Source: https://roeregeneration.wordpress.com/tag/20164901/
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 00:23:50
Document Index: 679078596

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No: 2017', 'Application No: 2017', 'Application No: 2017', 'Application No: 2016', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 2']

2016/4901 | roeregeneration
Tag Archives: 2016/4901
Weekly Council Planning applications and decisions – April 22nd 2017
Application No: 2017/1470
No of Neighbours Consulted: 7
Date Registered: 19 April 2017
Address: 7 Bank Lane, SW15 5JT, and 2 Roehampton Gate, SW15 5JS,
Application No: 2017/1571
No of Neighbours Consulted: 24
Proposal: Alterations including redevelopment of existing wardens’ cottages to create 4 x 3-bedroom two-storey (plus basement) houses; erection of 2 x 5-bedroom two-storey (plus basement and roof) detached houses; erection of stable block including 4 x horse stalls, 2 x 1-bedroom two-storey houses, artist studio and associated paddock and jumping ring; associated landscaping and boundary treatment.
For Listed Building Consent refer to planning application reference number: 2017/2080.
Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Rich-Jones, Templeton, 118 Priory Lane, LONDON, SW15 5JL,
Application No: 2017/0925 W
Decided on: 18/04/2017
Date Registered: 24/02/2017
Proposal: Demolition of existing single storey refectory building and replacement with new single storey refectory building including new kitchen, servery, stores, mezzanine and basement and provision of a temporary kitchen and dining facilities on the southern games area during construction.
Applicant: Mr Stephen White, Ibstock Place School, Clarence Lane, LONDON,SW15 5PY,
Application No: 2016/4901 W
Decided on: 19/04/2017
Date Registered: 30/08/2016
Address: Digby Stuart College, Roehampton Lane, SW15 5PH,
Proposal: Details of Delivery and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan pursuant to conditions 23 and 28 of planning permission dated 13/10/2014 ref 2014/3330 [Construction of a part 4, part 5 storey building to provide student accommodation, conference suite, academic and support space; construction of a part 4. part 5 closure of existing main vehicular access onto Roehampton Lane, alterations to existing southern pedestrian and vehicular access including boundary walls; formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access onto Roehampton Lane; relocation of car parking; alterations and extension to internal road layout and new pedestrian footpath.]
Applicant: University of Roehampton, C/O Agent,
Agent: Boyer Planning, UK House, 82 Heath Road, Twickenham, TW1 4BW,
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged 118 Priory Lane, 2014/3330, 2016/4901, 2017, 2017/0925, 2017/1470, 2017/1571, 7 Bank Lane, and 2 Roehampton Gate, April 22th, Clarence Lane, Digby Stuart College, Ibstock Place School, Roehampton Lane, SW15 5JL, SW15 5JS, SW15 5JT, SW15 5PH, SW15 5PY, Templeton, Weekly Council Planning applications and decisions on June 7, 2017 by roeregeneration.
Roehampton University answers questions about student car parking
Given the volume of objections to various Roehampton University planning applications based mainly around car parking impacts on local residents a Freedom of Information request was sent to the University.
According to the Gov.uk website when a question is asked “You should get the information within 20 working days. The organisation will tell you when to expect the information if they need more time”.
With regard to this timeframe this 20 day timescale was not achieved. The timings were:
23 October 2016 – questions were sent to the University.
16 November 2016 – a chaser was sent to the University asking for progress.
22 November 2016 – a chaser was re-sent as the email of 16 November bounced.
10 December 2016 – a further chaser was sent to the University.
15 December 2016 – finally, a reply received and this also provided answers to the questions.
Was the delay so as to possibly not interfere with the planning applications which were in process, or was it for other reasons?
What the answers seem to be pointing towards is that student car parking is the Council’s responsibility via the planning application process. Does this seem a bit like the University is washing its hands of any responsibility for student car parking in the ward?
The questions and answers are below;
Freedom of Information Request Roehampton University and car parking
With reference to your request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, dated 22 November 2016, I can confirm that the University holds some, but not all, the information requested.
Your request was, in general terms, for the following information, which is set out in full detail below: car parking arrangements for students.
1. What is the current maximum capacity of resident students in the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward that the University can accommodate?
The University has 2,053 rooms on-campus – including Mount Clare and Whitelands.
2. Has the University conducted any analysis of how many of these resident students have a car?
No, we have not carried out an analysis as we don’t offer parking for students unless they can demonstrate limited mobility which is then approved through Disabilities Service. We keep a record of this. A recent travel survey included questions about modes of travel to the University, and to promote more sustainable travel, not car ownership.
3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, can the University share this analysis?
Although as stated above, the travel survey did not ask about car ownership, however the results showed that 75% of our students use sustainable modes of travel to get to and from the University.
4. If the answer to question 2 is no, can the University explain the reason for not having done this?
This is because the University has no reason to undertake a survey for a service we do not offer.
5. If the answer to question 2 is no, does the University have plans to conduct such an analysis?
No, however students are invited to participate in University-wide travel surveys from time to time, as noted above.
6. If the answer to question 5 is no, what is the explanation for not conducting such an analysis?
7. Given that resident students are not permitted to park their cars on campus can the University provide an explanation of where the resident students park their cars?
However, heavily discounted rates are offered in the car park at Queen Mary’s Hospital. After 4.30pm through to 8am and also at weekends students are permitted to park on campus
8. If the answer to question 7 is no, does the University intend to carry out such an analysis?
9. If the answer to question 8 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so.
This information is not held. However, the comment in response to question 4 above is relevant; as the University cannot monitor where students park (other than on campus or at QMH) there would be no reason (or authority) for the University to conduct such a survey. Nor would there be a requirement on students to respond to such a survey in respect of parking in roads without parking restrictions.
10. Regarding the wording “we strongly discourage students from bringing their cars on campus” it is asked that the University detail how it discourages students from parking on campus.
In the accommodation handbook and on the web we discourage students from bringing cars due to the parking restrictions and the strong public transport links, as described below:
“Handbook: Student cannot park on campus between 8:30am and 4:30pm (Monday to Friday) during term time. The University advises resident students not to have a car. Everything you need is available locally or is easily accessible by public transport.”
The University’s Travel Plan sets out other methods of transport, including bus routes and timetables. There is significant on-going investment in provision for cyclists, including secure racking and shower facilities. In particular, covered secure cycle racking for 100 bikes has been provided at Elm Grove Hall, and the University now has over 500 cycle spaces across the campus
11. Regarding the wording “The University’s contract with resident students prohibits them from applying for a residents parking permit in the local area”, is the University aware that such permits are limited to a very small part of Roehampton as highlighted by the following Council webpage –
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200459/parking_zones/218/locations_of_parking
_zones/11 ?
12. Given that planning application 2016/1385 and 2016/4901 are connected to this planning application in that they involve car parking as a concern as expressed by residents. Will the University seek to address these concerns with residents? The University will continue to discourage car use by its students, and the parking arrangements are not affected by the planning application.
13. If the answer to question 12 is yes, then please explain how this will be done.
14. If the answer to question 13 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so.
In response to Question 12, as the planning application does not change parking arrangements, the University does not intend to seek to address any concerns with residents and relies on the planning application process.
Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/queries_to_the_university_about#outgoing-604992
Roehampton University portacabins – still time to object
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged 2016/1385, 2016/4901, 2016/5377, 2016/5912, Parkstead House, Planning Application, Roehampton University, student car parking, Whitelands College on December 17, 2016 by roeregeneration.
From the above photo it can be seen that last date in now 22nd December. This photo was taken on Holybourne Avenue.
To have a read of the planning application and the many objections to date, click on this sentence.
Also, a Forum has started on putneysw15 which is regarding this planning application. There are many comments which provide food for thought, though one sums it up quite interestingly.
“I’m not saying I have a better option, but when I break it down like this, it doesn’t seem fair:
Problem – local residents having issues with the availability of parking outside their houses.
Cause – the increase in demand for parking by university students.
Solution – make the local residents pay to park outside their houses”.
To read the Forum comments click on this sentence.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged 2016/1385, 2016/4901, 2016/5377, 2016/5912, Parkstead House, Planning Application, putneysw15, Roehampton University, Whitelands College, withdrawn on December 11, 2016 by roeregeneration.
Given the recent series of planning applications by Roehampton University the following questions have been raised with this institution.
“As a resident of the Alton Estate and the recent acknowledgement by the University of Roehampton that it does “understand the pressure on parking cars in Roehampton” (as stated as part of planning application 2016/5377 letter dated 14th September 2016 signed by Dr Ghazwa Alwani-Starr) following queries are asked of the University;
What is the current maximum capacity of resident students in the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward that the University can accommodate?
Has the University conducted any analysis of how many of these resident students have a car?
If the answer to question 2 is yes, can the University share this analysis?
If the answer to question 2 is no, can the University explain the reason for not having done this?
If the answer to question 2 is no, does the University have plans to conduct such an analysis?
If the answer to question 5 is no, what is the explanation for not conducting such an analysis?
Given that resident students are not permitted to park their cars on campus can the University provide an explanation of where the resident students park their cars?
If the answer to question 7 is no, does the University intend to carry out such an analysis?
If the answer to question 8 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so.
Regarding the wording “we strongly discourage students from bringing their cars on campus” it is asked that the University detail how it discourages students from parking on campus.
Regarding the wording “The University’s contract with resident students prohibits them from applying for a residents parking permit in the local area”, is the University aware that such permits are limited to a very small part of Roehampton as highlighted by the following Council webpage – http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200459/parking_zones/218/locations_of_parking_zones/11 ?
Given that planning application 2016/1385 and 2016/4901 are connected to this planning application in that they involve car parking as a concern as expressed by residents. Will the University seek to address these concerns with residents?
If the answer to question 12 is yes, then please explain how this will be done.
14. If the answer to question 13 is no, then please explain the reason for not doing so”.
To keep an eye on the progress of the query click on this sentence.
Roehampton University planning application 2016/5377
Roehampton University Travel Plan 2014-2019 (part 2)
Roehampton University Travel Plan 2014-2019
Weekly Council Planning applications and decisions – September 3rd
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged 2016/1385, 2016/4901, 2016/5377, Alton, Ambache, car, Carpenter, Councillor, Estate, McKinney, parking, permits, Putney Heath, resident, Roehampton, students, Team, University, ward on October 23, 2016 by roeregeneration.
It seems that Roehampton University is again testing the parameters of what is acceptable with regards to student car parking requirements. There was the portacabins by Whitelands College (2016-1385) then the Travel Plan (2016-4901).
As far as we know, there are hardly any resident parking permits in the local area.
The link below refers to the areas that do have such restrictions, these being the location of parking zones.
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200459/parking_zones/218/locations_of_parking_zones/11
What is the point discouraging students from parking in the area, as these are only words?
Are students really restricted from parking in the area? They could still park their car on the Alton Estate.
This plan is to do with Elm Grove Students Halls and that is 358 rooms. Imagine if 10% of these students have cars, that is 36 cars, and where do they park?
Is this the University really taking responsibility for its own requirements?
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/516/view_planning_application_by_address_or_map/1369/commenting_on_a_planning_application
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged 2016/1385, 2016/4901, 2016/5377, Ambache, Carpenter, Councillor, Elm Grove Hall, McKinney, Roehampton, Team on October 21, 2016 by roeregeneration.
So far, the objections to Roehampton University’s Travel Survey as part of planning objection (2016/4901) stand at;
Hersham Close Residents Association (covering 48 properties on the Alton estate)
Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Residents Association (covering 49 properties on the Alton Estate)
One resident of the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward
Whilst this a good turnout, given the impacts for potentially all car owners in the Putney & Roehampton Heath ward, as well as West Putney ward, this is a low turnout.
Click on this sentence to take to you to the planning application and the associated documents.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged 2016/4901, Ambache, Application, Carpenter, Councillor, Decisions, Hersham Close Residents Association, McKinney, Planning, Putney & Roehampton Heath ward, Roehampton, Roehampton University, Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Residents Association, Team, Travel Survey, ward, Weekly, West Putney ward on October 3, 2016 by roeregeneration.