The Society’s comments on
the Plan E Options and Issues document submitted on 13th August
2009
Do you have any
comments on the introduction section?
A clearly written and informative introduction. We particularly liked the
vision for the town centre and endorse these aspirations for the town over
the next twenty years.
Q1. Do you agree
with the issues and objectives for identity, character and management, or
have any additional comments?
One of the important aspects
contributing to the identity and character of the town
is the marketplace. An additional
objective would be to increase the quality of the
market and to make it more
colourful perhaps with permanent canopies, without
advertisements.
As town is a place where
people come to shop a further objective would be to
provide a first class and
quality shopping experience.
Q2. Do you agree
with the issues and objectives for movement and accessibility or have any
additional comments?
Yes we agree with the objectives.
However, if traffic can be reduced, care must be
taken to ensure that the
displaced traffic does not use the minor roads surrounding the town.
A traffic survey may be necessary
to ensure that effective road management
systems are put in place
for the rerouting of refuse lorries.
We were under the impression
that car parks were very well used. However if
capacity can be increased
by better management this will help to reduce on-road
parking.
Q3. Do you agree
with the issues and objectives for public realm and public spaces or have
any additional comments?
Yes, we agree. The repair
and maintenance of privately owned buildings is important, but we suggest that, in order to achieve a high and uniform
standard, a design criteria is produced that could be monitored
and controlled by the town management
system to be set up.
There is a proliferation
of free-standing pavement shop advertisements that present a hazard to walkers and are unsightly. The
removal of these should be given
priority in the removal of clutter.
Additional seating in key places would be advantageous.
Q4. Do you agree
with the issues and objectives for land use or have any additional comments?
Yes, we agree with the objectives.
Quality is the key here, both in terms of the shops and retail offer but also for residential properties
and the range of services. Regarding Objective
22, higher density residential development must not prejudice architectural
quality and must conform to height restrictions.
Appropriate measures must
be taken to prevent unlawful on-street car parking. Commuter parking on roads can be discouraged by use of appropriate time
limits.
Q5.
Do you agree with the suggested visions for each area? If no, how do
you suggest they are altered?
We agree with the generality
of the vision, but question how some of the aspirations can be achieved, particularly in the High Street and Upper
High Street. The shopping frontages are far too elongated
to support thriving retail traffic throughout and the visions are likely to
prove commercially unrealistic. The image of Epsom
relies to a large extent on its heritage and its association with the Derby. For the future, it might be worth considering
an annual event such as an arts festival.
Q6. Which of the options 1,2 or 3 do you prefer?
Please explain the reason for your choice.
We prefer option 1 because
we do not believe that the inclusion of the parks would add significantly
to the town centre. The enjoyment of the parks would not suffer if they were not included although they should
of course continue to be safeguarded. Similarly we do not see the benefit
of including UCA in the town centre. Staff and students would still be able
to use town centre facilities. We would not wish to encourage higher density
residential development in these areas.
Q7. Do you have
another option which you would like us to explore?
No.
Q8. Do you agree with the proposed Town Centre
Primary Retail Area? Should we extend the boundary to include other areas? What evidence
can you provide
to support such an extension?
The
use of the word Primary is misleading and should be deleted. We suggest the existing term Town Centre Shopping
Area should be retained. We also suggest
that this Shopping Area be extended a) further up the Upper High Street to
include the proposed supermarket development, b) along Ashley Road to include
the shop, presently for letting, on the corner of Ashley Road and The Parade
and c) further up both sides of West Street to include the retail elements
thereon.
Q9. Do you agree with the proposed Primary
and Secondary Retail Frontages? Should we extend
the boundary to include other areas? What evidence
can you provide to support such an extension?
We agree with other comments we have seen that
in commercial terms the Old Town and Market Place are a primary retail location,
the eastern High Street is secondary and
the Upper High Street is tertiary. The use of such terms in a Planning document
seems to us to be unnecessary and counter productive.
We
suggest that the secondary retail frontages should be extended along both
sides of West Street, and as far up the south side of Upper High Street as
the proposed supermarket.
Q10. Do you agree that Primary Retail Frontage policy
should protect existing retail uses from development proposals for non-retail
uses such as financial services,
restaurants and beauty salons?
We believe that non retail uses should be discouraged
in the Old Town and Market Place.
Q11. Do you agree with our approach for the Secondary
Retail Frontages, which encourage quality specialist and niche retailers and some other town centre
uses but discourage new fast food takeaways?
Yes, but encourage niche retailers in both primary and secondary frontages.
Q12. Which of the options do you
prefer?
Or do you consider that traffic routes should remain as they currently
are?
Q12a. Please explain the reason for your choice and
add any further comments on the Highways Options below.
We would support any sensible proposal to reduce
the traffic on the A24 in the west end of the High Street
(market square). However we believe the proposals are seriously flawed and unacceptable for the following reasons.
Option 1 has an advantage in reducing a relatively small amount of
traffic in the High Street. Some traffic would use Station Approach exacerbating
the already severe congestion where Station
Approach meets Waterloo Road. The idea of dualling South Street is retrograde
and would lead to serious problems at the junctions of West Street and High
Street/South Street and also where Ashley Avenue meets South Street.
Option 2 which directs all
traffic from both the A24 northwards and West Hill eastwards (excluding public
transport) through Station Approach is ill-conceived and would only transfer
the congestion problem in the High Street and create an even
greater problem in Station Approach particularly at the junction with Waterloo
Road. Already there are times with the opening of
the pelican crossing, the bus stand and the junction to Waterloo Road, traffic
is backing up to West Street. Station Approach is an important part of Epsom
and to make all the residents of Epsom who use the station regularly to have
to cross the A24 is unacceptable.
The proposal (Option 3) to dual the A24 through
Ashley Avenue and into the High Street
via Ashley Road requiring the opening of the bottle neck at the Parade by
compulsory purchase is not practical either in financial terms or in terms
of conservation.
We therefore do not support any of the three options and
consider that traffic
routes should remain as they are.
Q13. Do you agree that a form of management should
be established for Epsom town centre? If no, please explain your reasoning.
Yes we agree strongly. It
has become necessary to have a management system in place to ensure that quality in the townscape is achieved and maintained
particularly in relation to shop fronts and
maintenance and decoration of buildings fronting the town centre. This is particularly important when entering
the town. The management system should not be just a talking
shop but should have sufficient enabling powers to ensure that things are
carried out to a predetermined standard.
Q14. Which of the options
do you consider would be the most suitable for Epsom town centre? Please explain the reason for your choice.
In order to fulfil these
functions adequately we feel that option 3 is preferred although probably the most expensive. The remit and powers
of the management should be very
clearly defined, partly so that the responsibilities of council officers or
elected councillors are not diminished.
Q15. Do you agree with the suggested actions for the management and promotion of Epsom? Do you have
any additional suggestions?
Yes, but if the marketplace
is defined as 'highway' does this affect the pavement cafe culture?
Q16. Do you agree with the suggested actions for energy efficiency and renewable
energy? Do you have any additional suggestions?
Yes.
An enforced parking strategy
would be of benefit.
Q17. Do you agree with the suggested actions for
public realm? Do you have any additional
suggestions?
Develop and apply a design
code to ensure quality in the appearance of building and also in the design and architecture of new buildings. Consider the
use of design consultants.
Reduce hazards on pavements.
We are not convinced about
the value of canopies or blinds on shop fronts.
Q18. Do you agree with the suggested actions for
movement transport and accessibility?
Do you have any additional suggestions?
In relation to road signs
beyond the Borough boundary, surely the Borough should have some input and influence over their content. We suggest Transport
for Epsom could be brought forward.
We are not sure of the benefit
of banning the left turn from the High Street into Waterloo Road although the volume of traffic is low. It
would reduce some traffic in the High Street
which would then use Station Approach. It is probably worth investigating. The removal of the central reservation is worth considering, but only in
relation to linking
with a reduction in speed limit to 20mph.
Q19. Which of the options do you prefer? Please explain the reason for your choice.
Option 2. We would not want
to exclude a single use development provided it met certain criteria for example
largely business use or predominantly residential and that it architecturally
enhances or complements the neighbourhood.
Q20. Do you agree with the above option? Do you
have another option which you would
like us to explore?
Yes emphatically. Positive
action should be taken to ensure good architectural design.
Q21. Which of the options do you prefer or do you
have an alternative option? Please
explain the reason for your choice.
Option 2 with the addition
of ‘and identify sites where higher building might be
permissible’.
We made the assumption that
a storey includes the ground floor and also includes
living accommodation in the roof space.
Q22. Which of the options do you prefer for the
Depot Road/Upper High Street and Church
Street Site? Please explain the reason for your choice. If you wish to suggest an alternative option, please provide
reasoning for your suggestion
We favour Option C but with
the provisos that car parking is considered in high density multi-storey either
above or below ground that would allow expansion of other uses and that the
retail element should be limited to small units fronting the Upper High Street.
We feel that the indicated retail percentage may be too high especially as
the site is shown to include the substantial existing buildings on both sides of Church Street. We are specifically opposed to
a superstore development as envisaged in Option D.
A medium sized hotel could
be considered
Q23. Which of the
options do you prefer for the Gas Holders Site? Please explain the reason for your choice. If you
wish to suggest an alternative option, please provide reasoning for your suggestion
We favour option B. We believe
this site could be a single use site predominantly for mixed residential. There would be limited need for
retail, but open space would be necessary.
A medium sized hotel could also be considered.
Q24. Which of the
options do you prefer for the Epsom Station Site? Please explain the reason
for your choice. If you wish to suggest an alternative option, please
provide reasoning for your suggestion
We favour Option B. This option
would help towards the housing target. Although
a greater proportion of parking
might be desirable, it is unlikely that an adequate
financial return could be
made.
If a transport hub, additional
bus stops are needed, and pick-up and drop-off
points.
Commuter parking should be
encouraged in the Hook Road car park by charging
favourable rates for all day
parking and penalising short stay parkers.
Q25. Do you agree
with the suggestions for the opportunity sites? If no, please explain the reason for your choice.
There are many propositions
that are worth pursuing to utilise these sites which are important resources for the future. It will be essential to have a
comprehensive planning brief for each site ready for when it becomes available
if the borough is to avoid the danger
of piecemeal development and lost opportunity.
Market Place. We agree with
the comments especially removal of market equipment
High Street East. Agreed that
the Woolworths site is important but it is difficult to control retail use.
Maplins is a great asset but the £1 shop is the opposite.
Swail House. Although we
understand the reasons for its inclusion being part of the evidence base SHLAA document, we feel that there
are special circumstances that suggest it should be removed from the list. It is the only residential
site in the list. Moreover, the residents are already suffering from a sight
disability and are understandably concerned at the prospect of having their living accommodation
disrupted sometime in the future. We would also oppose redevelopment here
on environmental grounds.