Our team are closely following the proposed redevelopment at the existing Co-Op site on Elmshott Lane in Cippenham and will be supporting residents closely as the application progresses.
The application is currently at outline planning stage, and all of the details can be found on the SBC Planning Website by following this link.
We have opposed the application for a number of reasons, and Cllr Anna Wright's response can be found below.
The time-frame for responses to the application to SBC from residents is now closed. It is now expected that the application will be heard by the planning committee on Wednesday 5th September, but we will keep residents informed of that as it gets confirmed. We would urge all residents to consider attending this committee which is open to the public - this will allow residents to show the strong feeling that exists and allows us to maintain pressure on the council to make sure it properly considers these types of applications in the future. In the meantime if you have any questions please feel free to contact us.
Slough Conservatives West Branch Representatives you can contact if you would like to discuss further:
Cllr Anna Wright (Ward Councillor for Haymill & Lynch Hill & Slough Conservatives Campaigns Lead) - anna.wright@slough.gov.uk
Lee Pettman (West Slough Conservatives Branch - Campaigns Lead) - leeavonway@hotmail.com
The response from Cllr Anna Wright to SBC - Sunday 22nd July 2018
Objections to the planning application P/04670/013
As a resident of Cippenham Green and SBC councillor I strongly object to the above planning application.
The Localism Act 2011 makes the planning system clearer, more democratic and more effective. It gives more power to residents and communities to influence the future of the place they live, what development are desirable and needed. The Act introduces a requirement for developers to consult communities before submitting applications.
In this case, the developer and SBC have breached Part 6, Chapter 4 of the Localism Act by not carrying out pre-application consultation. Therefore the application should be withdrawn with the immediate effect. By not doing this, SBC will be seen as deliberately concealing new development and as such it will abuse and breach the Localism Act.
Furthermore, the application has no regard to the community's values, nor does it provide the community infrastructure levy to support new infrastructure such roads and new schools, doctors surgeries for the new development.
SBC has a duty to work with residents on planning issues in the interest of local residents.
I will be citing residents comments in regard to this application which my colleague and I gathered through a survey we have launched. the survey can be shown if needed.
Additionally to the breach and abuse of the Localism Act other objections are as follows:
1. No provision for residential parking for the proposed dwellings on the site
2. Dwellings are all one / two bedroom flats which does not support local resident demand for family homes
3.The building proposed does not fit in with the existing built-environment of the local area in Cippenham Green
Explanatory notes:
1. No provision for residential parking for the proposed dwellings on the site
The argument of the applicant not to provide residential car parking is a total disgrace and a jump on the wagon to build more unsuitable flats and remove current parking facilities that serve the community. To say : "This is in recognition of the nil parking requirement for sites located within a Shopping Centre area as designated in the SBC Local Plan" is laughable. This site may have shops but it is highly populated with residents and this redevelopment will bring even more people with cars (potentially 200 or more cars). This is not a "Shopping Area" and common sense should have applied here. The applicant should have proposed at least 1-1 parking space. yes, this application proposes 110 parking spaces for the retail need and 35 spaces for visitors to the flats but NIL for residents. 119 cycle parks is nice but in a real term should be as an additional benefit for residents of those flats, not instead, and will it be used?
To also say: "This site is also in a highly accessible location, well served by local amenities with EXTENSIVE public transport links to employment and education destinations... As such, the development can be considered "car free" proves that there is no intention to make any provision to improve the transport eg, buses and amenities that are already working to capacity.
I cannot stress more that is very naive and convenient for the applicant that people will not have cars. People have cars. People might travel to work or school by train or bus or bike but they still have cars that are being used. This application cannot go ahead without provision of residential car parking. A road right opposite to the development -Washington Drive -will see the impact of it and it is already over flowing. The whole area due to schools cannot take more.
This development will have a huge impact on residents of Cippenham Green and Haymill &Lynch Hill when the traffic will be going through Bath Rd, Huntercombe roundabout, Station Rd/Burnham Lane especially with new 60 flats coming on Station Rd ( on Station Rd at least there is a provision for parking).
In reality it will create additional parking problems that SBC will have to deal with and spend money on improvements. The developer can easily add additional parking on or below a basement level to accommodate the need. At this moment the developer is saving money and putting the burden on Slough taxpayers in the immediate future.
I am asking, where would all those new people park?
Local schools are full, those new resident will travel by cars to drop and pick kids up .
It is up to SBC planning department to make suitable requirements. It is just a commons sense to stop an unsuitable development.
2. Dwellings are all one / two bedroom flats which does not support local resident demand for family homes
In principle, this proposal is giving some accommodation but Slough needs more family homes. The Leader of the Council James Swindlehurst a few months ago at NCS scrutiny panel admitted that SBC built too many wrong type of houses (1/2 bedroom) and this has to change. Slough needs at least 3/4 bedrooms to meet the demand.
3.The building proposed does not fit in with the existing built-environment of the local area in Cippenham Green
This application proposes 4 levels. That means this building will be the highest in the area which will exceed the existing built-environment. This will also have an impact on people's lives as that flats will be intrusively overlooking people's gardens.
As I mentioned before I am citing some residents views on this development. Please take note that there are only few of what we have gathered in a very short time period, which proves that if there was a pre-application consultation that proposal will not go ahead in a current shape.
I am asking the planning department to reconsider its position and/or withdraw its recommendation or add conditions to the application for residential parking spaces, the community levy and lower the fourth level.
Kind Regards
Anna Wright
Our position on the reponse from Cippenham Green Labour Councillors - Monday 30th July
It is obviously welcome that the Labour Councillors who represent the ward of Cippenham Green have recognised the widespread concerns of local residents about this planning application. Once again the power of residents have spoken. We all joined together to fight this unsuitable development and it is clear to us that under pressure, they simply had to support local residents concerns themselves as we always do.
For a number of years Cippenham Green, and the West of Slough in general has been seriously overlooked and neglected by Slough Labour - the fiasco over the Burnham Railway Bridge is a perfect example of how this Labour-led Council have let residents down. There are serious questions to be raised over how the Council conducts itself in regards to these kinds of planning applications and infrastructure proposals in the town, and they need to recognise how the impact ofl their decisions (or lack of) are on local residents.
In the case of the Elmshott Lane proposal it is clear that the council needs to act fast to clarify its position on local parking for these types of applications - the local plan clearly places restrictions on the need for resident parking that are not realistic and at best naive. We will be looking at how we as a local party working with our Conservative Councillor Group at Slough Borough Council can improve the policy of the council on this matter, as well as looking at how we can lobby the Council to improve the processes it has in place to deal with planning applications that have such an impact on historic, local communities such as that of Cippenham Green.
We would welcome any local residents across the West of Slough to contact us if they would like to discuss this or any other matter.
Thanks,
Lee Pettman
West Slough Conservative Branch - Campaigns Lead
