Jolly Boatman Appeal – MRA Submits Further Objections

The appeal against the refusal of planning permisson for a major development at the Jolly Boatman site and Hampton Court Station sites will start on 14^th June and will run for 5 days spread over 2 weeks.

In the meantime Stuart Selleck, MRA Chairman and former Leader of Elmbridge Council, has submitted further representations arguing that the appeal should be dismissed. Stuart’s letter is copied below:

Letter from MRA Chairman Stuart Selleck

Subject: Appeal ref:  APP/K3605/W/ 22/3291461 and  APP/K3605/W/22/3290981

The Molesey Residents Association has five Councillors on Elmbridge Council and over 1800 supporters in the community. Over the years we have actively engaged with the developers of this site in order that an appropriate development could be brought forward which would not only benefit the residents of Molesey but recognise its importance in relation to its proximity to Hampton Court Palace.
We were pleased that the Council refused planning permission and hope that the following comments will assist you in dismissing this appeal.

The Appellant can not choose  because it doesn’t suit their case , to set aside the Act of Parliament,the 1929 Railways Act with its constraints of the height of development in and around the Station . This is a material consideration for many of our residents.

The sheer size and scale of the proposed development and inappropriate design does not fit in with the  Molesey area particularly along the Hampton Court Road.

Parking in Molesey has always been a contentious issue and despite repeated requests there has been no satisfactory answer to the reduction of car parking provision in the application nor its undoubted negative affect on the surrounding roads in Molesey.

Elmbridge Council is no different to every other Council in seeking developers to make a significant physical contribution to their affordable housing needs and just not simply a financial commitment. The Appellant has made a pitiful offer of affordable housing and was referenced as a reason for refusal. Even the offer of high end luxury accommodation is not a realistic contribution to the Elmbridge housing needs. The lack of affordable housing was raised on numerous occasions with the developer but chose to ignore the requests from the MRA.

The Appellant inherited a Framework Travel Plan when they purchased the site which was subsequently replaced with a new one because of the changes to the original 2008 proposals. The siting of the hotel and retail units is of concern because of its design and position to a cycle path and pavements next to the main Hampton Court Way. All the users and occupiers of the building will have to use the lay-by on the busy road as their sole service and delivery point. This is not only potentially dangerous but is contrary to what would be expected in a “good” Travel Plan which seeks to reduce congestion, improve air quality and safeguard the travelling public.
Even the proposed Highways Plan is impractical as it’s likely to cause a worsening bottleneck in and around the Bridge as it’s stop/start design will only add to congestion and undoubtedly more pollution.

The potential loss of the open riverside landscape and its historic setting cannot and should not be underestimated if this application goes ahead. The landscaping offer is poor and lacks imagination and misses an opportunity to create an extended open green space in conjunction with Cigarette Island Park.

In conclusion, it’s extremely difficult to see how this scheme will benefit the local community and wider public against the historic position of Hampton Court. We hope that the Inspector upholds the Council decision to refuse planning permission and dismiss this appeal.

Stuart Selleck

Chairman Molesey Residents Association.

Published on Monday, March 14th, 2022
in Planning | General Interest | Environment and Green Spaces