaign's organisers, please use the email address: musiconthursdays (AT) gmail (DOT) com
♫▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
|
|
