Wednesday, 2 September 2009

EXCLUSIVE: Hamptons Planning Permission Granted


The Worcester Park Blog can exclusively reveal that developers St James Homes have won their appeal over the controversial expansion of 'The Hamptons' development.

John Denham, Secretary Of State for Communities & Local Government, has rejected all of the arguments put forward at the Public Enquiry by those opposed to the construction of 184 further dwellings on the site of the former sewage works in Green Lane.




Those who opposed the further expansion (including Sutton Council, local MP Paul Burstow, and the Worcester Park Residents Association) argued that the problem of traffic congestion which already blights Worcester Park would be exacerbated if The Hamptons expands further.

On this key argument, the Secretary Of State has said he is 'not convinced' that the proposal would make traffic to Worcester Park significantly worse.

A new access road will be built linking the Hamptons to Boscome Road, however this will only give access to 9 of the new dwellings. Traffic to and from 175 new dwellings will therefore be forced to use what is currently the site's only access road (onto Green Lane).

Denham also writes that there was no compelling evidence put forward at the enquiry that the expansion would substantially add to the risk of accidents or otherwise impair road safety.

Campaigners also argued that Worcester Park's local services (in particular schools and GP surgeries) were already overstretched and the additional population would place an impossible further strain on resources.

Only last month, a survey by Paul Burstow MP found that 60% of existing residents on the Hamptons have to travel up to 3 miles to see a GP - with some residents having to travel to Motspur Park, Merton Park and New Malden to see a Doctor.

However Denham rejects this argument, ruling that the new development "would make appropriate contributions in respect of local education and healthcare services" (developers St James Homes having commited to making increased financial contributions to local services).

Campaigners' concerns over the adverse affect on local air quality and fears that the development would exacerbate the risk of flooding were also rejected. The Secretary Of State was satisfied that local concern about flooding could appropriately be addressed by a planning condition requiring a drainage scheme to be approved.

Permission has therefore been granted for developers to build 184 new dwellings (including 63 affordable units) to be called Providence Place. The dwellings will comprise:

  • Twenty nine 1 bedroom apartments
  • Fifty nine 2 bedroom apartments
  • Six 3 bedroom semi-detached houses
  • Twenty six 3 bedroom terraced houses
  • Four detached 4 bedroom houses
  • Twenty semi-detached 4 bedroom houses
  • Thirty six terraced 4 bedroom houses
  • Four 5 bedroom detached houses
  • Sixty two ground source heat pumps
You comments and reaction are welcome below!

17 COMMENTS (Add Yours Now!):

Anonymous said...

I presume Denham would similarly reject the argument, that the new development "would make inappropriate contributions in respect of local crime rates and anti-social behaviour"?

Hamptons Resident - but not for much longer. said...

We live in the Hamptons at the moment, and have been dreading this decision. It took us a LONG time to get registered with a GP, and the traffic in Green Lane of a morning is appalling - it can take a half hour to get from the Hamptons to the main road.
Luckily, we're moving. When they started all that digging up there behind us, we knew they'd get permission, so we got out. We move in a couple of months - and can't wait.
A shame, because we like the rest of Worcester Park!

Anonymous said...

Please tell me that the 9/175 access road is a joke

Anonymous said...

Money talks .... how on earth is Green Lane going to cope with the extra traffic?

Anonymous said...

I think it is about time the residents of WP got up and made more noise so that Whitehall can hear us! I am sick and tired of WP being treated as if we do not exist. We moved here in 1973 and the voice of WP has NEVER been listened too. The Hampton’s problem is just a drop in the ocean as far as I’m concerned, Paul Burstow and the rest should start doing what we need done instead of looking for headlines. I would love to do the UEL but do not know how to... Jo

rob 'n ' beck buckland way said...

How do we take action? Do neighbours need to talk, do leaflets need to be posted? Is there any worth in writing to the Secretary of State?

young buck said...

Its not that I believe in giving up the fight but I think we are up against a very powerful opposition - and that's the government's housing targets. Especially as The Hamptons is not a green site. They are deaf to our concerns becuase it does not suit their plans

Anonymous said...

I live on Boscombe Road. The site traffic that was constantly rumbling up and down outside our house while the last lot was built was horrendous and it is with dismay that I can see we are now going to have to go through it all over again.

When we moved into our house 7 years ago, it was a quiet peaceful cul-de-sac, and nothing to warn us of the impending disturbance was shown in any searches.

We now have traffic racing up and down all day and night, as well as a constant flow of pedestrians who use the hamptons for a cut through to Worcester Park.

Emergency vehicles on a daily basis going to the flats on the hamptons.

Its a nightmare already and is clearly going to get worse.

Anonymous said...

Not only will Green Lane be a problem but what about the Public Transport? I presume a lot of the new residents will be using the train to get to work. Worcester park station is already heavily congested in the mornings with commuters and the trains will be even more overcrowded!

Anonymous said...

Is the site traffic actually going to access via Boscombe road? I thought there were rules put in place preventing this. If it is the case, then i'm going on holiday to Hellmand Province for 6 months, i might get a bit more peace and quiet, that was an absolute nightmare when it all happened before.

With respect to the new houses, i think only 9 extra homes will have access through Boscombe road when it is all finished, so it wont be any worse than it is now. But you're right about the speed of people driving into the estate, craziness. They need an 'average speed' camera system, one at the top of Boscombe, and one at the bottom, as the speed humps are obviously invisible to some people by the way they demolish their cars over them at 40mph!

Anonymous said...

YoungBuck has hit the nail on the head. Local & Central Govt are not really interested in our concerns. We only pay their salaries & pensions. The Govt has housing targets, and St James (developers) wrote directly to the Government basically saying "we can't see what the problem is, we can meet your housing target".
I too wrote the to Hazel Blears directly, stating many of the concerns people share in WP, and predictably her reply was "I've referred the matter to the relevant authorities" - which was the inquiry being held at the Holiday Inn. I wrote to them too (prior to Hazel Blears), but they indicated that deadlines for written representations had passed - what rubbish. There was NO WAY they were going to refuse planning permission for this despite traffic, schooling, transport, lack of GPs and other public services, train congestion, pollution and anti-social behaviour concerns of local residents. The only thing to do now is to hold those responsible for making this decision to account when all the predicted mayhem comes to pass. Denham is it? (184 new dwellings for goodness sake! at least another 360 people, probably 300 cars, hundreds of children requiring schools etc). Sickening display of spinelessness.

Anonymous said...

I think that all the bloggers on here should clear off to the country and live your 'idealic' lives. 180 dwellings will generate in the region of 60 vehicle movements within the peak hour, or one additional vehicle per minute. Oh my god, it may take you an extra minute every day to sit on your fat behind in your car as you travel to your dull jobs. I really feel sorry for you that you take such a short-sighted attitude.

Worcester Park said...

Anonymous - I assume from your comment that you don't have to sit in the Green Lane traffic jam taking half an hour to travel a few hundred yards? I also take it you've managed to find a GP locally? And I also take it you've had no issue finding a school place for your kids? In which case good on you.

Anonymous said...

if demand for new doctor surgerys, schools places etc is needed then cant the councils do something about it? after all worcester park does have 3 differnet council athoritys, surley one of them might help the situation, and st james should be pushing these issues for its customers as they need to sell their houses

John Brannan said...

Astounding comments from all you Nimbys. Traffic jams? Don't use your car, idiots - you're the ones who are creating the jams and polluting WP for us and our children.
School & GP capacities? The more people there are the better chance you have of getting more school places and GPs moving in - it's to do with viability and critical mass.
New housing that's perhaps more affordable for our children? You dont want it do you. Embrace the prospect of more houses in our existing built-up areas and you make better use of land and resources (bus routes, shops, etc)and reduce the need to sprawl housing further out from the centre of London and reduce the need for longer commuting journeys. By accommodating more houses in our community we enhance the viability of our shops and other local services whilst satisfying the housing needs of our fellow human beings.
You forget: where you live used to be a field; the byways were empty before you got in your car and clogged them up; shops and schools would not exist in our area if the nos.of customers or children did not reach a level that gave them viability.
Well done the Sec of State for taking the right, but difficult, decision.
And shame on the rest of you for for being so selfish towards your fellow human beings.

Andrew B said...

Some "idiots" have no choice but to drive to work - if their work is too far to walk or cycle and are not on a commuter route.

With respect, suggesting that demand gives rise to additional resource is a bit naïve. There are enough children in WP for a secondary school, but where is it? Even if the finance were available, any available land is already used or earmarked for housing development.

The decision was not that difficult for the minister. I don't expect he read past "brownfield site" and the number of dwellings it would chip off the government target for new homes.

Anonymous said...

St James Homes / Berkeley Group cannot be trusted - they have extend & extended every single one of their developments so far - this will not be the last of planning permission requests or changes to original plans. Tony Pidgely always gets what he wants. Build quality is poor & little thought is given to the day to day reality of those living in/around their developments. St James sell 'lifestyles' rather than bricks & mortar (very few real bricks used) - be careful to read all their small print & take solicitor advice & not get sucked in to what they often say verbally but are careful not to put in writing.

Post a Comment

The Worcester Park Blog welcomes your comments and opinions!