Frimley Road/Yorktown House – new flats….

The Eye has been a bit confused of late.  We thought we’d seen a planning application a couple of weeks ago to redevelop 3 Frimley Road.  But, we can’t find it  – and we suspect that it was an application to ‘redevelop’ 4 Frimley Road instead.  Anyway this slipped down a crack in the floorboards, and we’re only just posting about it.

4 Frimley Road is the gap left in the Frimley Road by the demolition of the Victorian cottages that had been dominated by the Duke of York/Yorktown House development.

P1120328

The application is for “1 residential building to provide 16 two bedroom apartments with associated parking following the demolition of the existing two houses and flats”   The architecture of the proposed building seems to be fairly much in accord with the one in this photograph.  Which isn’t necessarily a good thing….

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Frimley Road/Yorktown House – new flats….

  1. The 3 terraced houses were due to be demolished and rebuilt (free of charge by the developers) in a certain style to blend in with the development. The owners (one in particular as I understand) had stood ground and stood ground on this issue for many years. I guess if there are more flats to be put in here then the owners must have taken the $$$ on offer and moved on. Someone told me a while back that the one guy had refused over £1m several times for his 2 bed terraced house…

    • I know the owner of one of the properties sold, and I can assure you nothing remotely close to a million was paid, sadly. There was no promise of rebuilding the houses, they simply wanted them out for a price that they took about a year get round to actually offering.

      • Now that is interesting as I actually went to see the show flat with a view to potentially buying one of them for rental (little plastic bags over your shoes!!!). The maths did not work out at all but that is beside the point. I was told by the lady manning the showroom that the three houses would be rebuilt in the same style as the development, with gardens, etc. I don’t know who would want their gardens overlooked by countless flats but that is what I was told at the time….

  2. These houses were demolished. Previously the owner had approved the development on condition that his house was purchased. I guess thats happened.
    Whats more interesting is that they are trying to squeeze more flats in, but at the same time reneging on the widening of the Frimley Road junction, which is going to cause a mess.

    Typical ********** developers, and ******8 council planning officers.

  3. I live very close to the above flats and have been appalled by the erection of the present “new” designs – this morning I have received a leaflet saying Borough Heath Council has now applied for a license to change our Recreational Park in the London Road into a place that sells alcohol from 10 a.m. – 11 p.m. at night – with music/skating and dancing on tap. Has the Camberley Eye any
    knowledge of this? Nowhere have I seen any public notices about this proposal, and the dead line for objections is July 23rd. Help please – more public awareness is needed, unless I have completely missed all the information on this new development over the past months?

    • Wyn,

      I spoke at the planning application meeting that considered the new flats – I spoke against the design, and the committee rejected the application. But the Planning Inspectorate over-ruled the decision (so much for localism!).
      As far as the licence application for the London Road ‘Rec’ is concerned, this has been discussed a little on the Eye’s blog, but it wasn’t the subject of a specific item. Clearly, the application is very wide ranging – far too wide in my and other’s eyes – with no limit as far as date is concerned either.
      Which having been said, it’s up to nearby residents to object to the application. Objection has to be by an ‘interested party’. I quote the council: “Interested parties are any of the following:

      A person living in the vicinity of the premises;
      A body representing persons who live in that vicinity;
      A person involved in a business in the vicinity of the premises;
      A body representing persons involved in these businesses”
      So your best bet is to liaise with Southwell Park Residents Association – I’m told that they’ve been busy e-mailing nearby residents, although I don’t know exactly what their e-mails say.
      If you don’t have the full text of the licence application available, you’ll find it here: http://goo.gl/pcO3vS
      I hope that this helps a little.

      • Regarding the new flat on the A30/Frimley Road… They are virtually done now. Why object to them squeezing in another dozen flats in a separate application? It will happen anyway and the objectors will just leave us with a derelict building plot for a couple of years whilst the details are argued over – costing all of us tax money and ongoing frustration. Take the Pembroke House as just one of several local examples – the local objectors have left us with an ongoing eyesore of an almost 20 year derelict building. OK, TESCO Express might not have been ideal but nobody has had any better alternative proposals. Then the main protagonist sold up his crappy little shop and moved away as quick as he could. So think hard about the alternatives before you throw the toys out the pram!
        As for the London Road licence application, if you read the application, it is SHBC that have made this application. They state clearly that it is for family events and music events. A Christmas market for example and fetes and music events. All sound good for the local community and a good initiative IMO and not every day obviously. Why object to this?

      • Tks Footsoldier. The Eye isn’t suggesting objecting to the new flats. As the previous application was approved, there are no robust grounds for objecting to the new one.
        And re the licence application, it includes sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises, and for an unlimited period. If I were a local resident, I’d be concerned. I’d prefer eg a trial period, with renewal dependent on an acceptable experience, rather than face the possibility of arguing for the permission to be withdrawn.

    • Wyn, I know where you live (as U3A chair, I know where ‘everyone’ lives!). So, I suspect that the leaflet you’re referring to actually comes from the Southwell Park Residents Association? (I originally thought it was an official notification from the council, but I now think I was wrong). In which case, the leaflet is probably your best source of advice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s