Fears rise over new store bid

Ad­dle­stone: Wor­ries over traf­fic and for fu­ture of long-serv­ing shop

Surrey Herald/News - - FRONT PAGE - by Rus­sell Butt rus­sell.butt@trin­i­tymir­ror.com

FEARS have been raised that a pro­posed new food store will cause traf­fic is­sues and kill off a shop that has served the Ad­dle­stone com­mu­nity for three decades. The pro­pos­als from de­vel­op­ers FPC (Ad­dle­stone) LLP are for the dis­used garage at 100-106 Church Road next to the Sur­rey Su­per­mar­ket con­ve­nience store. The scheme is for a small food store with four flats above, plus two de­tached homes on the same site, cur­rently a hand car wash. The ap­pli­ca­tion, due to go be­fore Run­nymede plan­ners last night (Wed­nes­day) and rec­om­mended for ap­proval, had al­ready drawn eight let­ters of ob­jec­tion from neigh­bours, in­clud­ing one from the co-owner of Sur­rey Su­per­mar­ket. Mr R Ralfe wrote a let­ter putting the case for the business he has jointly owned with his wife for more than 30 years. He de­scribed the com­mu­nity store as ‘some­thing worth pro­tect­ing’ and warned that grant­ing the new de­vel­op­ment would be very harm­ful. Re­fer­ring to Sur­rey Su­per­mar­ket he wrote: “Th­ese peo­ple have ren­dered a very valu­able ser­vice to the lo­cal com­mu­nity. They have been pre­pared to work long and un­fash­ion­able. hours and they de­serve a mea­sure of pro­tec­tion be­cause of their con­tri­bu­tion to the gen­eral com­mu­nity.

“If this ap­pli­ca­tion is to suc­ceed, then it is go­ing to cut the ground from un­der their feet and will have a to­tally dele­te­ri­ous ef­fect on their business.” Stephen Gar­rett, a neigh­bour in Church Road, wrote about con­cerns over ex­tra traf­fic. He said: “Given the pos­si­bil­ity of another 60 ve­hi­cles an hour us­ing the area need­ing to ma­noeu­vre, cou­pled with a 6ft fence to the bound­ary of the site, it can only hin­der both their view and that of other res­i­dents when mov­ing off into Church Road. “Are we ex­pect­ing a re­duc­tion in road traf­fic ac­ci­dents? We fear not.” Ron En­ti­cott also ex­pressed reser­va­tions.

He said: “This is a largely res­i­den­tial area and to add to the com­mer­cial use seems to be a ret­ro­grade step. The best use of the site would be six to 10 res­i­den­tial units. How­ever, a spokesman for the de­vel­op­ers coun­tered: “We re­alise there is a gro­cer next door but we think the peo­ple will ap­pre­ci­ate the ex­tra ser­vice they would be get­ting will be much bet­ter and the plan­ning process is about fos­ter­ing this kind of com­pe­ti­tion, not pre­vent­ing it. “As far as traf­fic is con­cerned, we have un­der­taken the nec­es­sary traf­fic stud­ies and the two homes on the site will be us­ing the ex­ist­ing exit that is used fairly reg­u­larly al­ready, so we don’t be­lieve there is a high­ways safety is­sue.” Plan­ners were due to de­bate the is­sue at the Civic Cen­tre in Ad­dle­stone last night (Wed­nes­day).

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.