Residents' Association Forum

I understand there has been no contact with Caring Homes for some months. Thought this article may be of interest to readers.

http://www.nationalcareforum.org.uk/viewNews.asp?news_ID=281&sector_id=1

The last company report & accounts for holding company MYRIAD HEALTHCARE LIMITED was filed in March 2012 and the next one is due 31 Dec 2013.  I haven't got hold of the last one.  Andrew?

Latest from agent Norman Dolling:

- there will be activity at the HoC over the next 4 - 6 weeks as they are making structural assessments of the current building fabric prior to submitting the long awaited planning application.

- we are likely to see increased activity  with people visiting the premises and some equipment on site. The listed buildings officer from Elmbridge is visiting on the 22nd July and will see what activity is taking place.

Norman does not have a date when a planning application will be submitted although it would seem  reasonable to assume it won't be before the Autumn.

They had an attempted break in last night. The security systems worked to deter them and although the police responded they did not find anyone in the area.

PS we gather that Caring Homes has in fact submitted the planning application to Elmbridge Borough Council - the application awaits internal validation before it appears on the planning portal any day now.

It is indeed there now - application 2013/2643

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2013/2643

Looks like they are continuing to propose an 11 space car park off Summer Road over part of the rear lawn, which is a great shame, with what looks like a hedge to obscure the view of the rear of the building from Summer Road.  Does this enhance the Conservation Area? 

Thanks DM.

Gosh - there's a lot of it to take in!

From a quick-ish scan through I couldn't see a perspective from the end of Church Walk and/or outside the Swan - only one up the High Street. So no visible indication of the impact of the lowered wall, carpark, electricity substations and bin store that are going to be in that area, or indication of how tall they will be, or whether we will be able to see the river at all from that view! Did I miss it?

Still concerned about car-park on that corner, from a noise and visual perspective.

The inclusion of the visitor list/comments from the public consultation are a bit irritating too - I gave negative verbal comments about the carpark but was told I would be sent the plans for a proper look, which never happened. So it gives the impression I had no negative comments.

Section 15 of the design statement also includes references to carpark lighting, aircon units and kitchen extractor fans but I couldn't find these on the plan, so would be concerned about noise/smells/light pollution from these too.

I don't like the look of the big ugly square block that will be built on to the end of chapel opposite the Red Lion.

(http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/ScreenShot2013-07-19at111236_zps0d07c329.png)

There is also a roof terrace with glass balustrading along this side on the plans but it doesn't appear clearly on the drawings (though you can see a little man up there just above the red car.) Not very nice for the houses opposite, along with the large increase in number of windows.

Likewise, the 'Proposed site Layout' and 'Landscape masterplan' are inconsistent in the are near the Swan - and possibly in other areas too that I haven't checked. How are we supposed to comment on these complex proposals if the documents within them are inconsistent?

There's also an application under 2013/2701 for the Listed Building Consent.  

Not much to say on this front, but one thing I've spotted is that they intend using fake 'fibre cement' slates on the new roofs, rather than real Westmorland green slate as per the existing.  They say that this will 'match existing', but in my view, it will stick out like a sore thumb, and is a completely inappropriate roof covering for a Grade II listed building.

Will have a good look and comment when I get home next week. I think it needs a change of architect. The block on the chapel makes the whole thing look like a prison. Have the architects consulted with local residents before putting the application in? It's good practice to.

Can you still get real Westmorland green slate?

I agree entirely re the slates.

When I replaced the slate roof on my listed property a few years ago I was advised that I had to use slate tiles that matched the existing tiles as closely as possible. Spanish or Canadian slate was recommended by the roofer and accepted by the conservation officer so they had to be imported - and it was very expensive!!

Yes you can: http://www.lbsproducts.com/westmorland_green_roofing_slate.html, so there's really no excuse for using something that isn't even slate, let alone a 'matched' slate.

Surprised to see so few comments on the planning applications for this proposal, given the impact of the building on the village.

Comments open till 8th August, so still a little bit of time if you're still thinking about it.

I agree tdres, we as a village will only get one shot at ensuring this building is saved with its historical and architectural integrity intact.

The rather ambiguous plans for the 'refurbishment' of the main house and other historical structures on the site, is nothing short of an example of greed and cutting corners from this type of organisation. The blatant disregard for the architectural qualities of the building and its location by Caring Homes is obvious by the building materials being suggested, regardless of the fact that they've left it looking like an eyesore for the past 4 years - that, I'm not surprised by one bit. I am not against the conversion by Caring Homes (though as I've said before I think this building and the village would be much better off if it was converted to multi-residential or to a hotel) but if it must be converted by Caring Homes, then it MUST be renovated to the standard expected of any other Grade 2 listed building renovation.
I am however quite dumb struck by the quite apathetic response from the village to this wholly inappropriate refurbishment and enlargement. For a building that is at both the heart of the village and perhaps the most dominant feature of the village for that matter, there is a deafening sound of silence but for a few objections.
I suggest if Caring Homes can't afford to renovate in a sympathetic and contextual way, they put the property up for sale and Boyle Farm residents overturn the covenant on the building to get a more desirable conclusion to this sad but lovely old building. MORE objections would be good if this is to be refused by the council in its current guise, otherwise we might be left with a rather unfortunate pile of corporate c£@p for the next 10 decades.

Thanks, for the timely reminder! I am too surprised how few comments have been submitted and also how little the conservation officer had to say on the matter.

I've asked Graham whether the RA is in the process of submitting comments.

It seems to me that the key is to what extent there is variation from the plans approved five years ago, particularly when the proposed building is to be viewed from the river and the High St.

I'm sure that this application will come before the EBC area committee at the very least, even if there are few further submissions.

It appears that a large number of very well argued objections to the scheme have now been submitted.  It would be hard to see how the case officer could not recommend refusal to the scheme.

The big question though is 'what next?'.  It is almost certain that the reason that the applicant has skimped so much on materials, whilst trying to squeeze in as many bedrooms as possible is that the scheme is barely viable.    The principle reason that this scheme has been submitted in the first place is that the existing ones are not viable either.

My fear is that on refusal, we will end up with another extended period of inaction on the property, and will have to watch it fall further into dereliction.....

I was also pleased to see the rush of last minute comments, as the proposal as it stands is not good enough.

It is a conundrum - it does need to be economically viable, but that is no excuse for ruining the building and the setting.

If the proposal was reduced in size a bit, better thought out in terms of its neighbours and the village in general, respectful of the listed status and internally consistent it might stand a chance.

Having read the comments, I agree and seems to me it's both the extension and the poor restoration which seems to be the problem here.

I am not convinced this is a commercially viable project as a Care Home.  Perhaps a retirement scheme would be more appropriate as residents could at least enjoy the grounds and access to the River.

It must be clear to Caring Homes that something is wrong.

Agree a retirement home would be good and I'd imagine bring more custom for the village.

A whole raft of new plans and elevations have now gone up on the application, presuambly to counter some of the comments re lack of clarity.

I have only had time for a quick flick through and I'm not sure if we are now supposed to play a complicated game of 'spot-the-difference' or if the original objections will stand.

There is more information there and what it does make clear, having the existing and proposed elevations next to each other, is how enormous a development this is, both along the High Street and at the Boyle Farm side. There are new bits that I hadn't even spotted as new because it is so complicated. I object even more now than I did before!

Yes, this is over development and it looks like a prison, I will object also.

They have an ugly fence on the river aswell

Well spotted tdres

I don't think there is anything in the new plans that allays any of my concerns.  The materials still are completely inappropriate (fibre cement tiles, grp mouldings, zinc cladding, aluminium windows etc.....) and the newbuild overpowers the existing house from a massing perspective (if I lived on the Boyle Farm Estate or the High Street, I wouldn't be happy either), and the proposal to only save original features 'where possible' stands - a get out clause if ever I heard one. 

In addition, the proposed 1.8m high painted and galvanised metal fence on the river front sounds nasty, and in direct contravention of  RTT1 (PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT SHOULD MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE RIVER THAMES AND ITS TRIBUTARIES INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS, VISTAS AND KEY LANDMARK S ALONG AND CONSPICUOUS FROM THE BANKS) and RTT6 (A STRIP OF LAND WILL BE RETAINED FREE FROM DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE RIVER THAMES. THE AVERAGE WIDTH OF LAND TO BE KEPT FREE FROM DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE 15 METRES, MEASURED FROM THE LANDWARD EDGE OF THE TOWPATH, OR 20 METRES MEASURED FROM THE WATER'S EDGE, WHICHEVER IS THE LESSER. THE MINIMUM WIDTH AT ANY ONE POINT ON A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE 9 METRES).  I would consider a 1.8m metal fence to be 'development', and whilst a 1.8m one would usually be allowed as part of permitted development rights, since this is in the curtilage of a listed building, and a commercial development, no such rights apply.  At the very least, I would like to see details of what is proposed.

Do we know how much traffic such a large scale development will generate, the local roads are already jammed with cars.

How many screeching ambulance will we be hearing going to Kingston hospital - obviously it's such a large dev, I presume there will unfortunately be a lot.  I don't get what Caring Homes are trying to achieve apart from pure economics of staff to patients, it seems quite an impersonal set-up, no wonder they want the public screened out.

Apparently  this company also specialises in mental hospitals also, is this what's going to happen so they can earn greater bucks!  What will it be!?

In terms of traffic then it looks like they plan to have 39 parking spaces and 79 residential rooms.

Making some estimates (which may or may not be correct, just shooting the breeze) I believe they need 50% ratio of care staff to residents so erring on the side of caution, 30-40 care staff at all times, 1-3 cooks, 4 cleaners, 1 doctor maybe. a few admin staff. Thats between 35 and 50 staff there at any one time. If they all drive then thats all the parking spaces used.

79 residents having visitors could be up to a potential 79 visiting cars parking on the streets at any one time. Hopefully would use the car park at Ashley Rd but you never know.

We could be looking at an extra 130 cars per week coming into and out of the village.

The upside is that for local businesses we're looking at another 50 staff in the village at all times and (if 2 people visit residents) 160 people per week visiting so 200+ more potential customers which is a big plus although could alter the feel of the village somewhat.

These are probably worst case scenarios, just throwing it out there.

There are guidelines for staffing levels but no set levels. It does depend on the level of care required and given the Alzheimers garden included in the plans one can assume that at least some of the patients will have high care needs. Even so, one carer to five residents would be more likely than 50%. Also, in my experience, visitors are not as frequent as they should be! Weekly visits would be more likely than daily for those who don't live locally.

So, being generous, I would think 16 care staff plus half a dozen others, say 25 in total at any time, would be more likely, and maybe 20-40 visitors a day, who would not all visit at the same time. That's still a lot of extra traffic though, as well as deliveries, ambulances, doctors etc.

It is a concern that the village will be dominated by such a large care home, both in terms of traffic, feel and of course the bulk of the building itself. It is already a prominent part of the village even though it is half the size and empty! I don't think any potential increase in shop traffic will compensate for that. There's no point having thriving shops if the village itself becomes so busy that it's no longer a nice place to live.

On a related matter, the drawings for the new electric substation have now been given and what was a tiny easily missable box on  the site plan turns out to be a 4m tall new building next to the 'tower' and right by the wall/street (assuming my calculations based on the scale drawings are correct). Doesn't sound very 'in keeping' to me.

SCC are the Statutory advisor on Travel To and from the site. They have replied that they object to the application on the grounds that the applicant has not submitted a Travel Plan. I would expect this to be submitted next week. This should cover parking, etc.

When will the council provide a response on this application ?

There are now many negative letters, I'm not sure that there is a lot support for this development - I still don't understand why this company haven't used the building in the meantime and simply added an extension.

I don't believe that they need the enlarge the number of units to make it economical, they also own a home Coombe Hill which is far smaller.  Has anyone heard from the rich Mr.Jeffreys?

I don't really think his personal finances are relevant here.

Maybe , maybe not. He is the sole owner of Caring Homes, so I was meaning he should be accountable for not letting water in and at least for providing some corporate governance of not using the building and answers to why he has not used this building. I imagine it will be hit hard this winter, I think it will be a wet one.

Do you know something, we don't know Craig about this development?

Fair enough, no I'm not privy to any more than you unfortunately ZC. It would be nice to see it sensitively developed and back up and running in some format though.

The HoC planning application recommendation (for discussion at the planning committee on 30th Sept) is here
http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/detail.htm?pk_document=24250
and the listed building recommendation is here
http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/detail.htm?pk_document=24251.

The LB application is recommended to be approved (with conditions) and the main application is recommended to be refused - but only on the basis that there has been insufficient information given regarding trees. All other aspects are deemed to be acceptable and/or not materially different from that already approved, despite the concerns of residents.

Let's hope the planning committee takes a more sympathetic attitude to the views of local residents but I won't hold my breath.

Didn't they get a planning submitted before / around the time they bought it?

And what is the position now with the covenant?

According to the website the planning application has now been withdrawn!!!

No reason given - possibly because it was recommended by the planning officer to be refused due to lack of tree information and they can then resubmit more cheaply and include the required info, rather than have to start from scratch? Just guessing.

I can't say I'm unhappy that it has been withdrawn in its current form, but it does drag the process out and I doubt that any new application will take the residents' areas of objection into account. There have been so many applications/extensions/amendments to these plans and it makes it very confusing and is a real waste of everybody's time. Do you think they're just trying to wear us down?

Or should I be optimistic that they are actually nice people who don't want to upset the village residents and they will shortly come back with less ambitious and more sensitive plans for development?

The planning application has been withdrawn, but the listed building consent hasn't.  That will still be going to committee on Monday......

Good spot DM.

So it probably is just the trees thing then and will likely be resubmitted otherwise unchanged .

Quite how listed building consent can be given for plans that have now been withdrawn though, I really don't know!  I would have thought that they would still have to apply for listed building consent for any new application again.

I guess they probably want to see this approved, and then use that as a precedent for the next one to be approved.  If anything, more weight should be given to the inadequacies of the proposed materials in this application, and I hope that it will be rejected at committee.  In fact, I'm very tempted to go to the committee meeting myself to view the proceedings - I've not however signed up to talk......

Is there any update on the outcome of yesterday's meeting of the planning committee?

There is indeed....

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Other%20Documents-1786364.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1786364&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

The application has been deferred to allow the council time to consult English Heritage, who were very surprisingly not originally consulted, and to consult Thames Landscape Strategy.

Good.

Hopefully English Heritage will also take a look at objections to the application and take a more aesthetic view than the planning officer. We'll see.

That's odd if it's true, because the council is required to consult English Heritage about a listed building - however, EBC planning officers are invariably on the side of the developer! 

Caring Homes are holding a presentation on their HOC plans on Tuesday 15 October at the Swan - 7-10pm .  Paul Jeffrey (CEO Caring) and architect (Brian Robb) and Building Development Manager (Nicola Thornton), will all be there.

Flagged up from home page.

In their mailshot (just received in Church Walk) they say "We are aware that the application has raised a few concerns and to address these concerns we are inviting you along to a local residents meeting."

The presentation, which I emphasise is proposed and organised entirely by Caring Homes and not by the TD&WG Residents' Association,  is not restricted and we would everyone who is interested in and concerned about the way the former Home is developed  to make time to attend.

Will be home in time to attend this. See you there.

Definately the right way to go about things - an open forum for a chat and inviting local residents.

And at the Swan as well!

Sadly I don't think I can make it for 7 - but will try and pop along before the close for a pint to get the tail end of the proposals!

Hopefully they'll actually address the concerns and not just use the comments book to bolster their application this time.

"the application has raised a few concerns and to address these concerns we are inviting you along to a local residents meeting"

Shame the mailshot didn't reach everybody - I didn't get one despite raising objections - and giving my address - both at the last meeting and to the planning application. Just as well I read the forum!

I think the application raised more than 'a few concerns' and I wonder what they mean by 'address' them? Are they going to put forward new plans at the meeting? If not, then I don't see how they can address the concerns! I'm afraid the cynic in me expects it to be 'consultation' so they can say that they did it, but without actually making any changes because of it. I would love to be proved wrong!

I will go along in any case and hope for the best.

I don't care if they send in their CEO their performance to date is a joke / appalling. They could of ran the home for the past five years without extending it and improved/extended when the recession was out of the way.

Unfortunately I can't make the meeting but find the all thing as a string along exercise and they seem to think, we are naive fools. The term white elephant comes to mind.

- community interaction is fine, but what is he actually given to us back apart from an eyesore when not in use and when in use, a great increase in traffic / noisy construction for a year or more.

He has a lot to answer for, please take notes/place on here and don't be fooled by his "Etonian" charms which he displayed at previous meetings with us

Easy tiger!  However I do agree with your sentiments, The questions that people should ask is not what they will do but Why they have done Nothing

They don't actually need a planning application to move into the main house and start with the upgrades of the original application or to even rebuild the broken walls so if its their intention to keep this building why are they not doing the works now? 

There is something that they haven't told us here and you don't withdraw an ongoing application for nothing - something fishy is happening

Just a reminder that the meeting in the Swan is tonight.

Hopefully enough peolpe will show up to make them realise that the 'few concerns' that they believe were raised are rather more than that and that we care about our village and our homes.

Was certainly interesting!

Any news?

Erm, a mixture really, I wasn't present for all of it unfortunately. Many posters from here were so I'm sure will comment later.

Caring Homes presented and HC and Rhodrich amongst others formulated very articulate and well thought out responses to them.

A great deal of confusion between Paul Jeffrey and Nicola Thornton. They were asked if it is appropriate to have two planning applications running that won't come before committee at the same time. This seems even more bizarre  given that the listed building consent application includes a drawing (proposed site layout) that has been significantly altered and will be submitted in the main planning application. Paul Jeffrey stated that he could squeeze 74 rooms into the previously permitted (2008/2378) scheme which included 64 rooms and that the 2013 scheme is all about getting the Kitchen in the right place so that it works operationally.  So he's spending xy millions, adding more car park spaces and building an even larger east wing because the previous architect put the kitchen in the wrong place! Nicola Thornton subsequently suggested that ideally the two applications should come before committee simultaneously. Paul wasn't 100 % sure on this. If they are submitting a new site layout drawing (shown tonight) in the main planning application then they should submit this in the Listed Building consent and anyone who was consulted or responded should be informed and be given the opportunity to respond. What a shambles! Caring have also substantially rewritten their design and access statement but haven't altered the east wing extension.  Lots of differing views but very hard to escape the perception that their planning team are less than stellar.

I missed the presentation but got there at 8.30 and had a conversation with a lady (Nicola?) regarding the purpose of the meeting and what had changed. Seemed to be not much - a few parking spaces moved and a tree sorted out. I reiterated some of the issues which still stand, and made it clear how I felt personally about these and why. She did listen and said she would discuss some things (e.g. size of new lift block) with the architect but I'm afraid I'm not expecting any result from that.

I did mean to ask what the time frame for resubmission was and how long the build would be likely to take once started but I forgot. Did anyone else find this out?

I thought the whole team was a shambles!  I definitely think Caring Homes should consider the capability of their team.

They clearly were not there to consider the views of the residents of Thames Ditton. A few railings and the movement of a couple of car parking spaces don't demonstrate listening, when the fundamental problem is the size of the east wing and how the development encroaches on the Boyle Farm Road.

I also think it's very poor saying the materials to be used would be those imposed by the planning committee.

Personally, as a care home operator I can see why they want more beds (for viability reasons) and why they need the kitchen in the East Wing (so residents can have access to kitchen facilities). Unfortunately no-one at the meeting explained this very well. If this is something that is so fundamental surely you have someone present who can explain the reasoning.

They have a proposed start date of March 2014 with an 18 month programme.

Sounds like fine mess  ??? , so it will potentially be a full 5 or 6 years till they actually make use of the building since they bought it. Bring back the Nuns/charity I say, at least they were trustworthy

Thanks, deborah.

March seems a bit optimistic given that the planning process has to start again.

And 18 months - good grief! People build whole estates in less time than that. I realise that a lot of the work will be sensitive restoration of the listed interior (sorry - couldn't help myself) but even so that seems a very long time and a lot of noise, traffic, nuisance while it is ongoing.

yup they were talking traffic lights on the high street/summer road near the corner, chaos.

Why would they need to do that?
I would have thought most of the building work and access would be round the Boyle Farm side (not that that's any better for those residents) but I don't see why they need to be in the road at all.

I missed the presentation, but I imagine the extensions to the chapel and buildings along the High Street would require scaffolding on the roadside, reducing it to single lane traffic - although it generally operates that way normally with the parked cars.

Not just Chaos, Craig - Ridiculous!

Please provide someone, their Traffic Plans and another plans for general review.

the one part I was slightly confused by was that they seemed to be saying there would be no overlooking/loss of privacy from the new wing and terrace, does it not directly overlook the high street houses and the Red Lion?

Yes, it does. The previously approved plans required the new windows along the High Street to be obscured glass for that reason. The planning officer seemed to believe that because these houses face a public road then loss of privacy didn't apply, whereas the fact that the terrace is at a storey higher than road level makes all the difference IMO. The glass balustrade is also completely out of keeping with the style of the building.

I pointed this out to the lady last night and she said that the terrace was required to give some outside space to residents (so the large garden isn't enough?) and I said that existing residents needed to be considered too, not just the new ones in the home! She said she would look at green screening inside the glass balustrade so that there would be less visibility, which would be an improvement, but is still insufficient in my view.

Other planning applications have been turned down because balconies or roof gardens would look into the upper floors of neighbouring properties so I don't see why this is different.

This is such a big project, impacting a large area - the Secretary of State should be called in to make sense of it. Please refer to the below

https://www.gov.uk/planning-applications-called-in-decisions-and-recovered-appeals

Elmbridge provide all this for you to view online in the attachments  to application 2013/2643

To go directly to the attachments page, this is the link for you:
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2013/2643

You will find the transport assessments and travel Plan near the bottom of the list of atts.

I think Bluesky was looking for traffic management plans for during development, rather than post development.

???

Why do you think the secretary of state would make a better decision than the local planning officer and elected representatives on the local planning committee?

The applicant has every right to appeal to the secretary of state, if they feel that the local planning committee has not made the right decision.  The majority of the time (65% for the most recent statistics I can find in Elmbridge here: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/statistics_eng/stats_report_final_2011_2012.pdf), the secretary of state sides with them, which suggests that they are not doing too bad a job.  Sadly, the Jolly Boatman application shows that they don't get it right all of the time.  Nevertheless, I'd always prefer that decisions regarding local issues were made locally.

I was refereeing to their original application, which they have planing permission but are using as a backstay for the new app. There is something totally wrong about the way Caring Homes is dealing with this precious site.

What are they waiting for?

And what is their motivation ?

Surely Paul Jeffrey must be throwing away £100,000s just holding onto it - I still think a hotel may be the answer / be in discussions

I see the Conservation Area Consent application is due before the East Area Committee on the 11th. The agenda can be downloaded from the committee date under East Area. They have now submitted three different plan layouts which have implications for parking and the grounds. The plan layout in the agenda is different to one shown at the public consultation and to the one in the application.  Easy to be confused.  Differences are:

1) Layout in the in application.

Parking directly under the Horse chestnut and 8 spaces to the north of the Cyprus tree towards the river.

2) Layout in the in public consultation

Removal of parking under horse chestnut and 5 spaces north of the Cyprus towards the river.

3) Layout in the agenda for 11 Nov

A large tree removed from the centre south of the site. Two large areas of grass lost (north east corner and north west corner)  either to gravel or asphalt - can't tell from drawing. An additional space in the south car park adjacent to the east wing, and an additional space near the horse chestnut and back to 8 spaces north of the Cyprus towards the river.   So, a removal of the concession they made at the public consultation to reduce the amount of riverside parking. Also another 3 spaces (drawing blurred s0 not too clear) adjacent to the debenture rooms in the south car park.

The conservation area consent application now has a reply from Thames Landscape Strategy which will need to be considered. Nothing yet from English Heritage and no sign of the revised main application. If they proceed on the 11th with the  Conservation Area application the main application will be heard separately which seems an odd way of doing things. 

Hi HC, would you provide a link to the agenda as I am struggling to track it down. Thanks!

Ratty, follow these:


http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/committees/meetings.htm?pk_meeting=1539&comid=3

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/detail.htm?pk_document=24425

officer reports get posted as part of the agenda, normally on the friday week before the committee meeting, which means that if you are following an application you can read what the officer recommends before it is  posted under the underlying application.

Highways

They have filed  two new applications:  2013/4378 (listed building consent) and 2012/4334 (main application). No drawings filed yet

Thanks HC. (The last reference should read 2013/4334)

Not expecting any major changes from before - but now we all have to go through everything again, check for any changes, object again, wait again etc etc.

Just as well none of us have got anything better to do.  >:(

This is getting beyond a Joke! How many times have they gone into planning now??

Can someone explain to me, why they don't sell it or start doing up the listed building?

They got out of sync with the two applications when one was deferred. I think everyone (including Caring) thinks that the two applications should run in parallel and come to committee at the same time. It will be interesting to see if they take on-board any feedback from the presentation to the public. My guess is that there will be changes.

The plans have now been uploaded (http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2013/4334)

At first glance, there appears to have been a small concession with the amount of parking on the river side reduced from 11 to nine spaces and just one widened entry point next to the Swan. However, the landscaping plans (http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans-1807007.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1807007&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1) suggest they actually plan to just sneak and extra three spaces back in behind the three next to the main building.

Also, the carbuncle on the end of the chapel is still there despite the presentation of the plans' best effort to actively disguise its existence.  :-\

Thanks Ratty

I've not had a good enough chance to look at the plans in detail, but I can see some positive developments:  the building survey and remedial plan is a welcome addition.  I can see that this was put together in December last year, with many items demanding urgent attention (such as blocked gutters, leaking roofs, and dry rot outbreaks), none of which appear to have been done.  At least this will give us a better idea of the current condition of the building, and what is planned to fix things.

They now are finally agreeing to the use of graded Westmorland Green slate on the main building.  However, the proposal to use Marley Eternit fibre cement slates on the new east wing extension rather than real slates would still jar with the quality of the roof on the main building, and is still unacceptable in my eyes.

There are still plenty of other negatives remaining though, such as the prison block carbuncle facing the High Street that you mention Ratty, and glass balustrade and balcony overlooking houses on the High Street.  Then there's still the 'galvanised metal fence' within 8 metres of the river (which has however been reduced in height down to 1.5m rather than 1.8m).  Boyle Farm residents will be very disappointed to see that the east extension is still just as dominant as it was in the previous application too.

Overall, there's still work to be done to make the scheme acceptable, but I am glad that they have taken aboard some of the objections.

I distinctly recall that at the public presentation the architect confirmed, in answer to my question, that the riverside fence would be heritage quality in traditional style.  Is this 'galvanised fence within 8m' a different fence (to hide the car parking etc?)  I don't have time to leaf through the application....

See here: http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans-1806967.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1806967&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

It's the same fence as before, and is described as a '1500mm high painted and galvanised metal fence', which could encompass anything from a heritage quality traditional style to something out of an industrial estate.

Another drawing here: http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans-1807011.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1807011&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1 refers to them as 'black pointed railings'.  Again, sufficiently vague to encompass any design.  My fear is that without a suitable condition, they could end up putting up something like this:
(http://taeuklimited.co.uk/images/fenced.jpg)

I've heard that part of this site will be a mental hospital / zone, so it's not surprising it looks like a prison.

When might construction start??

Thanks.

Yes, that seems to be a case for a condition that the planning officer must approve the material and design for the fence, which must be in keeping with a listed grade II property of its period.

Meanwhile, I'm pleased to see they have made some movement, at least, on the slates.  But not enough.  However, it seems that the presentation Q & A (and some lobbying afterwards) has at least made Caring Homes take more seriously into account some views expressed at the meeting.  I have the impression, however, that on the East Wing they are unlikely to offer Boyle Farm Estate residents further concessions, and are probably prepared to go to appeal on that if necessary

English Heritage's reply to the previous application has now been received (here: http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Consultation%20Response-1815153.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1815153&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=7)

Their advice is fairly damning, considering it doesn't even go into full detail on the changes to the house itself, but merely concentrates on the impact to the conservation area.  The following really sums up their position:
‘The cumulative impact of the development on the setting of the grade II listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area cannot be considered as anything other than harmful, and it is questionable whether the development represents the optimum viable use for the buildings.’

It would appear that all their recommendations would apply equally to the latest scheme as to the one that has been withdrawn, and no planning officer could fail to take into account their quite substantial objections to the scheme as it currently stands.

I haven't looked at this properly yet, but on the landscaping round the Swan-side car park I notice that there are now 1.8m high black railings all around the car park between it and the gardens. The gates that are currently across the entrances to the car park are gone.

I don't remember these railings from previous plans and they don't look like they'll do much for the view to the river or the view of the house from the High Street. Also, it means the car park area is 'open' and therefore potentially a new area for 'loitering' in the village at night.

I wonder what other new stuff has been snuck in?

And the 'site plan' and 'landscaping layout around car park' are inconsistent again! How hard can it be?

The car park railings are shown on lanscape plan but not on site plan, which shows it as a screen hedge.
Site plan also shows that 2nd opening to car park is to be closed off - not on landscaping plan.
Lack of gating to carpark itself means that electric substation is accessible from the street - will this be safe?
The promised three space reduction in carparking here has been replaced with the 'possibility of informal doubling up' - so in fact adding 3 potential cars parked rather than taking 3 away.

Apparently, a firm called BTP are/were running this project for Caring, but that was at the time of last app. Presumably new consultants have been instructed?

Either way, it looks unprofessional service from these so called cost and project managers.

I don't know too much about the covenant on the HOC but I'm under the impression that BF residents can overturn it - if they so wish.

IF this is the case and they did so, then it would potentially and significantly change the direction that this building is heading in. For Caring Homes the building would suddenly be worth considerable more than they paid for it (plus i think they had to own it for 3 years or something before they could sell), giving them a get out clause to sell. To a private developer, the building and location would be prime and ultimately they would be forced (by the authorities) to be much more sympathetic to the building and site then Caring Homes are likely to be.  I still maintain that conversion into high end apartments would be much more beneficial to the village and its economy than yet another overcharging, overbearing, out of place, giant fleecing nursing home complex.

Rudi - surely there is a property lawyer in the village who can tell us more?

I'm just saying their consultants they used were a very strange choice as are residential consultants and haven't been involved in the care sector before. I like to know Caring's long- term goal here and who is managing the scheme or is it just for their bank?

To add further confusion, the Design & Access Statement (12.1i) states "12 of the parking spaces will be located to the north end of the site and proposes to use the existing means of access egress with modifications to improve visibility splays etc."

Hello all, I hope it is ok to post this here - I am a Masters student studying Archaeology and Heritage Management, and having grown up in Thames Ditton and followed recent developments for the Home of Compasssion case, I'm really interested in doing one of my final projects about it. I was wondering if anyone knew who best to talk to regarding this, and particularly regarding getting access to look around the site if it was possible.

I've been trying to contact Nicola Thornton, the project manager, but I keep on having messages passed on - I wasn't sure if perhaps there was someone better to talk to.

Any help on this would be much appreciated!

Flo :)

Dealt with in your duplicate post in the local history thread.

Hi, This is Flo's mum, who is really Speerroadres...
Thanks for your replies and helping her out.  The project she is doing is all about Heritage, nothing to do with digging up the foundations.. I hope she will be able to convey that when she contacts the relevant people.  Cheers anyway. Liz

No objections to the new application up yet.

Are people assuming they will carry over from the old one or just holding fire? I would doubt they would carry over as it is a new application.

There's still a week or so to get them in, so hopefully we haven't all got planning fatigue on this!

Today is the last 'official' day for submitting objections to this and only two are appearing on the site so far.

Is everyone happy with the new proposals? Was there something in the consultations that I missed?

Just surprised at the lack of response given the numerous objections expressed on the previous almost identical application.

There's enough evidence of objections already

This is not the case! It counts as a new application and comments will need to be resubmitted if they are to be taken into account (based on advice from EBC planning dept.).

See Garland Letter on 2013/4334, dated 27 November. The important point is that Boyle Farm Estate who hold the covenant stipulating that the HOC must be a care home are stating publicly that Boyle Farm would release this covenant if the existing footprint of the building was retained.

Thanks Highways - that brings it back to the point I originally made - which is if BFE released the covenant it would be a win win for all parties. Also it's a real shame BFE didn't have the foresight to consider the 'change of use' option previously but instead only when faced with the reality of the situation of what is, probably to some degree, BFE's own making. It might have negated a lot of potential future damage to the village character and heritage environment.

As said previously, if Caring Homes could sell on the open market (covenant free) for a vast profit to a developer (residential or hotel) to take on. And if sold with the stipulation that the footprint didn't increase, BFE residents would/should be happy and the village would have a much improved long term solution to this lovely old building and grounds. Caring Homes current solution is to concrete over the grounds, fortify the river frontage, build a massive overbearing monolith and strip the building of its character and heritage. Truly, of no value to the residents or village IMHO.

Rudi,

Up until now, Caring Homes have been sitting on an approved scheme which Boyle Farm did not object to. This scheme had a much smaller east wing, no new car parking by the river,  fewer car park slots to the north, and more sympathetic landscaping.   

Caring Homes have responded with a revised application which many interested parties are objecting to, including BF.  It seems a bit tough to criticise BF for not publicly proposing a release of the covenant at an earlier date. Over the years there have been a number of overtures to Caring Homes to release the covenant, understandably none of these were publicised. Caring has now come back with a story that:  'times are tough and the only option for the site is to give us carte blanche to cover the grounds with tarmac and build a massive new wing'. Caring Homes stated at the recent open meeting that if this scheme is rejected they will implement the 2008 scheme, so who knows what they really think.
Are they bluffing or just being greedy?  Let them get on with it! Personally, I'm not a fan of the 2008 scheme, and it seems, nor is EH.

I think the message to Elmbridge's conservation officer and EH is that the existing covenant should not be used as an excuse to irreparably damage such  a unique site.

One of the things that's a bit off about the story of this building IMHO - the whole of the village is interested in its development, but Boyle Farm Estates which is private has been conducting the negotiations in secrecy from start to finish.  Is that with only its private interests in mind?  Sorry to sound a bit negative and I am not trying to make trouble, just to say that trouble already exists, because I know I'm not the only one to feel excluded from this important matter, until Boyle Farm residents find it convenient to call for support.

Can we now have full transparency from BFE if they want full support in future?

PS And, can highways contact assure us that in the confidential discussions with Caring Homes about possible release of the covenant, enabling the Home of Compassion to be sold for residential development as flats, at a greater profit, there was no thought behind that of splitting the profit between Caring Homes and Boyle Farm Estates?

Walker2

There aren't any discussions as such. Caring Homes own the building and are in the business of running care homes and have an application for a care home. BF has publicly stated that we oppose the submitted plans and would release the covenant if the current footprint was retained. BF is not looking to profit in any way from this project or any future projects. Hope that helps. 

Thanks highways contact.  That's very helpful.

So would a conversion to residential or hotel, be also suitable for you

Bluesky, what happens to the building will be determined by whoever owns it and what planning application comes before the council. 

Amended drawings now online.

1.3 The following drawings have been submitted in conjunction with this addendum and have been amended as follows, all in response to English Heritage’s comments:-
•
4905 D GA 001 Rev D
Proposed new windows to the Assisted Bathroom and Nurses Station at ground floor level have been omitted to ensure the existing facade at street level is maintained in its current form.
•
4905 D GA 002 Rev E
The proposed roof terrace and associated glass balustrade to the Chapel area at first floor has been omitted. One set of proposed doors leading onto the flat roof has been retained for maintenance purposes as there are no other means by which to access this area of roof.
•
4905 D GA 003 Rev E
Reference to Bedroom 43 within Chapel Building omitted. The applicant has accepted the loss of resident’s bedroom to achieve Listed Building Officer’s request to retain void over reception area.
•
4905 D EL 001 Rev C, EL 003 Rev D and EL 005 Rev C
Proposed floor levels and roof ridge level added to drawings to demonstrate proposals are in keeping with the levels approved in the extant approval.
•
4905 D EL 002 Rev C
Glass balustrade and proposed windows to Chapel boundary wall at ground floor level omitted in order to preserve the existing appearance from the High Street.
•
4905 D EL 004 Rev B
It has been identified that an existing window has not been drawn on the existing North West Elevation. This has now been rectified.
•
4905 (4) SP 002 Rev S
The proposed additional car parking (6 no. spaces) to the river side of the proposals has been omitted to ensure that visual amenity from the River Thames is maintained.
The proposed removal of the upper brick wall adjacent to the slipway and replacement with metal railing and hedgerow has been withdrawn. The existing wall will be repaired as necessary. This is in response to English Heritage’s request that any new openings etc. to the boundary wall be kept to a minimum.
The north most access to the riverside car park is to be blocked up ensuring that egress/ingress to the site is away from the ‘bad’ corner at Summer Road.
1.4
These amendments are being promoted as a goodwill gesture and demonstrate the applicant’s ongoing commitment to the project. They should also be seen as further enhancements to a proposal that English Heritage acknowledge is a considerable improvement to that which has previously been approved.

I've just been looking at these and am delighted to see that the riverside carpark has been reduced in size and the glass balustraded balcony has gone. Hurrah!

However, I continue to be frustrated by the lack of consistency - even in things that have been pointed out. The landscaping plan still shows railings between the carpark and gardens whereas the site plan shows screen hedging. Which is it to be? Would an approval mean they could do whichever they choose? Very poor.

And I find it ironic that they call this a goodwill gesture and note that English Heritage called the original revised proposal a significant improvement, whereas they actually said it was harmful, but less harmful than that currently approved. Yes, that does mean it is an improvement, but someone's had the spin doctors at work.

Let's get to grips here tires, this company is making enormous profits from the project if they can get planning. An appropriate goodwill gesture would be to open up the riverside to the local community of the village Not just to the millionaires on Boyle farm road.

I didn't say I was now happy with the proposal overall and also described the 'goodwill gesture' as ironic, so I don't know what you're getting at here.

However, I have seen no proposal to open up the riverside to anyone - millionaires included - and can't imagine how this would be practical or a sensible proposal to make.

Tdres - I didn't say you were happy or not.

Boyle farm residents have already been given their own riverside access, other villagers would benefit too

I see the chip is back!