We have received a number of letters that members of the community have sent to the Council and others about the proposed development. We hope you find them interesting.
Note: The Claygate Can Do better campaign is a sub-committee of the Claygate Village Association and is a non-party political campaign. These letters are published here to help and inspire others who share their concerns. They do not necessarily represent the views of the CVA or CCDB campaign.
Dear Councillor,
I am writing this in disbelief that Claygate village as we all know and love it could soon be destroyed.
As a local retailer I am scared. I’m scared for the future of my livelihood, my employees and my families future and all of this is indeed in your hands.
I was dismayed to read your Facebook post in June and I have spent a lot of time and concentrated on trying to find the positives in what is proposed , reading articles, meeting minutes , Facebook posts, however it is proving impossible to find comfort in any of it.
I have so many questions about the lack of consultation and communication, the total lack of regard for the local independent traders whose lives literally depend on the village and the way in which plans for this whole project has been conducted with a cloak and dagger attitude , completely behind the backs of local people and with no respect or regard for who it will bring down and eat up on its way!
The proposal for this monstrous building in our beautiful village shakes me to the core and the thought of myself and my fellow traders loosing their businesses because someone thought one day that this was a good idea is shocking. We are rare , we are dedicated, we need protecting and so does our village.
There has been no consideration in to the increased traffic pollution… have you tried to drive through the village at peak times when the already snarled up Hare Lane simply cannot cope? Try increasing the volume of cars and delivery lorries , on street parking and you will see that our little village is just not built for such development. Encouraging drivers from neighbouring towns to come to Claygate is just going to put a strain on our infrastructure. Claygate is a village and not a town and therefore it isn’t appropriately equipped for this.
The development is said to have parking spaces for 40 cars, however these are 90 mins spaces … where will the cars that currently use the car park all day go? Where will my staff park? Where will the 44 M&S staff park? Where will the residents of the new flats park? If you are thinking of the local streets then maybe you need to drive around them during the day and get back to me, because I would love to know!
Your argument that there will be increased footfall to the village is ridiculous… people travelling to M&S by car will park, shop (in M&S) and go home! They are not going to walk down and across the main road to see what Claygate has to offer. If this food store were in the Main parade then maybe you could argue this point but the distance from TLCP to the Hare Lane shops and The Parade is enough to put people off.
Also I’d like to know why no independent retail assessment has been commissioned ? CPC say that they have done a survey but no one from the Parish Council spoke to me about it and on reading and contributing to the “Claygate can do better” survey you will see that indeed the findings of the CPC survey were not worth the paper they were written on and not a clear or honest picture of how it actually is. I call for an independent retail assessment to be carried out at a matter of urgency and before any financial agreement with Kilo is signed. I think you will find that Claygate as it is will suffer tremendously from the introduction of a huge food hall and I think it will also find that Claygate in it’s current form actually performs very well.
I guess that I just feel really cheated by my councillors. I feel let down , scared and overlooked. Claygate is an amazing place. The community spirit and wellbeing of our village will be totally lost if this project goes ahead in its current form. How someone could stand back and watch a retail giant take the life and soul out of our village actually keeps me awake at night !
I do understand that the car park needs to be developed but there really are better uses for the space and for the £7.5M of EBC funds that has been earmarked for the build! I would like to know what other options have been explored ? Surely Kilo aren’t the only developers to have ideas for the space ! Why is it that this idea has been bounced around for several years but just surfaced now? Why was it announced of Facebook ? Why were local people not invited to give their opinions or ever consulted about this?
I actually think that at some point in time you thought it was a good idea …. It’s actually fine to change your mind. It’s fine to realise that this really wasn’t the best idea and fine to want to stand up and make decisions that will actually help your village. You will certainly gain back a lot of the respect (and votes) that has been lost because of this one poor decision.
We trusted you and feel massively let down. From the opposition that has been created by this project surely you can see that there are alternative development ideas that will actually make a difference to the lives of those who voted for you and won’t destroy the livelihoods of so many who have given their all to the local community.
I call upon you and urge you to rethink this diabolical decision and save our village. Please search your soul for compassion for the independent retailers that work so hard to keep our village ticking. There are better uses for this space that will support our community and will still bring the revenue needed to the council. I am sure that there are developers out there that will make that happen. M&S really isn’t the answer for Claygate.
I really hope that you have read this through and realise that a lot of the decisions that have been made this far are just wrong and I hope you realise that this is not just a plea but it is an emotional request by a desperate independent business owner that you “stop” “think” and “re-evaluate” your position to this. Hopefully then you’ll be able to sleep at night !
Yours sincerely
Dear Councillor
I, like many other Claygate residents, am concerned about the total lack of consultation and lack of transparency by the Council regarding the proposed development for the Torrington Lodge car park. I fully accept that this is an underused facility and the Council urgently needs to secure revenue streams and provide additional housing, but the manner in which this has been presented to local residents by elected representatives as a done deal, subject to planning approval, is hugely concerning and flies in the face of the Council’s Vision 2030 which states:
“We believe strongly in the power of community and what can be achieved by local people and businesses, our public sector partners and the voluntary and community sector all pulling together for the Elmbridge community.”
The current situation facing the residents of Claygate and local businesses is a far cry from this statement.
I would be grateful for your response to the following points and concerns:
1. In the News announcement on 19 June on the Elmbridge BC website it stated “In November last year we updated residents on the potential future development of the Torrington Road car park site in Claygate.” Please could you refer me to this information as apart from the draft Local Plan I have not been able to find anything about it.
2. The announcement then states “The development will of course go through the planning process and the necessary consultation with the local community.” Please could you explain and justify how this proposed development has been presented to the residents of Claygate and to Claygate Parish Council as a “fait accompli” (subject to planning approval) without any initial consultation on the possible options for the Council-owned site.
The views submitted as part the planning process can only be considered in relation to planning grounds, so this is NOT a substitute for proper consultation with the community as has been suggested in some social media posts.
3. It appears that all of the Committee meetings at which these proposals were discussed and agreed were held in secret and the papers and minutes are not available for public viewing. Now that commercial sensitivity is no longer applicable please could these papers and minutes be made available to local residents and businesses.
4. Please could full details be made public of all the options that were considered by the Council for the underused car park together with costings and the other factors on which they were evaluated.
5. Bruce McDonald stated that “M&S’s strong brand will ensure increased footfall in the village centre, thereby benefitting all shops and traders.” Please could you provide the evidence for this statement together with evidence that local traders were seeking increased footfall to the village.
6. Please could you explain and justify the apparent exclusion of the Parish Council in the Council’s discussions and decision making about the future of the car park.
From the information presented to date I can only conclude that our Councillors have been so intent on balancing the Council’s books that they have completely lost sight of the needs and views of the community they represent and their responsibilities for protecting what local people value so highly.
I urge you to pause the current process to ensure that all the statutory requirements for planning developments have been undertaken and to provide a fair opportunity for local residents and businesses to be consulted.
Kind regards
Dear Claygate Councillors
I have written to you all in the past to register my total opposition to the mooted “M and S” development at the Torrington Lodge car park and to express my disappointment at the completely inadequate “consultation” process so far.
I now write more in disbelief and despair at the utterly biased position EBC has taken, and is taking, on the matter. For a start, you all three were clearly in favour of what is proposed (“positive for Claygate”) without any obvious attempt to gauge what we, the residents, your constituents, felt about it. After the strong reaction against it, I sense you may now be reconsidering your position. Your party has also been clear in expressing its support (“good news for Claygate”). Whatever happened to liberal democracy?
But EBC itself, an interested party in the outcome, is (at taxpayers' expense) trumpeting the alleged benefits in its own “community engagement” pages of its website. At first, it was effusive about the many “benefits” for Claygate without any counterbalance of the many (more obvious) dis-benefits. All of the supposed attractions of the scheme can be, and are being, refuted by those of us against it. More recent updates by EBC are now putting up arguments against the concerns being voiced by residents. Where is the balance? Do you believe it is right for EBC to be plugging this scheme in which they have a significant financial interest and where it is clear already that the majority of residents and traders do not want it? Your post bags will give you evidence of that I am sure.
I have trawled back through the minutes of Cabinet and committee meetings over the last three years. The result is interesting.
In November 2020, the Cabinet, having identified car parks as under-utilised assets-
"agreed that initially the car parks located at Torrington Lodge, Claygate; Walton Road, East Molesey; and Walton Park, Walton on Thames be considered for residential projects” and "£50,000 be allocated from the Feasibility Study Reserve to undertake feasibility”.
In December 2020, Claygate Parish Council reported these minutes adding, presumably from EBC sources -
"There are several car parks which are worth focussing on in the short-term to establish whether residential development is a possibility, a couple of the carparks already have high level capacity studies done, albeit they are a few years old, including Torrington Car park, Claygate. This car park is situated in the centre of Claygate with good access to facilities and transport options. A High-level capacity was done in March 2016 which demonstrated several options for the land. One option showed 15 houses could be developed, a second option demonstrated 16 flats could be developed. As the capacity study was undertaken over 4 years ago, the site potentially could hold additional units”. (NOTE: none of these “options” included retail).
On 18th March 2021, the EBC Shareholder Committee, Housing, noted -
"The Committee was advised that three underused car parks (Torrington Lodge- Claygate, Walton Road – East Molesey and Walton Park – Hersham) had been identified and a high-level capacity study had shown that they could accommodate 40 houses or 80 flats collectively. A progress report would be presented to a future Cabinet meeting during 2021 to seek a budget to take to the next stage including the planning application”.
On 7th July 2021, EBC Cabinet minutes noted -
"Whilst work continued in respect of the Torrington Lodge car park, high-level capacity studies had been undertaken on both the Walton Road and Walton Park car parks".
On 15th July 2021, Parish Council minutes noted -
"Torrington Lodge Car Park - EBC Potential Residential Housing Project. John Bamford had circulated an update from the EBC Shareholder Committee prior to the meeting. The update stated an updated high-level capacity study has now been undertaken on the carpark and it now shows the site can accommodate at least 16 houses or a minimum of 20 flats with associated car-parking spaces. It noted that it may be possible to increase the number of residential units following further investigation and feasibility work. A title review of the site has been undertaken by the legal team and further work continues. It was proposed that this project is reported to Cabinet at a future date”.
Between July 2021 and December 2022, when CPC were informed of the “retail” proposal, EBC Cabinet minutes have nothing on the subject. It all went very quiet. In November, 2022, EBC cabinet minutes simply record that "Walton car park could be redeveloped with housing", but Torrington is not mentioned; it is conspicuously absent. I suspect the retail project had probably been going on in secret since the end of 2021. In November 2022, EBC announced publicly on their website that the development “may include retail and residential opportunities” but "no formal arrangements have been agreed”. It was all “subject to commercial confidentiality”.
Whatever happened to the residential options, on which so much time, money and effort had been expended over the previous 6 years? What happened to the often-expressed need for, and priority of, housing, of whatever nature? Suddenly, out of the blue, this appears to have been dumped in favour of the retail option now in front of us. Why? Money! There are no credible arguments in favour of a large, national chain food store being opened in the middle of Claygate. Those promoted by Kilo and EBC (in support of Kilo) are specious and without objective evidence. It is clear to most people that Elmbridge sees this as a money-spinner, a means of helping to balance the budget, and that the wishes of Claygate residents are totally secondary to this objective.
EBC’s planning and related documents are littered with all the usual empty assurances of “consultation”, “inclusiveness”, "Community involvement”. Where have these featured in this case? In February 2023, EBC Cabinet, in the context of Esher town centre, extolled the virtues of “Placemaking”, stating -
"As placemaking was a process centred on people and their needs, aspirations, and visions which relied strongly on community engagement, it was proposed that a public consultation be undertaken with residents, businesses and stakeholders during March 2023 to seek their views on the draft Esher Town Centre Placemaking Vision and Objectives".
Where has “Placemaking” featured here, in lil' 'ole Claygate? The impact that an M and S food store is likely to have on our village will be enormous, far greater than anything that could be done to the centre of Esher. It could change the village irrevocably yet without our prior consultation. What applies to Esher does not seem to apply to Claygate.
I will be raising the same issues of lack of objectivity and apparent bias with EBC’s Monitoring Officer. In the meantime, perhaps you might like to reflect on whether you think this whole situation is defensible to your constituents and to others who may come to examine it in due course, and could, in any possible sense, be regarded as “unstoppable”.
Yours
Dear Councillor
As you are well aware there is a lot of fear and concern amongst local people about the impact the proposed M&S supermarket will have on the livelihoods of some of Claygate’s retailers and on the character and uniqueness of the Village.
The development of an M&S store in the Council owned car park is obviously a ‘great solution’ to the black hole EBC’s financial position has been described to us as, but is it the ‘great news’ for Claygate that our elected Members proclaim?
Have residents overreacted to this news? Is the reaction more about the fact that this major decision was made in secret and that no one thought to consult those who live and work in the village? Or is there justified concern that the imposition of a major foodstore on a village characterised by independent retailers is inappropriate and potentially lethal for the vitality of Claygate?
If it IS such great news for the Village, and not just the Council’s coffers, then the Cabinet Members who took the decision need to sell the proposal to the residents of Claygate to address our fears and concerns and persuade us, in the words of the ERA, that it is indeed a ‘good thing for Claygate.’
What is needed is a series of public meetings with a Cabinet member presenting the case for the proposed development to the residents and businesses of Claygate. If it is such a good idea then it should be easy to convince us.
To quote from a local election manifesto video, ‘… there is a village atmosphere’ … ‘and we have a great sense of well-being here in Claygate. That’s what I want to protect’.
The residents of Claygate are struggling to see how the proposal presented to the Cabinet meeting in November aligns with the admirable election promise which we all believed.
The Council may have failed to consult us and hidden behind the ‘commercial sensitivity’ of the proposals but please do the decent thing now and give us the opportunity to listen to the Cabinet’s views in person so that you can convince us as a village to back your proposals.
It’s late, but not too late, to put the principles of Placemaking into practice for the residents and businesses of Claygate as the Council has already done for Esher residents with a month long consultation exercise. Claygate residents expect and demand to be treated likewise.
I am sure you will agree that the Council’s failure to consult Claygate has caused a huge amount of unnecessary stress and work for all concerned at a time when people should be enjoying the summer holidays. It will continue to do so until you and your fellow Councillors can convince us that an M&S supermarket in Torrington Lodge Car Park is indeed ‘great news for Claygate’.
Thank you.
Kind regards
Dear Elmbridge Councillors, I live in Claygate. I write to you not as my ward councillor but as someone who is presumably concerned with the democratic process in Elmbridge. You would not be in your current role were that not the case. You will no doubt be aware of the proposal being promoted by Elmbridge to develop a large Marks and Spencer food store in an under-utilised car park here. There has been no meaningful involvement of residents here to determine what we feel about it, no “Place Making” consultation such as was accorded to Esher residents (we were told the Claygate did not warrant one as it would be “disproportionate”, notwithstanding that such a development is likely to change the village ethos of Claygate (pop: 7,500) irrevocably). The whole thing is being motivated by our Ward Councillors, with all the force of EBC behind them, with scant regard for the wishes of the residents. You will also be aware that a similar planning application in 2022 for a large Aldi store on the former “Guy Salmon” site in Thames Ditton was rejected by Elmbridge, a rejection which was confirmed, on appeal, by the Secretary of State. One of the strongest objectors to the proposals was Elmbridge Borough Council itself. All of their issue - loss of village ethos, inappropriate development, increased traffic and pollution, unacceptable loss of amenities for neighbours, unacceptable impact on local independent stores - can (and will) be raised in connection with the current M&S proposals. Yet, in our case, EBC is promoting the scheme. Why? Because the Thames Ditton site was privately owned whereas the Claygate site is owned by EBC. EBC plan to put £7.5 million of our money into the development and derive an annual income from it, regardless of the damage done to Claygate. It’s depressing and disappointing that Elmbridge’s view of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in such developments can be so flexible, driven not by the environmental or social consequences, but by how much they can make from it. I realise his specific matter may be a bit “off your manor” but the issues it raises should be of great concern to you all. If Elmbridge can ride roughshod over residents of Claygate to try to force on us a development that is likely to have lasting consequences for the village without meaningful consultation, motivated solely by money, which ward may be next? Protocol may restrict your involvement in another ward’s affairs, but this issue transcends artificial boundaries. It is about the adequacy and protection of democratic processes in Elmbridge, something you might like to enquire into.
Yours sincerely,
