Child poverty in Merton - papering over the cracks
Cllr Anthony Fairclough, Cllr Simon McGrath and Cllr Paul Kohler MP: Working hard for Wimbledon, Raynes Park & Wimbledon Chase. Learn more
by Wimbledon Town & Dundonald Lib Dems on 23 January, 2012
WE wanted to let you know a bit more about the plans to build a 5 storey block of flats and shops on the former Emma Hamilton pub site following the Wimbledon Chase residents’ association (WCRA) meeting last Thursday (you can find out more about the proposals to develop the site on our website here)
The view of the Wimbledon Chase Residents Association
After the meeting, Grahame Darnell, from WCRA, said:
“[WCRA] believes this will be detrimental to the local area. As a result we will be opposing this application and attmepting to get the developers to moderate their plans . . . Please remember, taking the view that “anything is better than a derelict pub with boarded up windows” is exactly what the developers want us to think. They have invested £2.4m acquiring this site so something will be built on it – it is up to us to try and influence what that is. We are not objecting to building homes for local people all we are asking is that they build something that isn’t so big and thereby minimise the impact on parking, traffic, schools, GPs, NHS, and privacy and light for those very close to the site. ”
Have your say on this planning application
We are keen that as many residents as possible have their say on this issue so that the planning process reflects what people want. The formal planning application can be seen on the Council’s “planning explorer” here.
Email your comments to the planning officer [email protected] / [email protected]. You have to include you full name and postal address as well as the planning application number, which is 12/P0071. Also, please copy in Grahame from the WCRA so he can keep track of numbers, and if you would like to, please feel free to copy us in as well, so we know what you have said.
5 Comments
57 flats seems way too may for the size of the site. Around 20 is much more fitting.
I am sure I speak for many residents when I say that we do not need a “unique and iconic” development in Wimbledon Chase. Such a style of development would stick out like a sore thumb – and downgrade the aesthetics of the entire district. While the aesthetics of Wimbledon Chase are nothing special – the application does not say why we should make them worse, as is proposed therein.
In addition, the proposed development is far too large – three storeys should be the maximum size in order to fit in with the surrounding buildings and respect local character.
The veracity of the statements which claim this plan matches policy objectives for town centres are highly questionable. Wimbledon Chase is not a town. Wimbledon Chase has no town centre. The town is Wimbledon. Wimbledon town centre is an easy 10 to 15 minute walking distance to the NNE, and the route is served by many buses.
In addition to the above, the idea that Wimbledon Chase requires more retail space is bonkers when the town centre is so close and retail space in the Chase stays unoccupied for long periods.
Merton, and Wimbledon Chase in particular, already has a significant problem with population density. The area is experiencing major difficulties with infrastructure – particularly schools, transport (while the proposed suspension of train services to central London from Wimbledon Chase remains an open question and through road traffic continues to increase), the increasing pressure on local leisure amenities, and an almost complete lack of local employment. Ergo: Wimbledon Chase does not need residential development. Policy CS9 (Housing provision) needs to be, at the very least, put on hold while such fundamental infrastructure challenges remain unresolved. This policy is a complete nonsense, and should play no part in supporting such an application.
Wimbledon Chase will be losing a site that, previously, had a leisure use – if this plan is approved. While tastes have changed, and a pub may no longer be a sustainable use for the site, the plan submitted does not say how more modern leisure activities might be supported.
Wimbledon Chase needs jobs, and to maintain it leisure activity spaces. The former Emma Hamilton site is an ideal opportunity to boost local business or commerce. Retail space will not create enough jobs for such a large site and in any case, as above, retail space is not needed.
Stephen Wheeler’s comments are well written but nonsensical in places. He certainly does not speak for many residents that I have spoken to – particularly directly across the road in Oxford Avenue where my property is. Local residents do not necessarily want a leisure facility, and certainly not a pub. As for the ‘character’ of the area – how can this possibly be an issue given its site at an extremely unattractive junction, an aesthetically poor estate, a petrol station and – across the road – a rather shabby collection of shops. The only issue could be parking. Whilst its not the most beautiful development in the world, the Tesco development on the other side of the bridge has done wonders for the area.
Respectfully suggest the WCRA (whom I’ve never heard of despite over 30 years in Winbledon!) canvass opinion further than their own committee and don’t make blanket assumptions on a public forum based solely in the strength of their own personal objections, as it gives a false impression of local sentiment to the proposals.
Disgruntled Oxford Avenue resident.
[…] Wimbledon Chase Residents Association had lobbied hard, and the scheme had been revised from the initial proposals for a 5 storey block of flats. Council officers had recommended that planning permission be given to the revised plans. Part of […]
You really need to get a reality check. Wimbledon Chase will die in our lifetime unless someone does something about it. The Emma Hamilton Pub is the biggest eyesore around here.
Hand car wash is not the answer to economic regeneration. Were not building homes quick enough an old pub seems like a very good use of space.
Or should they build on the greenbelt?