Parking Planning Safety

Grotto Pub Site

Grotto Pub Site webMany of you will know of the Grotto Pub Site.  It was my local when I moved here over thirty years ago.

On Monday next a planning application (2015/2042) will be presented for the demolition of the pub and the building of nine one-bedroom flats.

There will be no provision for cars on the site because the site is adjacent to the town centre and therefore it is considered to be in a sustainable location.  What do you think the likelihood is that none of the new 9 to 18 occupants of this development would have a car?   Where would they park?  A local told be recently that if a development was not expected to be occupied by car-owners then that should be written into the lease of the occupancy – as it is in London.  Interesting idea – what do you think?

The junction of Monument Hill and Baker Street is not, to say the least, optimal.  The sight lines are poor – the new wall might make it worse.  The curvature of the Baker Street entrance encourages speed.  The new development will reduce the width of the pavement – presently people walk over the front of the Grotto to pass each other.  These are not the fault of the proposal.

The flats are entirely north facing – so the occupants could not be in their flats and overlook Hillcrest.

I welcome your views on this prominent site.

8 replies on “Grotto Pub Site”

EBC website now says “comments until 3 August”. Is this case being deferred for proper consideration of traffic dangers?

Weybridge Society is very concerned at new danger from the proposed railings, pillars and hedging which would badly reduce sightlines for pedestrians crossing the top of Baker St. as well as for cars shooting round that bend. Also the present pavement width outside the Grotto narrows to only 1.6m. (less than the standard 2m for pavements), which contradicts the Surrey and Elmbridge policy to encourage safe walking in place of cars. Have the officers of either council stood on that bend at 8am to observe how dangerous it is already and assessed how much more dangerous it would become if they neglect this point? Local knowledge seems to have been ignored in the officer’s report.

As you know Richard, the Conservative administration at Surrey is responsible for transport issues in Weybridge and while one part of Surrey is recommending safe routes to school (which require a specified width of highway to work) the other part of the Surrey administration is ignoring those policies.

As Elmbridge councillors we are required, by national law, to consult with Surrey on transport matters.

I object to these plans because:
– the building is too high, having 3 floors and the density of units is too many;
– there are no parking facilities provided;
– there is no provision for any limited parking, e.g for residents moving in/out or for deliveries
– the situation is made worse by the siting on the junction with Baker Street, which without parking will make for dangerous situations when inevitably delivery vans will park on the yellow lines outside

Thank you for this. Formal objections need to be sent to the planing office under the reference given. Deliveries will be interesting.

When applications are submitted, is any consideration ever given by planning committees to the chaos that will be caused to local and through traffic by the vehicles and equipment used in the demolition and rebuild? If there is little parking available at this moment, for residents, where will the workers who will be knocking this place down and building it up again park? The workers and tradesmen do not arrive and leave in one coach but in individual white vans, materials to build are delivered in large lorries – where will they all park?
If one wants an example of how this works, visit Jessamy Road and see how the residents survive the daily influx of white van man,skips and material deliveries and they are just making an extension to a single house!
Much concern is expressed about how many cars the residents of this new build will have and where they will park, lets have some concern about the affect on the town of Weybridge as a whole BEFORE they are built.
One solution would be to turn the pub into a single residence with a a garage but then the speculator who has purchased this property, is only concerned with how much money they will make.

Yes there is consideration given to the construction phase of any development. I agree that the impact that development can have on neighbours is significant even for small extensions. This particular site is in a very difficult location and special conditions will have to be put in place – and, more importantly enforced. The Conservative Elmbridge administration has often said that it would tighten up on enforcement but the evidence appears to be otherwise. The impact that construction has on traffic is within the remit of Surrey and not Elmbridge and we all know how notoriously poor the Conservative Surrey administration is at offering planning conditions on construction (or any other transport planning matter).

I live in Hillcrest and we already struggle with parking and most of us have residents permits for our area. Would they be entitled to apply for permits thus meaning more cars on Baker Street and Hillcrest. The flats look too big for the area that’s currently occupied by The Grotto. Such a shame it couldn’t be turned back into a pub, would have made a lovely local.

I completely agree. The chance of none of the potential 18 occupants having a car is almost zero and more likely that most will! That junction is already dangerous both in coming out of Baker St and going in where one often has to stop for pedestrians unbeknown to others coming round the corner of the hill who have to make an emergency stop.

Even the demolition and construction of these new dwellings will cause chaos through out the centre of Weybridge, possibly more than Morrison’s because of the limited space and position of the site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *