Redhill Towers Opposition. PLEASE DO NOT just sign this petition. Please use link below
Redhill Towers Opposition. PLEASE DO NOT just sign this petition. Please use link below
The Issue
PLEASE DO NOT just sign this petition. Please use link below
Update 29 May – 3 more days to comment before the Standard Consultation expiry date on 01 June!
We are up to 660 formal objections, great! There are at least another 700 people on this petition who have still not objected on the planning portal link above.
Standard Consultation Expiry is 01 June, Neighbour Consultation Expiry has passed on 25th May.
According to a R&B Planning officer realistically all responses are taken into account before the report is written, especially since this is a major application, so please keep them coming! More than one person per household is permitted and you can post a second objection if you have forgotten something.
Subject: Update 23rd May 2023, 2 more days left to comment/object to this planning application!
All of your objections have not yet been registered! 1150 more comments/objects are needed to be registered on the R&B planning portal for this petition to count. Only 280 people have registered their comments so far on the R&B planning portal!
Instructions to register your objections:
· Go to the “Make a comment” section.
· Register your personal details.
· Select “Commenter Type”
· Check all the boxes which apply
· Enter “Your Comment”
· Click “Submit and Register” and you are done!
Note: You can submit more than one objection if you think of more points, you can also submit more than one objection per household!
If you have specialist knowledge, or just some time to spare to assist with our residents group objection, please contact towers@erra.org.uk
Where possible we encourage you to read all of the “Related documents” by clicking “View associated documents” and refer to these where relevant, many statements made are questionable.
E.g. Transport Assessment Addendum - Local Area Parking, Transport Statement FINAL, Heritage, Townscape & visual impact statement (misleading and many areas missing), Lighting Assessment Report, Daylight Sunlight Report.
Below is a summary of the types of points raised by residents so far. Please use your own words to highlight what means the most to you.
1. Design, density of building & appearance
· Heights of the buildings are overbearing on the townscape and surrounding area
· Overlooking/loss of privacy, impacting residents in the vicinity
· Loss of light or overshadowing, impacting residents in the vicinity
· Light pollution e.g., stairwells and security lighting at night
· Cycle parking – non-compliant with Department for Transport guidance
· Security – unrestricted access to anyone entering the building, resulting in risk of anti-social behaviour.
· Risk of increased crime around the station and between station and McDonalds
· Delivery drivers – lack of drop off spaces (1 service layby only)
· High number/density of dwellings
· Mental Health Considerations & emotional wellbeing of tower block and other local residents
2. Transport, noise & highway safety
· Increase in traffic – impact on people walking and cycling.
· No shared use pedestrian and cycle path between train station and Memorial Park, where the road is a busy dual carriageway.
· Congestion – Princess Way & Redstone Hill and nearby roads, McDonalds area
· Taxis pick-up point inconvenient & unsafe at night
· Rail replacement buses – insufficient space for pick up/drop off
· Noise and environmental pollution will increase due to increased congestion.
3. Parking
· Redhill does not benefit from an extensive bus or cycle network to enable residents to travel conveniently and safely without a car
4. Effect on conservation areas
· Material harm to the setting of Redstone Hill Conservation Area and other local conservation areas Road referenced in the Redstone Hill Conservation Area Appraisal
5. Housing mix
· No affordable housing
· Insufficient mix of housing types (predominantly 1-bedroom flats) - limits progression to other types of housing (e.g. houses) and fails to keep people in the community
· Are the sufficient school spaces, spaces at doctors’ surgeries, dentists, waste collection facilities etc sufficient to cope with the increase in the local population?
6. Nature conservation
· Biodiversity – lack of green spaces and variety of planting to improve the town environment.
· Landscaping/public space – seems an afterthought, but important for pollution, well-being, aesthetics. Memorial Park is the only green space for residents.
Thank you.
UPDATE 15th May 2023 - with link to planning application - please use link to comment/object as you see fit.
The planning application has been formally received and the deadline for objections is 25th May 2023 for 4 tall buildings, 2 x 19 stories and 2 x 14 stories in the place of Redhill station. These towers will over look many residential properties in the local area, as well as casting shadows over the town centre during the day and causing light pollution to Redhill residents in the evenings. The current height of the new buildings in Redhill are 10 stories.
There seem to be multiple grounds for objection:
1. Harmful to views in surrounding area
2. Unprecedented height
3. Contravenes townscape principles
4. Material harm to the setting of Redstone Hill Conservation Area and other local conservation areas
5. Impact on highways
6. Inappropriate density affecting character of local area
7. Impact of light pollution from occupied tall building at night (including disruption of night time views not analysed in the report)
8. Overlooking including from proposed balconies
9. Too high proportion of residential for a "mixed-use" development
10. Inappropriate 'landmark' which is out of character for Reigate & Banstead Council
11. Tall building not justified on account of it being a 'wayfinder' since Redhill not a large enough town for orientation to be a problem
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
RESPONSE TO SOLUM PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED REDHILL STATION DEVELOPMENT (copy to Planning Department, Reigate & Banstead Borough Council)
10 February 2023
We have the following key concerns about the proposed Solum redevelopment of Redhill station:
1. Height of the tower above the station - at 19 storeys tall, the proposed tower is nearly TWICE the height of the new Picture House development opposite Redhill station, which is 11 storeys high. The proposed tower is out of keeping with all other developments in Redhill, including the new Marketfield development (whose maximum height is 13 storeys) and would set a new precedent. Far from being a “landmark” in the redevelopment of Redhill, it would be an eyesore and a blot on the landscape. Why would anyone want to see a 19-storey tower block as their first view of Redhill (approaching from Marketfield Way)? The tower block would be particularly imposing (and not in a good way) because it would not be recessed from the road.
2. Number of dwellings - We understand that 266 dwellings are required to be built if the development is to be financially viable. If the height of the proposed tower was to be reduced and the height of the other block was to be increased (to compensate), the height of the tower and the block would still be too high at around 17 storeys. The primary consideration in determining the height of the building should not be the financial viability of the project; it should be the policy objectives set out in the Redhill Town Centre Area Action Plan (January 2012), the first of which includes delivering a "new development which is of a high quality in urban design, architectural and environmental standards…" In our opinion, the current design of the building does not achieve this objective, and it is crucial that it does, as this will be the landmark building at the key arrival point in Redhill. If it is considered that this many dwellings (and thus such high towers) are required to ensure the development is financially viable, the solution should be to renegotiate the purchase price agreed for the site, so that it can achieve the council’s policy objectives while also being financially viable.
3. Emotional wellbeing of tower block residents - Policyexchange.org.uk suggests there are increased crime rates in high rise areas; residents of tower blocks are reported as experiencing more neurosis, emotional strain, stress, depression and martial discord. Children living in high rise accommodation also exhibit greater juvenile delinquency, hostility, stress and hyperactivity. This is a good reason not to further overload the local services (see paragraph 17 below) and is evidence of the need to provide a decent ‘planning gain’ of much better local resources, particularly green space and decent access to the park.
4. Car parking - the proposed parking for 266 dwellings of 0.2 spaces per dwelling will likely have a negative impact on parking on local neighbourhoods. We are already seeing dangerous parking of vehicles on Redstone Hill, and the council is unable to properly enforce the parking restrictions in place in the town centre, including the permit scheme that is supposed to control the number of motor vehicles parked in the pedestrianised area in the town centre. Further, Redhill does not benefit from an extensive bus or cycle network to enable residents to travel conveniently and safely without a car. What consideration has been given to where home owners’ cars will be parked and the effect this will have on local neighbourhoods?
5. We understand that the proposed development would be marketed as a highly accessible development, but car parking is an issue in the Borough and any new development such as this will have a negative impact on local streets for cyclists and pedestrians and on visual amenity for all. We presume you are aware of the conservation area which lies close to the east of the development site. If parking levels remain low, then we would expect CIL/S108 monies to be delivered to improve public transport.
6. Highways - it is already the case that traffic quickly becomes heavily congested on Princess Way and on Redstone Hill (the A25). This will be worse under the proposed scheme with a large numbers of people driving to and from the car park proposed at site B (and turning onto the A25 or having to travel from the west to the east side of the railway to gain access) - paragraphs 14 and 15 below for further comments.
7. Landscaping - the proposed landscaping is minimal and uninspiring. Planting is important for many reasons, including reducing pollution, improving wellbeing and aesthetics. We understand that the use of a green wall is prohibited because it is a fire risk and hedging would not be advised by the police because of knife crime. However, there is ample scope for impressive roof gardens, and improvement of the site’s paved periphery areas, car parks associated with the station and local public realm. This opportunity appears to have been missed in the plans for the proposed development. Will areas such as the grotty tunnel area (beneath the trainline) adjoining the proposed new development be improved as part of the proposed works?
8. Use of red brick - most of the new development in Redhill (the Picture House and Marketfield) uses yellow brick. The proposed design shows no creativity and is bland and unexciting. New architecture on this scale should be used in such a way that it assists in creating a vibrant and economically viable town centre. Buildings in Redhill (and much of Surrey) are traditionally built of brick. The proposed development should make much more imaginative use of the area’s local bricks (including making good use of different brick shades and surfaces) to maximize local distinctiveness and the use of local bricks. Used in the right way, brick construction could reflect the basic architectural building blocks (literally) of Victorian Redhill.
9. Commercial space - the proposal includes three commercial spaces, one of which is sizeable. We understand there are no plans for a supermarket to take any space. With so many empty shops in Redhill, there is a risk that some or all of the commercial space remains empty.
10. Need for housing in Redhill - our understanding is that a sizeable number of the new apartments that have recently been built in the centre of Redhill is not yet let or sold. Does Redhill need an additional 266 apartments in the centre? They would appear to be targeted at young professionals (commuters). What proportion of the apartments (if any) will be affordable housing (and/or housing allocated to key workers)?
11. Loss of privacy – the tall buildings will overlook many of the surrounding properties, impacting on the privacy of existing residents.
12. Loss of light – will the tall buildings cast a permanent shadow over the houses in Ladbrook Road? And possibly properties in Noke drive?
13. Negative effect on the environment – in addition to the shadow that these buildings will cast on the surrounding area, their height also means that they will create a “wind tunnel” effect channeling the wind along Princess Way. This is already noticeable along Marketfield Way. As mentioned, the proposed development is far too tall, completely out of character with the buildings in the town centre and pays no homage to the town’s Victorian past. The development that housed Bon Marche was medium rise and includes some pretty architectural features that reflect the buildings above C&N cycles opposite MacDonalds. The proposed buildings are architecturally ugly.
14. Impact on infrastructure and safety - as mentioned, the traffic along the A25 is often gridlocked to the top of Redstone Hollow of a morning and is often heavy. Channeling traffic along the A25 and into site B will cause further gridlock, especially if the proposed Hillbrow development (A25 going towards Godstone) goes ahead. This increase in traffic will impact on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists from the top of Redstone Hollow to the railway bridge by site B. It will also increase pollution levels, which will negatively impact the many pedestrians, cyclists and children walking to school who use this route.
15. Access to site B - there is an access way from just beyond Marketfield court to what appears to be a parking area along the side of the railway line opposite site B. A well-designed bridge across the railway line would provide vehicle access to site B via Marketfield Way; this would reduce the congestion by cars going into the site B carpark from the A25 and would have a minimal impact on traffic flow along Marketfield Way. The exit could be by Bubbles car wash, which would improve “passing trade” in the B&Q area (which we understand has no residential units).
16. Overdevelopment - if a significant number of properties in the Picturehouse are unoccupied, it suggests that there is not a need for another 266 flats. Would we have enough school spaces, spaces at doctors’ surgeries, dentists, waste collection facilities etc to cope with the increase in population? Whilst we understand that Solum, as the developer, would be making a contribut
ion to local infrastructure and services, we are concerned that this may not be sufficient to address the significant burden that would be placed on infrastructure and services that are already struggling to cope.
17. Only half a plan - our understanding is that the proposed development would not extend to the current car park at the far end of Princess Way. This is essentially half a plan and is not really going to improve the “feel” of Redhill. Since the current infrastructure is designed around the current car parking arrangement, it would make more sense to provide an underground car park and taxi rank (like the original Sainsbury’s car park opposite) which would maintain the established status quo re traffic flow (such that it is).
18. If housing is proposed for the far end car park area, one option could be a medium rise building including some pretty architecture mirroring the original town-centre buildings with some small outlets underneath. There is the potential for various retail units and essential service providers (e.g. pharmacy) to do a decent business, as there would be quite a lot of passing trade. This would also give room for improved landscaping and would provide a nice provincial feel, rather than a “Croydonesque” feel.
19. Cycling infrastructure
i) Share use pedestrian and cycle path
Surrey is committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and Surrey County Council’s “Local Transport Plan 2022-2032” aims to significantly reduce transport carbon emissions to help achieve this. At present, there is a shared use pedestrian and cycle path through the tunnel under the railway bridge on the approach to Redhill, which continues around the main entrance to the train station and stops at the crossing to the bus station. The shared use path (although it is not marked) resumes on Princess Way after the junction with Ladbroke Road to Memorial Park. However, the development as currently proposed does not link these two sections of shared use path, meaning there would be no legally permitted route for anyone to cycle along Princess Way from the train station to Memorial Park other than by negotiating Station Roundabout and cycling along the dual carriageway. People living to the east of Redhill should be enabled to cycle to the principal green space in the town centre, especially children and those who do not feel safe cycling on the dual carriageway. The simplest way to do this would be to ensure a sufficiently wide and continuous shared use path all the way along Princess Way. This would need to account for the bus shelter that it is proposed would be included on this section of path on Princess Way. Further, the height of the shared use path should be maintained (and not drop to that of the carriageway) at junctions. This would help to slow drivers turning off of Princess Way into the development and reflect the most recent changes to the Highway Code that make it clear that people travelling straight on at junctions should be given priority by drivers turning off of the main road.
ii) Cycle parking
The cycle parking consisting of “Sheffield stands” on sites A and B do not appear to meet the Department for Transport cycle infrastructure design standards set out in “Local Transport Note 1/20” (July 2020). Specifically, these stands are not sheltered (particularly appropriate for longer stay parking) and do not accommodate spaces for non-standard bicycles. It’s also not clear that these areas would be covered by CCTV, especially the stands adjacent to Princess Way which are less visible from the areas where there would be the greatest footfall and be more likely to attract thieves. Also, the parking standards set out in Appendix B of the “Redhill Town Centre Area Action Plan” states that “stands provided in a group should be undercover, lit, secure and adequately signed.” The cycle parking included within the station itself should make people more confident to leave their cycle in this facility, assuming it is covered by CCTV and appropriately monitored throughout the day. However, it should be recognised that this type of parking is only appropriate for “standard” sized bikes, and does not cater for those who cannot lift their cycle; which would make it discriminatory. Sufficient alternative provision that meets the relevant guidance is therefore also important. The cycle stores in blocks A and B are unlikely to give residents sufficient confidence that their bikes can be left safely given the number of dwellings in the blocks. There is a real risk that too many people will have access to these facilities, which will discourage people from cycling locally.
Concluding remark
20. Redhill is currently in the running to be voted the UK’s worst place to live in 2023 (ilivehere.co.uk) - it is vitally important not only to redevelop Redhill, but - perhaps more importantly - to take full advantage of this opportunity and redevelop the town in the right way and in the best way possible for the local residential and business population. The proposal, in its current form, would appear to have no benefit (or at best minimal benefit) for the actual residents of Redhill. It also ignores the fact that Redhill is in Surrey (not Croydon or London) and is surrounded by the North Downs and the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - more should be done to protect the views from the town and not decimate them.
Residents of Hillfield Road, Redstone Park, Crossland Road and surrounding roads.
1,535
The Issue
PLEASE DO NOT just sign this petition. Please use link below
Update 29 May – 3 more days to comment before the Standard Consultation expiry date on 01 June!
We are up to 660 formal objections, great! There are at least another 700 people on this petition who have still not objected on the planning portal link above.
Standard Consultation Expiry is 01 June, Neighbour Consultation Expiry has passed on 25th May.
According to a R&B Planning officer realistically all responses are taken into account before the report is written, especially since this is a major application, so please keep them coming! More than one person per household is permitted and you can post a second objection if you have forgotten something.
Subject: Update 23rd May 2023, 2 more days left to comment/object to this planning application!
All of your objections have not yet been registered! 1150 more comments/objects are needed to be registered on the R&B planning portal for this petition to count. Only 280 people have registered their comments so far on the R&B planning portal!
Instructions to register your objections:
· Go to the “Make a comment” section.
· Register your personal details.
· Select “Commenter Type”
· Check all the boxes which apply
· Enter “Your Comment”
· Click “Submit and Register” and you are done!
Note: You can submit more than one objection if you think of more points, you can also submit more than one objection per household!
If you have specialist knowledge, or just some time to spare to assist with our residents group objection, please contact towers@erra.org.uk
Where possible we encourage you to read all of the “Related documents” by clicking “View associated documents” and refer to these where relevant, many statements made are questionable.
E.g. Transport Assessment Addendum - Local Area Parking, Transport Statement FINAL, Heritage, Townscape & visual impact statement (misleading and many areas missing), Lighting Assessment Report, Daylight Sunlight Report.
Below is a summary of the types of points raised by residents so far. Please use your own words to highlight what means the most to you.
1. Design, density of building & appearance
· Heights of the buildings are overbearing on the townscape and surrounding area
· Overlooking/loss of privacy, impacting residents in the vicinity
· Loss of light or overshadowing, impacting residents in the vicinity
· Light pollution e.g., stairwells and security lighting at night
· Cycle parking – non-compliant with Department for Transport guidance
· Security – unrestricted access to anyone entering the building, resulting in risk of anti-social behaviour.
· Risk of increased crime around the station and between station and McDonalds
· Delivery drivers – lack of drop off spaces (1 service layby only)
· High number/density of dwellings
· Mental Health Considerations & emotional wellbeing of tower block and other local residents
2. Transport, noise & highway safety
· Increase in traffic – impact on people walking and cycling.
· No shared use pedestrian and cycle path between train station and Memorial Park, where the road is a busy dual carriageway.
· Congestion – Princess Way & Redstone Hill and nearby roads, McDonalds area
· Taxis pick-up point inconvenient & unsafe at night
· Rail replacement buses – insufficient space for pick up/drop off
· Noise and environmental pollution will increase due to increased congestion.
3. Parking
· Redhill does not benefit from an extensive bus or cycle network to enable residents to travel conveniently and safely without a car
4. Effect on conservation areas
· Material harm to the setting of Redstone Hill Conservation Area and other local conservation areas Road referenced in the Redstone Hill Conservation Area Appraisal
5. Housing mix
· No affordable housing
· Insufficient mix of housing types (predominantly 1-bedroom flats) - limits progression to other types of housing (e.g. houses) and fails to keep people in the community
· Are the sufficient school spaces, spaces at doctors’ surgeries, dentists, waste collection facilities etc sufficient to cope with the increase in the local population?
6. Nature conservation
· Biodiversity – lack of green spaces and variety of planting to improve the town environment.
· Landscaping/public space – seems an afterthought, but important for pollution, well-being, aesthetics. Memorial Park is the only green space for residents.
Thank you.
UPDATE 15th May 2023 - with link to planning application - please use link to comment/object as you see fit.
The planning application has been formally received and the deadline for objections is 25th May 2023 for 4 tall buildings, 2 x 19 stories and 2 x 14 stories in the place of Redhill station. These towers will over look many residential properties in the local area, as well as casting shadows over the town centre during the day and causing light pollution to Redhill residents in the evenings. The current height of the new buildings in Redhill are 10 stories.
There seem to be multiple grounds for objection:
1. Harmful to views in surrounding area
2. Unprecedented height
3. Contravenes townscape principles
4. Material harm to the setting of Redstone Hill Conservation Area and other local conservation areas
5. Impact on highways
6. Inappropriate density affecting character of local area
7. Impact of light pollution from occupied tall building at night (including disruption of night time views not analysed in the report)
8. Overlooking including from proposed balconies
9. Too high proportion of residential for a "mixed-use" development
10. Inappropriate 'landmark' which is out of character for Reigate & Banstead Council
11. Tall building not justified on account of it being a 'wayfinder' since Redhill not a large enough town for orientation to be a problem
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
RESPONSE TO SOLUM PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED REDHILL STATION DEVELOPMENT (copy to Planning Department, Reigate & Banstead Borough Council)
10 February 2023
We have the following key concerns about the proposed Solum redevelopment of Redhill station:
1. Height of the tower above the station - at 19 storeys tall, the proposed tower is nearly TWICE the height of the new Picture House development opposite Redhill station, which is 11 storeys high. The proposed tower is out of keeping with all other developments in Redhill, including the new Marketfield development (whose maximum height is 13 storeys) and would set a new precedent. Far from being a “landmark” in the redevelopment of Redhill, it would be an eyesore and a blot on the landscape. Why would anyone want to see a 19-storey tower block as their first view of Redhill (approaching from Marketfield Way)? The tower block would be particularly imposing (and not in a good way) because it would not be recessed from the road.
2. Number of dwellings - We understand that 266 dwellings are required to be built if the development is to be financially viable. If the height of the proposed tower was to be reduced and the height of the other block was to be increased (to compensate), the height of the tower and the block would still be too high at around 17 storeys. The primary consideration in determining the height of the building should not be the financial viability of the project; it should be the policy objectives set out in the Redhill Town Centre Area Action Plan (January 2012), the first of which includes delivering a "new development which is of a high quality in urban design, architectural and environmental standards…" In our opinion, the current design of the building does not achieve this objective, and it is crucial that it does, as this will be the landmark building at the key arrival point in Redhill. If it is considered that this many dwellings (and thus such high towers) are required to ensure the development is financially viable, the solution should be to renegotiate the purchase price agreed for the site, so that it can achieve the council’s policy objectives while also being financially viable.
3. Emotional wellbeing of tower block residents - Policyexchange.org.uk suggests there are increased crime rates in high rise areas; residents of tower blocks are reported as experiencing more neurosis, emotional strain, stress, depression and martial discord. Children living in high rise accommodation also exhibit greater juvenile delinquency, hostility, stress and hyperactivity. This is a good reason not to further overload the local services (see paragraph 17 below) and is evidence of the need to provide a decent ‘planning gain’ of much better local resources, particularly green space and decent access to the park.
4. Car parking - the proposed parking for 266 dwellings of 0.2 spaces per dwelling will likely have a negative impact on parking on local neighbourhoods. We are already seeing dangerous parking of vehicles on Redstone Hill, and the council is unable to properly enforce the parking restrictions in place in the town centre, including the permit scheme that is supposed to control the number of motor vehicles parked in the pedestrianised area in the town centre. Further, Redhill does not benefit from an extensive bus or cycle network to enable residents to travel conveniently and safely without a car. What consideration has been given to where home owners’ cars will be parked and the effect this will have on local neighbourhoods?
5. We understand that the proposed development would be marketed as a highly accessible development, but car parking is an issue in the Borough and any new development such as this will have a negative impact on local streets for cyclists and pedestrians and on visual amenity for all. We presume you are aware of the conservation area which lies close to the east of the development site. If parking levels remain low, then we would expect CIL/S108 monies to be delivered to improve public transport.
6. Highways - it is already the case that traffic quickly becomes heavily congested on Princess Way and on Redstone Hill (the A25). This will be worse under the proposed scheme with a large numbers of people driving to and from the car park proposed at site B (and turning onto the A25 or having to travel from the west to the east side of the railway to gain access) - paragraphs 14 and 15 below for further comments.
7. Landscaping - the proposed landscaping is minimal and uninspiring. Planting is important for many reasons, including reducing pollution, improving wellbeing and aesthetics. We understand that the use of a green wall is prohibited because it is a fire risk and hedging would not be advised by the police because of knife crime. However, there is ample scope for impressive roof gardens, and improvement of the site’s paved periphery areas, car parks associated with the station and local public realm. This opportunity appears to have been missed in the plans for the proposed development. Will areas such as the grotty tunnel area (beneath the trainline) adjoining the proposed new development be improved as part of the proposed works?
8. Use of red brick - most of the new development in Redhill (the Picture House and Marketfield) uses yellow brick. The proposed design shows no creativity and is bland and unexciting. New architecture on this scale should be used in such a way that it assists in creating a vibrant and economically viable town centre. Buildings in Redhill (and much of Surrey) are traditionally built of brick. The proposed development should make much more imaginative use of the area’s local bricks (including making good use of different brick shades and surfaces) to maximize local distinctiveness and the use of local bricks. Used in the right way, brick construction could reflect the basic architectural building blocks (literally) of Victorian Redhill.
9. Commercial space - the proposal includes three commercial spaces, one of which is sizeable. We understand there are no plans for a supermarket to take any space. With so many empty shops in Redhill, there is a risk that some or all of the commercial space remains empty.
10. Need for housing in Redhill - our understanding is that a sizeable number of the new apartments that have recently been built in the centre of Redhill is not yet let or sold. Does Redhill need an additional 266 apartments in the centre? They would appear to be targeted at young professionals (commuters). What proportion of the apartments (if any) will be affordable housing (and/or housing allocated to key workers)?
11. Loss of privacy – the tall buildings will overlook many of the surrounding properties, impacting on the privacy of existing residents.
12. Loss of light – will the tall buildings cast a permanent shadow over the houses in Ladbrook Road? And possibly properties in Noke drive?
13. Negative effect on the environment – in addition to the shadow that these buildings will cast on the surrounding area, their height also means that they will create a “wind tunnel” effect channeling the wind along Princess Way. This is already noticeable along Marketfield Way. As mentioned, the proposed development is far too tall, completely out of character with the buildings in the town centre and pays no homage to the town’s Victorian past. The development that housed Bon Marche was medium rise and includes some pretty architectural features that reflect the buildings above C&N cycles opposite MacDonalds. The proposed buildings are architecturally ugly.
14. Impact on infrastructure and safety - as mentioned, the traffic along the A25 is often gridlocked to the top of Redstone Hollow of a morning and is often heavy. Channeling traffic along the A25 and into site B will cause further gridlock, especially if the proposed Hillbrow development (A25 going towards Godstone) goes ahead. This increase in traffic will impact on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists from the top of Redstone Hollow to the railway bridge by site B. It will also increase pollution levels, which will negatively impact the many pedestrians, cyclists and children walking to school who use this route.
15. Access to site B - there is an access way from just beyond Marketfield court to what appears to be a parking area along the side of the railway line opposite site B. A well-designed bridge across the railway line would provide vehicle access to site B via Marketfield Way; this would reduce the congestion by cars going into the site B carpark from the A25 and would have a minimal impact on traffic flow along Marketfield Way. The exit could be by Bubbles car wash, which would improve “passing trade” in the B&Q area (which we understand has no residential units).
16. Overdevelopment - if a significant number of properties in the Picturehouse are unoccupied, it suggests that there is not a need for another 266 flats. Would we have enough school spaces, spaces at doctors’ surgeries, dentists, waste collection facilities etc to cope with the increase in population? Whilst we understand that Solum, as the developer, would be making a contribut
ion to local infrastructure and services, we are concerned that this may not be sufficient to address the significant burden that would be placed on infrastructure and services that are already struggling to cope.
17. Only half a plan - our understanding is that the proposed development would not extend to the current car park at the far end of Princess Way. This is essentially half a plan and is not really going to improve the “feel” of Redhill. Since the current infrastructure is designed around the current car parking arrangement, it would make more sense to provide an underground car park and taxi rank (like the original Sainsbury’s car park opposite) which would maintain the established status quo re traffic flow (such that it is).
18. If housing is proposed for the far end car park area, one option could be a medium rise building including some pretty architecture mirroring the original town-centre buildings with some small outlets underneath. There is the potential for various retail units and essential service providers (e.g. pharmacy) to do a decent business, as there would be quite a lot of passing trade. This would also give room for improved landscaping and would provide a nice provincial feel, rather than a “Croydonesque” feel.
19. Cycling infrastructure
i) Share use pedestrian and cycle path
Surrey is committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and Surrey County Council’s “Local Transport Plan 2022-2032” aims to significantly reduce transport carbon emissions to help achieve this. At present, there is a shared use pedestrian and cycle path through the tunnel under the railway bridge on the approach to Redhill, which continues around the main entrance to the train station and stops at the crossing to the bus station. The shared use path (although it is not marked) resumes on Princess Way after the junction with Ladbroke Road to Memorial Park. However, the development as currently proposed does not link these two sections of shared use path, meaning there would be no legally permitted route for anyone to cycle along Princess Way from the train station to Memorial Park other than by negotiating Station Roundabout and cycling along the dual carriageway. People living to the east of Redhill should be enabled to cycle to the principal green space in the town centre, especially children and those who do not feel safe cycling on the dual carriageway. The simplest way to do this would be to ensure a sufficiently wide and continuous shared use path all the way along Princess Way. This would need to account for the bus shelter that it is proposed would be included on this section of path on Princess Way. Further, the height of the shared use path should be maintained (and not drop to that of the carriageway) at junctions. This would help to slow drivers turning off of Princess Way into the development and reflect the most recent changes to the Highway Code that make it clear that people travelling straight on at junctions should be given priority by drivers turning off of the main road.
ii) Cycle parking
The cycle parking consisting of “Sheffield stands” on sites A and B do not appear to meet the Department for Transport cycle infrastructure design standards set out in “Local Transport Note 1/20” (July 2020). Specifically, these stands are not sheltered (particularly appropriate for longer stay parking) and do not accommodate spaces for non-standard bicycles. It’s also not clear that these areas would be covered by CCTV, especially the stands adjacent to Princess Way which are less visible from the areas where there would be the greatest footfall and be more likely to attract thieves. Also, the parking standards set out in Appendix B of the “Redhill Town Centre Area Action Plan” states that “stands provided in a group should be undercover, lit, secure and adequately signed.” The cycle parking included within the station itself should make people more confident to leave their cycle in this facility, assuming it is covered by CCTV and appropriately monitored throughout the day. However, it should be recognised that this type of parking is only appropriate for “standard” sized bikes, and does not cater for those who cannot lift their cycle; which would make it discriminatory. Sufficient alternative provision that meets the relevant guidance is therefore also important. The cycle stores in blocks A and B are unlikely to give residents sufficient confidence that their bikes can be left safely given the number of dwellings in the blocks. There is a real risk that too many people will have access to these facilities, which will discourage people from cycling locally.
Concluding remark
20. Redhill is currently in the running to be voted the UK’s worst place to live in 2023 (ilivehere.co.uk) - it is vitally important not only to redevelop Redhill, but - perhaps more importantly - to take full advantage of this opportunity and redevelop the town in the right way and in the best way possible for the local residential and business population. The proposal, in its current form, would appear to have no benefit (or at best minimal benefit) for the actual residents of Redhill. It also ignores the fact that Redhill is in Surrey (not Croydon or London) and is surrounded by the North Downs and the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - more should be done to protect the views from the town and not decimate them.
Residents of Hillfield Road, Redstone Park, Crossland Road and surrounding roads.
1,535
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 7 February 2023