Blackwater Valley Sustainable Transport Package

We discovered at the County Council’s Area Committee meeting on Thursday that an exhibition of plans for sustainable transport serving Watchmoor Park was being held in the business park.  (Many thanks, Cllr Ivison, for the information.)  We gather that pretty much anyone who works in Watchmoor Park will have known about the plans and exhibition already, but that doesn’t include us!

Anyway, for those who are interested, the details can be found here: (for some reason, we had difficulty downloading some of the panels using a Firefox browser, though Chrome worked perfectly).

In fact, a very helpful member of the county council staff who was manning the exhibition said that many of those who worked in the business park seemed to have preferred to access the information – and the accompanying survey – via the internet rather than the visit the two-day exhibition.  This is what they missed:


Did you get a letter recently about the former Duke of York?

If you formally opposed or supported the planning application to redevelop the site of the former Duke of York on the corner of the Frimley Road and the A30, you probably recently received a letter from the borough council seeking your views on:

[the] ..”Removal of Condition 8 of planning permission APP/03640/A/13/2209994, relating to the erection of 3 buildings containing 87 one, two and three bedroom flats with parking (partly undercroft), landscaping and access following the demolition of existing buildings) to allow the occupancy of the 65th dwelling (and above) without the provision of lighting improvements to the Frimley Road/London Road junction”
You probably didn’t understand what it – and a very similar letter that accompanied it – were on about!  In which case, you and the Eye were in the same boat…
However, we decided to dig further, and we discovered that the letter contained several errors.  We contacted the council about these, and, as a result, corrected versions of the letters are apparently being issued.  The amended text is already on the council’s website.
If you have the courage to read the new letters, you’ll see that, apart from changes in detail (they’ll say Condition 9 rather than Condition 8, for example), they’ll also differ in a key respect.  Rather than being about improvements in lighting – who cares very much about that? –  they’ll be about “the provision of highway improvements to the Frimley Road/London Road junction”   Which seems to be MUCH more important.
In particular, unless the Condition is removed, the developer is obliged to comply with the following:
“Before the occupation of the 65th dwelling the Frimley Road junction with London Road shall be modified in accordance with a scheme to be first agreed in writing by the local planning authority to provide for the following highway capacity works:
i) The widening of Frimley Road carriageway to provide space for 2 lanes each of a minimum width of 3 metres and a 2.5 metre wide cycleway/footway on the approach to the traffic signals and a pedestrian crossing of a minimum width of 2.4 metres;
ii) Adjustment of traffic signals to accommodate the new 2 lane approach;
iii) Re-alignment of kerbing along London Road;
iv) All necessary signing and lighting adjustments;
v) All ancillary and accommodation works to accommodate the highway improvements.”
Now, far be it for the Eye to suggest how its readers might want to respond to the forthcoming letters.  But, if you’ve ever been caught in congestion as you wait to join the London Road from the Frimley Road, you might like to ask the council to retain the Condition.  A similar Condition was written into the approval of the outline planning permission back in February last year, so it’s been in existence – and known about – for quite some time.

Two posts for the price (ie free) of one

Yes, the Eye knows that The Goose pub in Camberley’s High Street has undergone a change of name.  Others have already reported it, and Mike told the Eye about it a couple of days ago (though we wondered whether he was pulling our leg – sorry Mike).  But, as we’ve taken a photo of the new identity ourselves, here it is.  It’s good to see the name ‘Duke of York’ revived,


Our second item is completely unrelated to the first.  It’s a photo taken yesterday from the top of Main Square car park, and it shows a cloudless sky – which is unusual in itself.  In fact, there wasn’t a cloud to be seen in ANY direction.  But the other unusual feature is that every roof vent in The Mall was wide open – letting the heat out as much as possible.  If the weather forecast is to be believed, the same thing will happen again today.


Is this a well-planned raid on Barclay’s strong-room?

We remember the diamond theft from Hatton Garden over Easter.  Access via the roof, descent through the building, and heavy-duty equipment used to cut through to the safe deposit boxes in the basement.


Well, access to the roof of Barclays Bank in Camberley’s High Street is well-advanced, and there are sounds of work going on at the top of the building.  This photo shows the scaffolding at a fairly early stage – there’s a lot more of it now.  But why do we assume that it’s routine maintenance??

Update on the new fabric shop

We mentioned a while back that a new fabric shop would be opening in the former Dreams Bedding shop.P1120043

The other day we managed to take a sneaky photo through the front door.  It doesn’t look as if it will be long before the shop opens.


(A confession.  This photo is now a week or so old.  There has been progress since it was taken.  We get the impression that the new tenants are doing much of the fitting-out themselves.)

A white line – is this progress at last?

Steve pointed out a few days ago that a white line had appeared on the A30 service road – the infamous permit-only section – in Camberley.  Intrigued, we went to investigate.  He’s right!  There it is, at right-angles to the pavement.  (Strictly, it’s two short white lines, but never mind.)  Well spotted, Steve.



We thought that quite a while ago we’d seen a decision by the county council to reduce the number of permit-only spaces it had designated at the end of 2014.  In which case, this might be what’s happening – though the signs on posts along this stretch of road haven’t changed yet.  Annoyingly, we can’t find any reference to such a decision.  Were we imagining it?