Notes Of Hotel / Power Station Site review 27th November 2007

Venue:
Canbury Pavilion

Present:
Michael Squire (MS) Squire and Partners
Paul Harrison Squire and Partners
Nerea Mendicute Squire and Partners

Mike Spenser-Norris (MSN) NHP
Philip Trim NHP
Philip Villars Indigo Planning
Kevin Howlett PPS
Charles Chamberlain Merlion Capital

Hugh Scantlebury (HMS) CARA
Trevor Willis CARA
Bazil Arden CARA
Clare Francis CARA
Richard Mobbs CARA
Marilyn Mason CARA

Clive Howard Royal Quarter Residents Association

Cllr Dennis Doe RBK - Tudor Ward
Cllr Frank Thompson RBK - Tudor Ward
Cllr David Glasspool RBK - Canbury Ward
Cllr David Ryder-Mills RBK - Canbury Ward

Apologies: Cllr David Cunningham, Cllr Geoff Austin, Amanda Stephenson (Royal Qaurter), Penny D'Souza (CARA), Helen Moss (CARA)

HMS welcomed everyone to the meeting, set the scene and encouraged everyone to make the meeting a constructive and positive event to exchange views, ideas and opinions.

Mike Spenser-Norris of NHP:
Welcomed everyone to speak. Provided background on owning land since 1999; 27 months working with planning officers and committees. refusal, appeal process etc.
Given this has already been a very expensive exercise and a whole lot of work, decision made to amalgamate proposals that were welcomed e.g. the EDF substation contruction along Skerne Road. Michael Squire has been asked to come up with an alternative form of design for riverside development.

Michael Squire of Squire & Partners:
Been on job for two weeks. Tonight want to outline results of initial thoughts on what can be done to overcome objections. Most related to height and density. Affordable Housing is not an issue - merely a interior and financial technicality.
Squire & Partners are based in Kings Cross. Partner here tonight, Paul Harrison lives in Burton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames. Provided some example of work and an overview of site.
Commented on trees which are mature and which shield any view when in leaf.
Discussed walk through access to riverside.

Existing proposal is for a twin tower 15 + 12 storey construction linked to a 6 storey block on Skerne Road.
Aiming for 7/8 storeys (similar to Edwardian and Victorian mansion blocks found in much of London).

Examples given include:

• Simple Block Frontage
• Three Buildings + Slim Tall Tower
• Multiple Low Rise Small Riverfront Dwellings

Looking to design a simple building with rooftop 'jewellery'. Happy to sacrifice external space for external "vistas".

Iconic can mean a lot of things. Patterns of similar design, light, colour, all sorts. Believes this project would benefit from something interesting above the parapet line. Where height is applicable, looking for a slender design, not a land grab.

Bazil Ardren
Commented that he in fact liked the wooden ribs and timber of the recent design.

Cllr Denis Doe commented:
John Lewis is OK for something that signifies something as people enter Kingston over the bridge.
Believes narrower, taller buildings can be beautiful e.g. the Skylon at the Festival of Britain in 1951.
Recalled the facts around the 'poplars' issue whereby building activity disrupted the roots and damaged trees along with residents views being diffierent from those set out by the developer in the brochure material. Denis believes people would be irrationally unhappy if trees were affected.

Marilyn Mason:
Entering Kingston should reflect the 21st century
The chimneys on the old power station were iconic and beautiful.
Agrees that slender helps taller building appear beautiful.
No one objects to height of St Pauls
Green issues are a concern as are public access, sensitive lighting and sustainability.

Clive Howard (Royal Quarter)
Not affected by this section of the development too much (unlike the Skerne Road / EDF proposal). Felt the towers were thin. A small block allows views from back of site. Larger building would obstruct views.

Cllr Frank Thompson (RBK)
Likes
Glad to see back of poplars
Likes example number 5 so long as there is quality brickwork.

Richard Mobbs
View on entry to Kingston is key.
Towers / Blocks of flats are not the impression we want
If something is going to stick up, should be attractive e.g. Skylon, church spire etc..
Michael Squire commented that what he had in mind was a beautiful slender design and provided some examples.

Cllr David Glasspool (RBK)
Objected on grounds of height
Believes it is at this point that the river changes it's character from town centre to less formal landscape until Teddington Lock.
Liked the previous design, just believed it should be located elsewhere. Likes some of the ideas proposed and discussed tonight. Flats are a bad use = selfish. Need family housing. Contemporary design is ok. Would prefer density to be lower but understands nothing much can be done in this regards.

Trevor Willis
Feels state of town is very poor (e.g. Slug & Lettuce, new student accommodation block, time that power station site has lain dormant) and that along with others from Kingston Town Centre Management Committee, feels that Kingston might lose it's competitive advantage if things don't change soon. Requests that whatever happens, developers just get on with it!
Overall a request for high quality construction standards.

Claire Francis
Likes lower proposed schemes
Liked chimneys too but understands needs for new housing.

Cllr David Ryder-Mills (RBK)
Has considered his position on Development Committee but his comments have been made easier but has been said earlier. Believes beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Liked the towers but beyond the height, the whole bulk of the development was unacceptable. Does not want to see a whole lot of flats. Would like to turn around the development to have the tower on the riverside, believing the public aspects should face the river. Is reserving judgement re the the hotel.

MSN commented that with no access, no passing trade the 1998 plans for a hotel near the river resulted in no hotel chain taking an interest.

Dennis Doe commented that he had been very keen on the proposals that had been turned down and that a delay had been affecting the community and had previously voted in favour of the development.

David Ryder-Mills requested that the developers look hard at the 50% affordable housing target and that size of the units was addressed.

Philip Trim commented tht the GLA were happy with 23% and that the mix of dwellings would be addressed.

Other comments were raised with reference to the continuing existence of the barge dock proposals for a restaurant development and the potential negativity this would engender. It was strongly suggested that the developers communicated openly as regards the whole development, not sections of it.

Furthermore HMS ran through comments of absent Committee members and recalled previous comments made by residents at the expo held at the Pavilion previously.

HMS thanked everyone for their input and the meeting was closed.

Thames Landscape Strategy Update

Community Advisory Group meeting, Richmond, 6/11/07

One of our Committee Members attended this latest meeting on behalf of CARA. Lots of interesting topics covered about the towpath, plans for approaches to Hampton Court, “making space for water” etc. These are the areas which directly impact the CARA area:

• Lighting. Biffa has made a grant for riverside lighting between Richmond and Twickenham – currently a consultation is going on re use of the towpath at night + bat surveys (one last summer, one due in spring) + research on different lighting and light pollution, reflections in water etc. Interestingly, the police are not keen on lighting dark places, which encourages use and thus decreases security, apparently. Whatever TLS finds out will be very relevant to lighting in Canbury Gardens, one to watch.
• Not strictly in the CARA area, though used by CARA members no doubt, parts of Ham Lands have been identified as possible “space for water” to avoid flooding elsewhere. This would involve removing all the rubble deposited there post-war and some trees (also post-war) and restoring / creating water meadows. There will consultation on the proposals, and parties can register to be consulted. NB the land would not be flooded all the time and would still be usable for leisure, e g , there would be boardwalks over boggy bits.
• House boats – concerns were raised about the growing height of some houseboats moored at Kingston, and at the itinerant houseboats (who don’t pay licences, which the Environment Agency is a bit feeble about enforcing). The EA is on the case, apparently.
• Heritage Lottery Funding – Kingston has had less than any other London borough and therefore applications would be favourably received. Possible TLS / CARA projects could be restoration of Canbury Gardens lighting projects and improving the area around Slug and Lettuce.
• Hotel development on power station site – discussion regarding the recent planning meeting (see separate post). Apparently English Heritage objected on grounds of the impact on the protected view from Richmond Hill.

Notes from Hotel Development meeting at the council

Notes from the special meeting to cover the proposed hotel development on the old power station site at Guildhall, Kingston 7.30 pm chaired by Cllr Vicki Harris. Trevor Willis and Hugh Scantlebury attended along with some 40 or so other people representing the general public and the developer (and their advisers). The Committee was supported by the presence of some 12 or so council officers.

Introduction

Council Officer Scott introduced scheme of proposed hotel and residential development.

Ran through late submissions.

Thames Landscape and English Heritage have now commented.

307 dwellings per hectare

A number of the potential reasons for refusal (3 out of 4) had been withdrawn due to late changes including energy efficiency, traffic safety concerns and the introduction of parking permits as opposed to the sale of parking spaces.

Noted Canbury Gardens as being a conservation area as well as being classed as Metropolitan open Land

Summarised all comments taken into account over whole extended consultation process including all earlier comments.

Scheme is in accordance with K+20 policy including requirement for additional 1000 dwellings in town centre.

Endorsing application and footprint including existing approved scheme to to build over substation (original scheme used as a reference point).

NB: Scheme does not include barge dock.

Some concerns over pinch point for daylight in Trent House, deemed acceptable.

All social housing located adjacent to EDF substation, next to and on top of block.

Objectors (limited to 20 minutes in total)

1. Cllr Arbour - GLA member for RBK and Richmond

Noted complaints from Hampton Wick residents who already complain that area is used as a car park for Kingston town centre.

Scheme would loom over Hampton Wick.

Concerned over impact on riverside.

Has lived within a mile of site, feels it will destroy character.

Proposed that instead of withdrawing reasons for refusal, committee should be adding reasons including (a) Contrary to SDR6 requirement to conserve and enhance environment and (b) B1 strategic requirement to preserve special views

Has no objection to uses proposed.

Made an additional comment that scheme was contrary to GLA Blue Ribbon strategy.

2. Mr Godding - Planning Secretary for Kingston Society

Objects to bulk and height - railway is dividing line between town centre and more natural riverside environment.

Intrusion on ambience.

Affordable housing is inadequate. Only 20% provided for. RBKs targets are 40%.

In additional larger family units are required as opposed to 1/2 units proposed.

Car parking is inadequate. Furthermore no car parking is made available to affordable housing units.

Traffic congestion

No increase in schooling provision.

3. Mr Chris Patterson - Fund Manager for Norwich Union who own Bentalls B and 7 Kings Car Parks

Welcome 4 star hotel but only one that provides proper facilities

Hotel visitors will use spaces designed for retail users

RBK has a retail focus and is in competition with Croydon, Crawley and Guildford.

In Support Of The Proposal (limited to 20 minutes in total)

1. Philip Villers - MD of Indigo Planning, consultants to NHP Development

Spin.

2. Tom Moran Business Development Director from Moran Hotels

Gave overview of their operations in Dublin, Cork, Cricklewood and Chiswick (Brent).

Focus on 4 Star Deluxe market

Obvious demand plus Olympics.

3. Philip Trim - NHP

Rebutted inaccuracies in papers regarding affordable housing.

30% of units are 3/4 bedroom not 23% as stated.

Meet Housing Corporation, Housing Quality Initiative and Lifetime Homes standards

Worked closely with an RSL - Moat Housing

GLA accept affordable housing proposals.

Used expert Chris Marsh (a specialist social housing consultant who has also in the past done some work for RBK) who values the properties at £240 per sq foot and in line with Saville's valuation of £204 per sq foot.

Completely disagrees with RBK officers valuation of £350 per sq foot based on advice given by "small Kent based" RSL.

Made an offer to increase affordable housing if values can be proved to be higher than those stated in the proposal.

4. Teddy Walker - Independent traffic consultant

Emphasized adequacy of material provided, having worked closely with RBK officers.

5. Steve Tunstall - Royal Quarter resident

Letter read out as absent due to ill health.

Closest resident, 100% behind proposals to improve the area.

Requests councillors ignore hard core of objectors who are against progress being made.

Questions For Objectors From Councillors

None

Questions For Developers

Cllr David Cunningham (DC)

To Mr Moran: To qualify what owner / operator means in terms of being tied in given comments 'dependent on planning'. Response was that if planning was permitted, Moran Group would commit to the hotel. A second query over the amount of car parking spaces for hotel. Mr Moran commented that their group do not like waste and that car parks are under utilised in their other properties so not a problem.

To Philip Trim: To clarify comments made at the Kingston Town Centre Management meeting that "height was to make more profit for the developer" and that he might be happy with a lower property. Response was that that the comments were probably not taken in context. Instead he was referring the original 6-8 storey construction which had been deemed acceptable by many but which would have been refused on there being a requirement for a more contemporary and iconic development plus stay away from canbury Gardens and increase density. The new scheme addresses these points and has been done in complete co-operation with council officers.

Cllr David Ryder-Mills

To Mr Walker: Comments that access on Richmond Road is congested.

Cllr David Edwards

To Philip Trim: Regarding his claimed inaccuracies in the officers report, could he be more specific? Furthermore their views on the comments raised by (a) English Heritage - a critical views analysis was done early on and provided by the developer as part of the supporting material

(b) Thames Landscape - the developers simply do not agree

Cllr Chrissie Hitchcock

To Philip Trim: Clarification on offer of additional affordable housing units

Special Representation (Accepted by Committee) by Cllr David Glasspool - Ward councillor

Objects to height. Questioned the long term suitability of high designs.

Traffic: Believes the scheme will move the situation from unsatisfactory to very unsatisfactory.

Questions 'who' raised the requirement for high rise?

Has a low rise development been considered?

Where is the high rise requirement coming from?

Responses to questions to Officers

Cllr Tony Arbour's point re Blue Ribbon Strategy - Mr Scott commented that whilst not mentioned specifically, referenced implicitly.

Concerns over design concerns raised by GLA have been addressed.

Cllr Osbourne: rejects comments on democratic rights of car ownership, clean natural environments also a valid right. Noted that car parks are for all used not just for retail. Also noted that Hampton Wick objects to everything. Overall does not like the height and does not like the design.

Cllr Cunningham: Asked Mr Scott to clarify linkage of schemes - hotel / Skerne Rd / substation and the two high rise residential blocks.

Mr Scott noted that the current recommendation was to Refuse. If the recommendation had been to Pemit then a Section 106 agreement would be put before the committee setting out many stringent conditions. Not prepared as not relevant given current recommendation.

Cllr Bamford: How did the disputed figures on affordable housing come to rise?Furthermore is there any evidence of extreme traffic congestion? No.

Cllr Smith: Asked officers to clarify the calculation on density. Note the site is 1.5 hectares.

Cllr Edwards: Believes the Skerne Road elevation whilst broken up is just far too long. Caroline Geary of Urban Design explained that the design is driven by the unique circumstances of the site.

Cllr Bamford: Questioned checks on Land Registry and access road. Response was that Land Registry checks was not a planning issue, rather a rights issue and would be handled by the developer. Paul Drummond confirmed that the design of the access road had been updated and deemed acceptable in one of the later submissions.

Cllr Ryder-Mills: Re flood assessment. Officers reported that no comments have been received from the Environment Agency since June 2007. Therefore no flood assessment or demonstration of dry access in event of flood conditions is available.

Cllr Osbourne: Re flood assessment. Knows there will be no dry access as even "Richmond Road would be under water"!!!

Open Discussion

Cllr Cunningham: Objects to height. Skerne Road proposal is welcome and a positive improvement and so supports that part of the proposal. However, feels the other sections should be less high. He therefore objects and would requests that the developer comes back with a lower proposal.

Cllr Ryder-Mills: Questioned rhetorically whether the design meet the criteria set out? Feels design is contemporary and elegant, not too high, deals with the problem of the substation. However feels hotel should be on the riverside. Furthermore the main issue is to do with the affordable housing. Feels the developer originally paid lip service and even now feels that given the demand for family housing there still too few and undersized "out of sync". Would like the developers to go back and turn the scheme around.

Mr Scott asked Cllrs to clarify what height means in terms of formulating any reason for refusal. Was likely to be along the lines of "height, mass and density out of proportion to the riverside".

Cllr George: Supports the views and objections raised by English Heritage.

Cllr Vicky Harris: Added her own comments and move to sum up. The location of affordable housing is questionable. Overall likes the design. Moved to pass reason for refusal as being affordable housing and height.

Decision

Refused unanimously(The meeting was closed)

Membership

Whether a member of CARA or not, everyone in the CARA area who receives our newsletters can attend our public committee meetings and of course is very welcome to give us comments and feedback.

The more members we have, the greater is our voice, and your support is greatly appreciated. If you are not already a member and would like to join, please contact Penny D’Souza.

Photographs from the revised proposal

These are most of the photos submitted for the development at the end of Canbury Gardens.

Aerial view of Powerstation