The Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) submitted by Aldi in their appeal in Thames Ditton was found to be so disingenuous and with misrepresented facts, that it was deemed almost worthless. Fortunately for the residents of Thames Ditton and Hinchley Wood, the appeal was fought by both Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) and the local Residents Association working together and was refused. Therefore, a prime example of the democratic planning process in action. The majority of Thames Ditton residents did not want an Aldi store on their doorstep and EBC supported their objections. Brilliant. Well done all!
The 'elephant in the room' as far as the Claygate Can Do Better campain can see is that with regards to the Torrington Lodge Car Park, this is a council owned asset which EBC is actively supporting and is acting in concert with Kilo and M&S to develop. EBC do not appear to be acting independently at all, concerning adjudicating on the merits or otherwise concerning either the principal of locating an M&S food store in the heart of Claygate Village or the eventual planning application but are actively supporting the principal and will be acting as 'judge and jury'. Should the application be approved (which it appears that EBC are minded to do) then and unlike the Aldi appeal, there will not be any appeal process by which the Claygate Can Do Better action group or local residents can turn to, to prevent the development going ahead.
This is quite astonishing again. There would appear to be a very evident conflict of interest in that; as well as EBC entering into a legal agreement (the Development Funding Agreement) with M&S and Kilo Properties Ltd. to develop the Torrington Lodge Car Park, EBC will also be the final arbiter of the planning application process.
Certain councillors who will be sitting on the actual planning committee to adjudicate on these eventual proposals have quite publicly, come out in favour and support of this proposal for a M&S food store in the heart of Claygate Village.
EBC are pushing ahead at lightning speed to wrap up all the necessary contracts and agreements in order to present the proposals as a 'fait accompli' prior to any application being submitted and therefore apparently prevent a free and democratic discussion as to what the residents of Claygate actually want for the future of their village.
If you agree please do mention the points made in your letters.