Residents' Association Forum

Justice Ouseley is taking his time to rule on the Jolly Boatman judicial review. Julian Assange has been keeping him busy!!

In today's Elmbridge Guardian there is a report that The Royal Star and Garter are moving to a site in Langley Avenue, Surbiton. I'm sure Gladedale were praying that Ouseley might rule in their favour and Star and Garter might have a second look at the Jolly Boatman site. No chance of that now. Now that the viability figures are out in the open (Elmbridge recently attached them to 2008/1600) it is unlikely that the JB application would be passed without a significant social housing component. Regardless, the likelihood of Gladedale finding a buyer in the current market is very remote. The balance sheets of care home providers are mostly in a dire state. As is Gladedale’s…

Fingers crossed Ouseley kicks the whole project into the river where it belongs. If he does, it will be an extraordinary and historic victory for Keith Garner.

As Noble as Keith Garner's intentions might be to some, what are the viable alternatives for this site, that don't include a pie in the sky garden of Eden Utopia?
And has anyone actually noticed the absolutely disgusting state of the site, it resembles more a civic amenity dump with a veritably collection of Stella cans, crisp packets and broken bottles mounting up daily.
And without planning consent being granted - as almost certainly will be the case, as anyone considered the sites future?
With no viable development 'profit' return, no willing buyers, a building industry in decline and a council without a penny it appears to me that both the overseas visitors and locals will be gazing for sometime to come through a littler strewn demolition site at the Palace as they disembark from their platform.
Perhaps if Keith Garner is so passionate about the site he could buy it for the people of Elmbridge to perserve its 'sacred' position for perpetuity. Or if his wallet doesn't stretch, perhaps he could indulge his passion and at least litter pick at a weekend.
So the question has to be asked who exactly will have won this victory and for what?
Sorry forum, I just don't get what the objective is here.

There was outline planning consent to which all were (mostly) in agreement for a smaller development that would basically pay for refurb of the station by a mixed development including a small hotel.  The developers, not for the first time, tried to wring blood out of it in the shape of an overscale development that in several ways did not meet the outline consent.  In other words, overdevelopment.  One of the least attractive features was the overscale hotel envisaged.  A smaller development with a smaller hotel and within the original guidelines would have been less controversial.

However there has always been a significant body of opinion in favour of compulsory purchase (at a fair rate) of just the part that was the Jolly Boatman,  to make a green area for public use opposite the Palace and to preserve its immediate setting.  It's not 'just another site.' The palace is of international importance as well as a key national inheritance and once the setting's gone, it's gone.  As Keith Garner points out, this would never be allowed to happen at Versailles.

It is a common tactic of developers to keep a site unsightly as part of the pressure to try to force locals to accept their plans for development.  I've been told that in the past the people behind the HCP rescue campaign offered to clean up the site by free voluntary labour but the developers refused.

In taking a position one notes that the vast majority of residents of East Molesey and all their elected representatives were against these particular proposals, and it's an RA principle that the local voice should carry real weight.  Yet here it was steamrollered over by the incumbent administration in EBC - and in a way which the judge later concluded may have been negligent, hence the case for a judicial review.

I hope that's answered your questions, rudi.

I'm really sad that the Star & Garter were forced to pull out - our loss is Surbiton's gain in my opinion.  I have lived in TD for nearly 23 years and it's about time that the Jolly Boatman site was put to good use.  It may not be to Keith Garner's liking but he isn't a local resident so what's it got to do with him?  As for being detrimental to the Palace view that's absolute rubbish, look at what's there now - hardly attractive!  If St. Paul's can survive and live in harmony with the Gherkin why can't the Palace cope with an environment enhancing develoment across the water?  It's about time the station had a proper refurbishment too.

As for the vast majority of East Molesey residents being against the proposals they are not the only residents who need to be considered here, what about Thames Ditton and Hampton?

The weight of objection to the proposals in Hampton seemed to be overwhelmingly against the particular development proposals (but they are not in Elmbridge where the decision was made) and from soundings here that seemed to be the majority view in TD too.  But as the site is of national importance, IMO a much wider constituency should have been seriously consulted and the decision taken at national level.

Keith Garner lives in Twickenham IIRC and was a consultant to the Palace.  The Palace's own views are given here on the well-researched and presented HCRC site http://www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com/hrp.htm

I noted that while there was a substantial body of opinion against development of the Boatman (hotel) area at all, there had been outline planning consent for less obtrusive redevelopment (including refurb of the station) and had the developers stayed within the terms and spirit of the outline consent (and had EBC stuck to their own planning guidelines and statutory duties) rather than overdoing things, there would probably not have been this stalemate.

Always a welcome and well considered intelligent response from Keith.

But I believe the site needs to be looked at in the true context of its position, not just the views it affords of the Palace. For the most part this part of East Molesey can hardly be called attractive. With a 4 lane traffic clogged Hampton Court Way, a rundown rail station, secondhand car lot, A BP garage, a row of third rate retail and a kebab shop with inappropriate replacement UPVC caravan windows. Hardly a fitting 'urban' landscape for a Tudor Palace. Keith Garner might be right that 'this would never happen at Versailles' but I believe Versailles is not afflicted with bad post war planning decisions like this part of East Molesey.
And though the 'majority of people in the area might be against the development, the suburbs have never been known to embrace change easily, least of all with major sightline developments. If the current setting was a pretty and relatively unspoilt village like TD then I would agree with the objectors but sadly it is not. 

The problem is that even if the developer is 'forced' to reevaluate the planning and opt for a smaller development there will still be people like Keith Garner who will continue to bring vexatious actions against any development of this site, just because they want it undeveloped.
In the meantime the locals (whether in agreement or not with a development) will be left for a very long time with both an unpleasant derelict site, a run down rail station and all that is appropriate and contextual to those surroundings.

I simply don't see any winners in this situation.

Well, if you look at Keith Garner's website, which is admirably clear and economical, and follow the thread on the Boatman site you'll see that he has some quite interesting alternative suggestions for development.  Start with: http://www.kgarch.co.uk/projects/boatman/index.htm  (though personally, I think that the idea of developing the roundabout site is a bit daft). 

One of the problems with the overscale deelopment proposals of Gladedale was also the handling of parking and consequential traffic problems - that was never seriously addressed by EBC.

Just because the area's a bit of a mess doesn't necessarily mean that it's OK to make a bit more of a mess! :)

I don't think Keith Garner's vexatious; I think he is courageously doing what he thinks is right on a matter of aesthetic importance for a site of national significance.  He's been ranged against the might of Gladedale (who hired a ruthless PR company to do the lobbying during the campaign), Network Rail, and EBC.  He's not rich.  He's supported by ordinary residents of the area who have been deeply concerned.  It restores one's faith in the justice system that an individual can, with courage and persistence, get this kind of issue looked at properly.

The fact that the judge (who has been an expert on similar matters) has taken so long to consider the verdict is a sign that this is a serious case with no clear-cut deciding factor.

btw just wait for the cries of outrage here when the refurb of the station and development (whatever that is finally to be, there will be development of the station site) means that Hampton Court station is closed for a couple of years, there's no parking there and hundreds more commuters come park around TD......  Not that that should influence views on a site of national importance for centuries....

Thanks keith for the pointer to Keith Garners website. He's clearly passionate about the site and perhaps I was a little premature in suggesting he might be vexatious.

However, as interesting the alternative is, I'm sure in reality the businesses and residents of Bridge Street would have some significant, and not unfounded, objections to a new development on the 'roundabout' site.
Also it doesn't really solve the very real issue of the investment the developer has made in the Jolly Boatman site as development land, which can't not be discounted in any argument as there is a very real financial impact on not building on this site.

I personally would love to see the site green landscaped (and maintained!) with a foot bridge over the Ember for us TD residents. The whole Hampton Court Way tidied up and landscaped as a 'gateway' to Hampton Court Palace. But I'm pragmatist and know this can't be achieved unless the developer is paid massive compensation for the cost of the 'development land' they bought when they purchased the Jolly Boatman, and since EBC has no money to do this (and they gave them outline planning permission), development is the only other alternative in the long term. Or of course the other alternative is stalmate and what we have now. I'm sure the saga will continue for the 10 years!

For what it's worth Rudi I'm with you on this.  Although Keith Garner may be 'passionate' about his cause it does not make it right.  How much time, effort and money has been wasted arguing and wrangling over this site.  I suspect that the majority have not considered the pros and cons too much at all and, in the scheme of things, I suspect that many have far more pressing things to worry about.

Just think of all the new jobs that would be created by a development; be it a building or landscape, the income that might be generated, the potential refurbishment of other premises to 'keep up with the Joneses' .... the possiblities are endless.  Shame it will all be too late for the Royal Wedding; another missed opportunity. Oh well, at least the wildlife are enjoying the site.

Oh and by the way if the station is closed I am sure that there will be plenty of buses to assist commuters.

And the argument goes on.  Happy days!

Monday is the day. Judgement to be issued at 10:00am.  I will give Keith a call and see if he can put something up when he gets a minute.

The proposed development is on an Zone 3b floodplain - the category at highest risk, which is the most likely to flood.  It is immediately adjacent to the rivers Thames, Mole and the Ember, and climate change will make flooding events considerably more likely and frequent.   

A development on the Jolly Boatman site will significantly increase the risk of flooding; both on the site itself, including the two storey underground car park (which will have ventilation shafts below the permitted flood level and no flood barriers); and in the surrounding area, including Molesey and Thames Ditton, because of displaced water.   

In the event of a flood, the care home, hotel, flats and shops would have to be evacuated.   The station and car park would be closed or unusable for an unspecified period.  This would almost certainly include closure of Thames Ditton station too.   A flash flood would occur with little warning, submerging cars in the car park not to mention risk to human life.

Concerning upkeep of the site, maintenance of the station is Network Rail's statutory responsibility irrespective of any proposed development, and maintenance of the Jolly Boatman site is the responsibility of the owner.   The dereliction of the the site predates the proposed development and the Judicial Review.   

An application for Lottery funds could be made to secure this prestigious site as a landscaped area for the benefit and enjoyment of visitors to Hampton Court and for local residents.    This could also include a footbride bridge over the river Mole and a footpath under Hampton Court bridge, opening up the whole riverside area.

Emberman, your post sums up most of the issues.  A few other points.
1) The last place anyone should build a multi-storey care home for the elderly and infirm is on a site which might have to be evacuated due to flooding. Flood policy is always to reduce risk.
2) My understanding is that at this point in time, Gladedale don't own the site, so no need to compensate them.
3) Elmbridge Council could have "submitted to judgement". That is, not contested the judicial review and let Gladedale and Network Rail's fight it out. Looking at Elmbridge's published expenditure, they did incur legal costs which they could have avoided.  If they lose tomorrow, there will be further costs. I'd love to know how much they have spent.
4) Either Elmbridge didn't understand the viability numbers, or chose to ignore them. This would have been a hugely profitable development. There is therefore an obligation to include a significant social housing component. Something went wrong here.
5) The Tory run planning committee ignored an overwhelming public sentiment against this scheme.
6) Hampton Court Palace is a national treasure and it's setting should be protected for our generation, and for all future generations.

It will be fascinating to read the judgement tomorrow.
 

Of course one saving grace if the development doesn't get the go ahead is there will be no social housing on the site. With the exception of key workers, why people who contribute nothing to society should receive 'expensive' homes in the best locations (that most working people couldn't dream of living in) is quite beyond me!

I'm definitely up for this option, this is such a drab area even without the derelict bits.  Just wish someone would do something worthwhile with this site and in my lifetime!

I think everyone wants this option! Fingers crossed for common sense.

Sadly he lost. Not much chance of it ever being built.

That is very sad.

We have two lovely river sites in the Jolly Boatman and the Home of Compassion but both will sit there unused whilst all the wrangling goes on.

judgement today (31 January) of Mr Justice Ouseley in dismissing the claim by Keith Garner and Gerald McAully to challenge the grant of planning permission for development at Hampton Court Station and the Jolly Boatman at Hampton Court Way in East Molesey.

The Council had resolved to grant planning permission for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site on 18 December 2008. The legal challenge to this decision was brought by formal claim in September 2009. The Council appeared (and Gladedale Group Limited and Network Rail were represented as interested parties) at the High Court hearing on 28/29 October 2010.

The claimants had argued that the Council had failed to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Hampton Court Palace - and also that the Council had erred in dealing with flood plain considerations.

Mr Justice Ouseley said that it was "obvious" that the Council had fulfilled its statutory duty to consider the setting of the Palace. This was one of the key issues, if not the key issue, in the decision and to which special regard was paid. He noted the significant debate at Council and Committee meetings about the setting of the Palace with views expressed both for and against the development, hostile or otherwise, to the proposal's impact on views to and from Hampton Court Palace. The purpose, content and language of the Planning Brief had been vital and the consultation on it with Historic Royal Palaces had been particularly important.

The judge saw nothing in the flood plain points. The officers had correctly advised Members about the affordable housing percentage and that the scheme was marginal. There was therefore no error in law, applying the Sequential and Exceptions Test, in concluding that there was no scope for any profitable activities to be relocated off-site and for there still to be a viable regenerative development.

A disappointing result for national heritage, I think.

Begs the question: if these things were so 'obvious' why did Justice Ouseley take far more than the promised two weeks to reach a judgment?

so is the plan to put a luxury hotel on the site?

The plan is for a two storey underground carpark (on a high flood risk area!), a 46 bedroom hotel, 66 residential units, some commercial and retail filling in the gaps and a 61 bedroom care home which was intended for the Royal Star and Garter. The three storey hotel faces the river and Hampton Court Palace.  Any thoughts on what this project will do to congestion in the area??  There was 29 votes in favour, 24 against and 5 abstentions.

See Keith Garner's press release:

http://www.kgarch.co.uk/jblegal/press_statement_31-01-11.htm

i might get a roasting for this, but I'm not sure if a really nicely done hotel might be a good thing there.

I dont see that it would detract from the beauty of HC and isnt anymore disrespectful than a worn down station with a used car lot next to it.

Certainly it might make (the woeful) mitre hotel buck their ideas up a bit.

As for more homes/parking/retail then I need to think more to formulate a cohesive argument either way but on the face of it I dont see that a hotel would necessarily be a bad thing if done very well and sympathetically to it's surroundings.

I don't think you'd be roasted - for a nicely done hotel.  The ideal, from a while ago, was a public purchase and green landscaping; but that did not seem to be likely to attract public funding (alas).  Later there was outline planning given for a mixed development that included an hotel.  It was to be a rather smaller and lower profile affair than the overscale four-floor erection of undistinguished aspect forced through in the end.  A small hotel there is not a bad idea if there is to be development of the JB site.  The outline permission (approved under a Residents' administration moreover, IIRC) seemed to be far less controversial than the overdevelopment that was steamrollered through.

As is so often the case, developers tacked more on to the application than was envisaged, and kept the site in an uncared-for condition meanwhile.

That said, in addition to the JB proposal we've had the new Holiday Inn on Portsmouth Road, then the EBC also approved large hotels on Green Belt at Moore Place (with the demolition of that old building)  and Sandown Park, which also have yet to be built.  It does make you wonder what's going on!

Probably to avoid being accused of not looking at it properly, had he not taken a reasonable amount of time then critisism and outrage no doubt would have followed.


In my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with any of those observations although I have no experience of The Mitre other than it looks nice.

Keith Garner's press statement is here: http://www.kgarch.co.uk/jblegal/press_statement_31-01-11.htm

EBC's press statement is here: http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/news/news.htm?mode=10&pk=3826

At least there is now closure on this issue.
Whether anyone has the appetite or the money to actually now develop the site will remain to be seen. I just think the really sad part is that all this stalling as meant that the Star and Garter has now found an alternative site. It would have been nice to have had them there and a fitting location for them.
I think the focus now should be to ensure that any development that does stake shape improves the whole immediate vicinity 100%. It needs regeneration desperately.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/richmondnews/8816710.Star_and_Garter_moves_out_of_Richmond/

Langley Avenue?  so are they knocking down a villa?  that's two problems...

The Jolly Boatman and Hampton Court station sites are only in need of restoration because their owners have chosen to neglect them and let them become derelict and litter-strewn to coerce local people into accepting their development plans.   

Gladedale refused Historic Royal Palace's generous offer to landscape the Jolly Boatman site - free of charge.  Network Rail have neglected the station site for many years.

Network Rail have responsibility to properly maintain the whole of the station site, including the buildings, car park and the car dealership premises, which they rent out to a tenant.

It doesn't take a massive, high density and urban development to make the site attractive and to form an appropriate setting for Hampton Court Palace - a national treasure.   

Sadly the poor state of these sites is not due to a recent decline, they have been like this for 20 years or more.  The station did have a facelift some years ago but the improvement was minimal and probably done on the cheap.  It is a real shame.  This area has the potential to be stunning and beautiful, I wonder if it ever will be.

For those interested, the viability document that was withheld from public scrutiny by EBC before its release to public view was forced by Keith Garner's team is here:
http://residents-association.com/pdfs/gladedale_development_appraisal_15Sep2008.pdf

There were interviews this morning about the Jolly Boatman Judicial Review with John O'Reilly (Con), Leader of Elmbridge Council, and with Keith Garner, who brought the legal case against EBC on BBC radio - you can listen to them on this link 
http://www.kgarch.co.uk/jblegal/BBC_Surrey_03-02-11.wav
 

I'm inclined to agree

Unfortunately it will indeed cost residents, and considerably more than a penny...The council didn't include the large cost of installing the new main sewer needed by the scheme in their contract with the developer, leaving Thames Water customers to pay the bill. 

It is surely not right to build a care home on a site on a flood plain, and which is also now designated as an Air Management Area' due to the exceptionally high level of air polution.   

More news with comments from Ian Donaldson (Residents Association councillor) on
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/richmondnews/8833980.No_set_date_for_Hampton_Court_hotel_project/

http://www.kgarch.co.uk/jblegal/index.htm#latest

To be honest I think the air quality is irrelevant - and with all due respects to the elderly residents of any proposed care home, I don't poor air quality could be even loosely attributed to any health concerns in the very twilight of their years . Otherwise there would be no care homes built within the London urban sprawl. 

Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are specific areas where raised Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) levels are present.  These are at a much higher level than in the overall Greater London area. 

An increase in pollution levels does have an impact on health, particularly for those who already suffer from poor health and for vulnerable and older people.  Thus a care home should not be positioned in an AQMA.

The Government has set guidelines for acceptable levels of some of the common air pollutants and where there is a likelihood of these guidelines not being met the Council is required to declare those areas as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).

I obviously agree high air pollution levels have an impact on health but I think this is usually over a relatively prolonged time of exposure, which these elderly residents are unlikely to experience, by both the nature of their age and other possible health complications. Of course they may already have health complications relating to living in a similar high pollution environment - in which case it will just exasperate their situation. But regardless of all this, the judgment is in favour of the development and unless there is a last minute miracle purchase of the Jolly Boatman site for the community the development will go ahead.

Also Emberman you left out the other cost to us taxpayers - and probably the biggest cost. The £57K legal bill that the council now has (despite being vindicated by Justice Ouseley) to pay, courtesy of Keith Garners 'vexatious' action. 
That's £57K that has to come off another budget but as Mr Garner doesn't live in the Borough he won't be unduly concerned for the residents of Elmbridge.

If the council had used its own in-house Legal Department, rather than employing expensive external lawyers, they would not have incurred the £57,000 bill for Elmbridge taxpayers to bear.

Gladedale and Network Rail are set to make £14.5 million profit, meanwhile Elmbridge Borough Council reduced the affordable housing from the standard 40% down to 10%, and then removed from the developer's S106 public benefit obligations the planned footbridge over the River Mole and footpath below Hampton Court Bridge.

This would have opened up an uninterrupted riverbank walk from Thames Ditton to Molesey and beyond, with fabulous views of Hampton Court Palace.  Sadly, this great opportunity has now been lost for ever.   

And the 600,000 visitors who travel by train to Hampton Court each year will no longer see the breathtaking view of the Palace across the Thames when they come out of the station - instead they will emerge from an oppressive 'canyon' with high buildings on both sides, to be greeted by the rear service area of a tall four storey hotel.

Historian David Starkey has described developer Gladedale’s plans for a four-storey 46-bedroom hotel, 66 new houses and a care home next to the Grade I listed historic landmark as not only “a national scandal but an international scandal”.

Whether they had employed their internal lawyers or not there would still have been a cost associated with a High Court appeal.

Surely the reduction in the social housing allocation must been seen as an enormous benefit to the residents of the area - especially in such a sensitive area.

The foot bridge over the Mole - admittedly - is a massive loss but it doesn't mean that pressure can't be reasserted on both EBC and the developers to include a bridge (especially at this stage).
However we can't forget the local jobs that will be created by this new development and the increase in visitor numbers who will be perhaps more inclined to stay over in the area and spend their money in the shops and restaurants. All of which will have a massive positive benefit for the local economy.

And David Starkey - as entertaining and flamboyant as he is, is rather locked in a different century.

A substantial saving would still have been made by using the council's legal department, even if there were some court costs.

It was Affordable Housing - not Social Housing - which the Elmbridge conservative rulers voted to reduce from 40% down to 10%.   Affordable housing enables key workers - nurses, teachers, firefighters and police officers to buy homes which they would otherwise be unable to afford. 

The most widespread is the New Build HomeBuy scheme (also known as shared ownership). It is government-funded, and allows buyers to buy part of a newly built property, normally a share of between 25 and 75 per cent, by taking out a fixed-rate mortgage with an ordinary lender and paying a subsidised rent on the rest. The rent is pegged to inflation and is reviewed (and usually increased) annually. Most schemes will cap the rent at some point.

This is much needed in this area where property prices are amongst the highest in the country.   The developer' S106 obligations are signed contracts which can only be changed if the developer submits a new planning application.  Shops and restaurants within the development are likely to draw visitors away from existing shops, as their needs will be met without needing to cross the Hampton Court Way to use the excellent and characterful Bridge Road shops, cafes and restaurants which are such a feature of the locality and which provide local employment.     The development already has permission for fast food outlet chains such as Macdonalds, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

I have no issue with key worker housing, quite the opposite, I'm very much in favour of ensuring those who supply essential services can live in the borough. However more often then not the term 'affordable housing' also invariably includes social rented housing, which on sites like this, I do not support. I once considered buying a house in Langdon Park, Teddington where the sales lady told me that the affordable housing quota included on the site was for key workers only. The reality was that half of the affordable housing was for key workers, the other half was filled with people who contribute little to general society other than keeping the police and social services busy. So I'm a little cynical of the general term 'affordable housing'.

If the site is 'integrated' into the village by good landscape planning/architecture and general urban improvements to the flow of foot traffic then there is no reason why the shops, cafes and restaurants of Bridge Road shouldn't all benefit from the development. I think the planners and the council will be very aware of the need to ensure that this development is integrated into the village and not add to the existing separation of the current environment.

Fast food outlets are an acquired taste and I'm sure that those who prefer to relax, eat and drink in more pleasant surroundings won't be persuaded otherwise.

Hampton Court Palace vista will be 'ruined' by hotel complex

The Richmond & Twickenham Times's take on the outcome of the court case is on:
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/8833953.Hampton_Court_Palace_vista_will_be__ruined_/

There will be no station parking at Hampton Court during most of the two and a half year construction phase.  As there is no alternative parking nearby, Thames Ditton will be clogged with commuter parking during this period. 

There will also be diversions on the Hampton Court Way while the road is dug up to lay the new main sewer, water, electricity, and gas mains, telephone and broadband cabling.

When the scheme is built, there will be new traffic lights to allow traffic to enter / exit the Jolly Boatman complex from the Hampton Court Way, including right turns just before the Bridge.

Traffic is already at a standstill from the Thames Ditton roundabout to the Bridge from 7.15 am each morning - the Hampton Court Way is alreadu at a standstill from 7.15am each morning - we can anticipate more after congestion after construction starts and once the scheme is built.....Oh Joy !

New ideas in this week's Richmond & Twickenham Times:

Wealthy benefactors are 'only hope' to save Hampton Court Palace view

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/richmondnews/8841905.Benefactors_are__only_hope__to_save_palace_view/

Interestingly... will they be allowed to start this development before the Olympics (see other threads)?

The route is going right past Hampton Court so I think the last thing the organisers would want is to have the Hampton Court palace 'vista' ruined by the redevelopment of the site?

Then again this is assuming that the left hand will talk to the right? or even realise the potential clash.

I know the cycle route should be more about the race than the view BUT the fact that this is on TV and shown around the world means it is important and hence why the route has been chosen as it is...

Interesting question!

And there could be a prime-time opportunity for the opponents of the scheme to make a peaceful demonstration right there on the spot as the cameras roll by...and maybe get a minute's interview exposure too....

SCC will have to be careful about the timing of pothole repairs.....as they last only a few months.....

;D

so funny - mainly because thats so true...

Guys - I'm confused. The 'view' is still going to be there - the palace isn't moving. It's just that it will be at a slightly different trajectory when walking out the station and the best vista's being from the brigde and not through the rubbish dump outside the station. To be honest in summer when the leaves are in full most of the palace of is masked from view anyway!
Would there be the same fuss if the original building still stood on the site? Would everyone be calling for its removal because it ruined the 'view' of the palace from that particular angle? I think everyone has just got used to there not being a building there and being able to see the palace through the low rise rubbish dump.
As I've said on here before - the only way development is going to be avoided is if someone (with big pockets) purchases the land to save the view.

Sorry I wasn't trying to comment on the view of the palace after the development has been completed (though there has been some discussion on that - personally I don;t think I am familiar enough with the proposals to comment on this).

More on the fact that during the development the site itself would not look very nice (this is of course necessary to actually get it done). Also I read somewhere that they possibly might shut down the station during the development?

Either way - essentially I was just trying to say it would not be ideal to have the development on going during the cycle race...

If the Jolly Boatman scheme goes ahead, the two and a half year construction period will indeed be in progress during the Olympic cycle race on 28 July 2012.  Instead of a breathtaking view of Hampton Court Palace, spectators arriving at the station will instead by greeted by the rear service regions of a large four storey hotel.

Disruptions will include: no station parking at all while the new two story underground car park is being dug, interruption of train service for at least some of the time, diversions on the Hampton Court Way, which will be dug up to reconfigure entrances to the complex and to lay new main sewer (several miles long) and water, gas, electricity mains and other services to the development.

As Keith noted earlier in this thread "It is a common tactic of developers to keep a site unsightly as part of the pressure to try to force locals to accept their plans for development.  I've been told that in the past the people behind the HCP rescue campaign offered to clean up the site by free voluntary labour but the developers refused".

But if construction work hasn't started, perhaps Elmbridge Borough Council will at last require the owners of the site (Network Rail and Gladedale) to tidy it up and remove all the litter.  Historic Royal Palaces offered to landscape the site free of charge several years ago, but Gladedale turned down their offer....I wonder why ?

apologies for the clumsey wording in my last post!! I was in a hurry - well that's my excuse ;D

There's an interesting article by Charles Clover in the Sunday Times (link below)

We have all been betrayed to the planning muggers
Does localism mean power to the people, which the coalition advocated when in opposition, or does it mean power to local businessmen?
The Sunday Times
Published: 23 January 2011


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Diggers350/message/3212

If there hadn't been so many delays the construction would have been well and truly finished by 2012.  This is not an ideal situation from so many angles and really there are no winners.  Let's just hope that the next stage takes place with as little disruption and mess as is humanly possible.

We've had our eye on this ball.  On the one hand, giving local people greater say in local development is a good thing, well in line with traditional residents' arguments.  On the other hand, it depends on how 'localism' is implemented - that's still not clear.  Most people thinking about small alterations to their own house will be pleased at an approach that can be adapted to local thinking rather than one imposed with the authority of the Secretary of State, and occasionally upheld by an inspectorate in Bristol...  But the situation with larger and more controversial developments could get much worse.

Residents are determined to do what can be done to ensure that this localism does not in effect become a charter for property speculators/developers and their friends (you may fill in whichever political group you feel may be their friends).  But there is a considerable risk that it might.

But the developers (Gladedale) have refused to confirm when they will push ahead with building the complex - this is surprising, since they have planning permission and have won the legal challenge ?

maybe their financial position has now changed and funds for such a project aren't quite so readily available.

Residents are determined to do what can be done to ensure that this localism does not in effect become a charter for property speculators/developers and their friends (you may fill in whichever political group you feel may be their friends).  But there is a considerable risk that it might.

A certain local political group includes two developers amongst its councillors.  They have recently steamrollered through three hotels, of which two are on greenbelt land....via en bloc party political voting tactics.  Is there really sufficient demand for three hotels in Esher, or are they really going to be yet more blocks of flats.

STOP PRESS - PRIVATE EYE ARTICLE ON JOLLY BOATMAN SCHEME  
The current issue (18th February) carries a full page article about the Jolly Boatman scheme, including new revelations about the scheme's finances and profit, which were witheld from Councillors when they voted. It's in Nooks and Corners (page 14). 

Apparently it's very rare for the whole of Nooks and Corners to be devoted to an individual development.

SURREY ADVERTISER
Today's edition of the Surrey Advertiser has a centre page spread on the Jolly Boatman scheme, and also includes a detailed letter from all the Molesey Residents Association Councillors.  This airs a number of important points about the way in which planning permission, now the subject of a Judicial Review Appea, was granted; and concerning the withholding of the Viability Report, revealing that the scheme would generate a much higher than normal profit, had been witheld from Councillors when they voted to grant planning permission.

See page 10.

text of HCRC Open Letter to leader of EBC is here: http://residents-association.com/pdfs/HCRCOpenLetter_Feb2011.pdf] http://residents-association.com/pdfs/HCRCOpenLetter_Feb2011.pdf 

"If it had constricted the view of the palace it should have been turned down, but my view was it did not."

Someone needs to look at the plans before he speaks on the radio and votes on a planning application.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/elmbridgenews/8867970.Leader_stands_by_Jolly_Boatman_radio_comments/

Elmbridge could have submitted to judgement and let Network Rail and Gladedale fight the Judicial Review. It's interesting that Gladedale are in such a mess that they had to get bailed out by their bank who backed lots of overstretched developers and their crazy projects. And who bailed out Lloyds? Our government. So you and me could potentially fund one of the worst developments in history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/07/government-takes-over-lloyds

Seconded !  The view of the Palace shown in the image on this link would of course be completely obscured by the crass 4 storey hotel - which would in turn be prominently visible from the Palace.    So much for 'Killjoy' Roy Taylor (ex leader of Elmbridge conservatives), telling the council meeting on 18 December  2008 "The development cannot be seen from the Palace, or possibly just glimpsed through the trees"....err there are no trees between the Palace and the building site...So councillors were again voting on misinformation.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/elmbridgenews/8867970.Leader_stands_by_Jolly_Boatman_radio_comments/

I have just received the follwing Email from the Hampton Court Rescue Campaign....


Persistence prevails as Keith Garner is granted leave to appeal Jolly Boatman decision.
HCRC is very happy to relay the news that Keith's legal team has been successful in its application to appeal the High Court's decision that dismissed his legal challenge in January.
Hence, the legal case against Elmbridge Council over its approval of the highly unpopular development  of the riverside site opposite Hampton Court Palace, will continue.
The case has been scheduled to be heard in the Court of Appeal on the 23rd and 24th June 2011.  HCRC would like to use this opportunity to congratulate Keith and his legal team for their dogged determination to preserve and safeguard the future of the Palace and Thames landscape, and to thank supporters for your continued encouragement.
Mary Brook
HCRC Communications

Yep me too.
Good news at last relating to this long standing campaign!!!!!!

Gladedale can't raise the necessary funds from their bank; the Star & Garter home (with its funding input) has left the scheme; and the underground car park (one third of the building cost) probably makes the scheme too expensive to build, especially in the current climate.  Gladedale refuse to specify a start date, and must be looking for a way out of this rapidly unravelling scheme. 

They may be grateful that the Judicial Review and the Olympic cycle race provides an excuse for their delay.

But that apart, couldn't the Elmbridge Tory rulers forsee the wretched scheme was doomed ?  Why were they so eager to railroad it through against the local community and ward councillors by using en bloc party political voting, and at the cost of below-normal normal public benefit ? 

One Tory councillor bought a ticket to fly back to the UK to enable him to vote in favour, while the lone Tory who bravely voted against the party whip was promptly deselected.   

Was it ethical for councillors to vote for the application when crucial financial information, with implications for the size of the development and (lack of) public benefits, was witheld from them? 

And as TDRes said, why won't Elmbridge submit to the judgement, rather than spending vast sums of taxpayers' money on legal fees ?  And why are they hiring expensive independent lawyers, at our expense, when they could use their in-house legal services department ?

I gather that Star and Garter have now clinched the deal to move to Surbiton, so that's a happy end to that part of the story.

The Conservatives' style of government, as here, is to decide in caucus what they want to do, possibly consulting with just a few of their own backers first, then vote it through en bloc.   They are a disciplined party, with a centralist constitution. 

Citizens then have to spend a great deal of effort in protesting and trying to get better polices.  Those citizens are then accused by the Tories of 'making a political issue' about it - i.e. daring to go against what the Conservatives have decided is best for us (and them).

You see this style of government at a national level: sale of forests, University fees, sweeping reform of the NHS based on no more than economic ideology..... each time, ordinary people who think for themselves  - including conservatives with a small 'c' - have to make a huge effort to get these things changed.

You see it at the county level in the pay-and-display fiasco - just the same approach: railroad something through regardless, maybe a bit of spin control ("introductory free offer of thirty minutes")

And you see it at the Borough level - doubling the car park charges,  trying to close the Ember Centre, closing public toilets, building on Green Belt, the Hampton Court Palace saga.

This is the way they go about things.  It shouldn't have to be like this.

I see that Keith Garner is pushing ahead with his legal challenge. Next  stop the Supreme Court.  I was down by the Hampton Court palace over the weekend and couldn't help feeling what a tragedy it would be if Gladedale constructed their ghastly hotel on the river bank.   The last thing this wonderful area needs is a greedy developer with an overwhelming buidling.

Jolly Boatman overdevelopment:  There's a vid here () (shame about the soundtrack) which might have been better during the earlier campaign but still brings it home...

...and apart from the now stuttering challenge, the matter might well come round again if within five years of the permission being granted there has been no start on works....and it does not look any more likely than it did a couple of years ago that banks will loan for large developments.

Why is Elmbridge continuing to spend vast sums (five figures) of taxpayers' money on the legal costs of defending the Jolly Boatman development, which Elmbridge residents don't want, and all the ward councillors voted against; and now plan to spend even more of our money defending this  overscale development when the case is heard in the Supreme Court ? 

Is this the result of the Conservative Party's 'Developers' Charter' ?  Or have Gladedale bankrolled the Conservatives as a thank you for railroading this development through, against overwhelming opposition from local residents and their elected councillors?

Vince Cable and Dominic Raab have both fallen surprisingly silent about the scheme...  See articles below

Where does ignoring the views of local residents and councillors fit into the Conservative Party's policies for 'Localism' and 'The Big Society' ?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8754006/Property-developers-pay-for-access-to-Conservatives.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8797286/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Planning-ministers-know-nothing-says-Tory-donor-and-property-boss.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8788381/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Property-firms-that-fund-Tories-to-build-thousands-of-green-belt-homes.html

Rather than ask the question you do Emberman you might like to ask why the applicant continues to pursue this case. Let's be very clear, Keith Garner got a protected costs order early in proceedings meaning that his costs and any award of costs made against him are capped at £8000 or thereabouts.

Elmbridge has no such right to apply for such and is precluded from seeking its costs (over £8000) against the applicant no matter what those costs maybe. You ask why are Elmbridge spending all this money? The answer is because the applicant continues to persist in a case in which Elmbridge are the defendant. What would you have Elmbridge do? Not take part and then be penalised even further by the Court?

Elmbridge, like any other entity, whether an individual or a Local Authority or a Company has a right to defend itself. That is the essence of the Rule of Law. More to the point in common with all Local Authorities, Elmbridge has a duty to the taxpayer to defend the decision making processes undertaken, because not to do so would mean the Elmbridge taxpayer being sadled not just with legal bills but potentially with punitive costs awards and judgments.

It is a deeply decadent and deeply self indulgent position for the applicant to take to have persisted in a Judicial Review when he knows the Council tax payers of Elmbridge are footing the bill. I understand he is not an Elmbridge resident so will not be affected by the costs of the litigation to date. 

The spurious suggestion in the discussion previously that Elmbridge should have used its in-house lawyers to defend the case is, I am afraid to say, naive and simplistic. Lawyers come in different shapes and sizes, and good as Local Authority lawyers are, they are neither qualified nor experienced enough to lead a Judicial Review case before the High Court or Court of Appeal, let alone the Supreme Court.

The work normally undertaken by external solicitors was undertaken internally by the EBC legal team to ensure the minimal cost was expended. Ultimately though it would have been a gross dereliction of duty to the Borough to have done anything other than seek expert legal assistance, and thereby run the risk of losing a case that was always eminently winnable, thus playing fast and loose with the ever-dwindling resources available in local government.

Whichever way one cuts it and whatever one's point of view on the development itself, it is extremely difficult to justify continuing to appeal the Judicial Review, not of the planning decision, but of the process of the decision making, when 3 Judges of the Court of Appeal and a High Court Judge have all found "no merit whatever" in the appellant's arguments.

In relation to the Planning application itself, I abstained from voting. My reasons were that I considered there was a significant question mark over the Environmental impact and the traffic movement and design access statement. Having now seen the information Mr Garner is so concerned about I would not change my decision based on that information. Therefore Ouseley J and the Court of Appeal concluded, rightly in the case of this Councillor at least, that the additional information would have made no difference to the decision made.

Funnily enough not all local people were opposed to the development. I made a count of all the responses received on the application, before I was part of a decision making process. As you will know there were thousands of responses. The majority opposed. But don't be under any illusions that it was clear cut. There were in the region of 1600 opposed and 1450 for (roughly speaking). In any event I know, because I was one of them, that all those views were taken into account and were not ignored. Not agreeing with someone is not the same as ignoring them.

So to answer your quoting of the rhetoric of Localism and Big Society, the decision made squarely fits with Local democracy having its say and having its effect.

More questionable is whether it is right for one citizen to hold to ransom an entire Borough in what amounts to an act of supreme vanity.

I think Mr Garner probably represents the views of many on this questionable scheme..  For example the Conservative candidate for Molesey this year stated:

"I am happy to state my position which is that I do not think the current scheme is right for the site.  I support the aspiration of the people of Molesey for the Boatman area to become an open space which compliments the Palace and enhances the view of it from our side of the river.  With the exit of the Star and Garter care home from the scheme, I hope there will be some scope for the developer to rethink its plans and come back with a scheme that Molesey can support"

Of course, he may simply have been electioneering.

Just to set the record straight, Keith Garner has spent huge sums of his personal funds on the costs of his appeal, so passionately does he feel about preserving the setting of Hampton Court Palace and the River Thames from ruination by this crass development.

One can only speculate on the reasons the Tory councillors voted en-bloc according to party whip to steamroller this application through, against the wishes of Historic Royal Palaces and the Molesey Residents Association councillors, in whose ward the application is, all of whom voted against the scheme, and who represent local residents democratically.      Is this really local democracy.....or just bully boy behaviour ?

Now the developers have been obliged to disclose the viability figures that they cunningly witheld from councillors when the Tories passed the application, it has emerged they are in fact set to make a massive and above-normal profit. 

Having agreed minimum public benefits, when Gladedale claimed their profit was substantially below par, and even marginal,
will the Tory Elmbridge Rulers now require them to increase the public benefit to proper levels, including a bridge over the River Mole and footpath under Hampton Court Bridge, and to open up riverside walks ?    And to increase the affordable housing from 10% up to Elmbridge's standard 40% (against the advice of Elmbridge's Head of Housing)

At the meeting of 26/11/08 all 30 Conservative Councillors voted for approval of the scheme, without exception.

Local residents await your response, Conservative Councillor Grey.

http://www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com/campaign.htm

In favour of the Gladedale Scheme
R Taylor; Oatlands Park, Con;
D Archer, Esher, Con;
J V Butcher, Cobham & Downside; Con;
M A Courtney, Claygate, LD;
C J Cross, Walton North, Con;
Ian Donaldson, Hersham North, Con;
M Odone, Cobham Fairmile, Con;
D Oliver, Esher, Con;
J G Sheldon, Hersham South, Con;
M C Sheldon, Hersham North, Con;
J Sutton, Esher, Con;
B White, Oatlands Park, Con.

Against the Gladedale scheme
J Barlett, St George's Hill, SGHI;
T C Crowther, Weybridge North, LD;
I T Donaldson, Molesey South, MRA;
V G Eldridge, Molesey South, MRA;
C Gibbons, St George's Hill, SGHI;
D Lowe, Thames Ditton, TD & WGRA;
M MacLeod, Weybridge North, LD;
C Sadler, Walton Central, WS;
L Sharp, Weston Green, TD & WGRA;
J R Turner, Hinchley Wood, HWRA.

Local residents views on http://www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com/letters.htm#34

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8754027/Conservatives-given-millions-by-property-developers.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8754006/Property-developers-pay-for-access-to-Conservatives.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8797286/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Planning-ministers-know-nothing-says-Tory-donor-and-property-boss.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8788381/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Property-firms-that-fund-Tories-to-build-thousands-of-green-belt-homes.html

The Telegraph is campaigning against radical Government reforms to planning laws which opponents say pose the greatest threat to the countryside since the Second World War. Read about the controversy in detail and join in the debate here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/

One can imagine only too well the effect these reforms would have here in Conservative run Elmbridge.  And as some of the EBC Tory councillors are coincidentally building developers too, they have helpful inside knowledge of the construction trade.

The Tories' bulldozing through of planning permission for the following would only be the start:
1) Jolly Boatman development, ruining the setting of Hampton Court Palace, and vastly increasing traffic congestion in the Hampton Court Way
     and on Hampton Court bridge and overruling the views of local residents and their democratically elected councillors
2) Demolition of historic Moore Place
3) Two big new hotels on green belt land
4) Overdevelopment of the communal land on the Walton Pool site etc. again overruling local residents and their councillors

I could go on...

Minutes of Extraordinary Council meeting which took the matter:
"“That Planning Application 2008/1600 and Conservation Area Consent 2007/2971 – Hampton Court Station & The Jolly Boatman, Hampton Court Way, East Molesey be refused for the same reasons as the ‘Boathouse’ scheme as set out on page 343 of the agenda, with the deletion of the word ‘Boathouse’, namely:
“The design for the hotel building facing the Thames would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of Cigarette Island, Hampton Court
Station (locally listed) and Hampton Court Bridge (Grade II listed) as well as cross river views from the nationally designated Hampton Court Palace and the Thames Path, and the Molesey Conservation Areas, contrary to national policies in PPS1 and PPG15 as well as local saved policies ENV1, ENV2, HEN8, HEN11, RTT1, RTT2 and RTT7, and advice in the Thames Landscape Strategy.””
A number of Members requested a recorded vote on this amendment, whereupon there voted:
In support of the amendment:
M. Axton, J. Bartlett, Mrs. E. Cooper, T.C. Crowther, I.T. Donaldson,
V.G. Eldridge, B. Fairbank, Mrs. C. Gibbins, P.M. Harman, A.J. Hopkins,
Mrs. S.R. Kapadia, D.M. Lowe, Mrs. R.J.M. Lyon, M. Macleod, T. Popham,
Mrs. K. Randolph, Mrs. L. Robertson, C.R. Sadler, S.J. Selleck, Mrs. L. Sharp,
Mrs. T. Shipley, Mrs. J.R. Turner and D.J. Walsh. (23)
Against the amendment:
D.J. Archer, M.J. Bennison, J. Browne, J.V.C. Butcher, J.C. Cartwright,
B.J.F. Cheyne, R.E. Cole, L. Conaway, M.A. Courtney, Ms. B.A. Cowin,
Mrs. C.J. Cross, G.P. Dearlove, S. Dodsworth, I. Donaldson, Mrs. C. Elmer,
C.J. Elmer, Mrs. J. Fuller, T.J.C. Grey, S. Hawkins, A.H. Kopitko, Rachael I. Lake,
J.L. Mulder, Mrs. M. Odone, Dr. D. Oliver, J. O’Reilly, D.E. Palmer,
Mrs. M.C. Sheldon, J.G. Sheldon, Ms. J.J. Sutton, R.H. Taylor, D. Tipping,
B. White and R.G. Whittaker. (33)
Abstain:
N.C. Cooper and J.A. Vickers. (2) "

No comment from Conservative councillor Grey in response to posts which showed his rather wordy contribution was, however, lacking in veracity.

There was a second vote after the amendment calling for a refusal of permission was voted down by Cllr Grey and his block.  The unamended proposition to grant permission was then voted through.  After the first vote it was obvious that there room in the numbers for Cllr. Grey to have the luxury of abstaining in that second vote, which he did.

He then wrote on 19 December 2008: "I am nevertheless delighted that the application has been granted. Whilst I could not support it in strict planning terms there is no doubt in my mind that it is both a valuable and worthwhile scheme to the people of Hampton Court and East Molesey, as well as the rest of Elmbridge."

The people of Hampton Court and East Molesey, however, along with all their ward councillors, had overwhelmingly opposed the granting of permission for this over-scale and greedy scheme that did not meet Elmbridge's own planning rules.  And so a year or so later we see a man who wants to be elected as Conservative councillor for Molesey writing that he supports "the aspiration of the people of Molesey for the Boatman area to become an open space which compliments the Palace and enhances the view of it from our side of the river"

That is politics for you.

Thanks.  pm sent.  I'm trying to maintain some objective record of events so that if the development does go ahead there will be detail and documentation of what happened - and who was behind the decisions - for future local historians.  They might otherwise be baffled by how local philistines allowed this chunky and boring hotel to be built right opposite the palace, for short-term convenience - and just who they were.  I'll leave it as a time capsule.....

The lobbying consultancy was Lexington Communications, a member of the Association of Professional Political Consultants.  From its website it numbers among its functions the provision of "political intelligence about public policy development at all levels of government, Parliament, the devolved assemblies and local government" and they "have recruited the best people from government, Parliament and business".  It seems very closely connected to the Conservative Party, as one would expect.  In May this year Conservative Home (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/05/mike-craven-business-wants-more-focus-on-growth.html) noted: "Mike Craven is partner at Lexington Communications which sponsored last night’s Conservative Home event on the future of the Coalition. "  (Craven is one of the two senior partners)

Meanwhile I see that following a £78m loss in 2009 the restructured Gladedale Group's net worth in 2010 is given as minus £6,813,000 (http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04113678) although the current balance sheet seems to have stabilised.  Our noble, austere and civic-minded bankers may have done for this development what Mr Garner is trying to do!

(PS did you watch Ian Hislop's "When Bankers Were Good" on BBC2 last night...?)

PS: I looked into the matter of Cooper (Resident) and Vickers (Conservative) abstaining: they were Mayor/next Mayor and apparently there is a convention to abstain & pair on this sort of thing

The Jolly Boatman development features at the top of the London Parks and Gardens Trust Landscapes at Risk article on this link http://www.londongardenstrust.org/index.htm?atrisk/more.htm

It was the daughter of Mr & Mrs Elmer, both Tory councillors, who worked for Lexington Communications (lobbyists employed by Gladedale) precisely at the time the Elmbridge Conservative administration passed the development.  

The original and well-respected council solicitor correctly ruled the Elmers could not vote on the Jolly Boatman application; the solicitor resigned; her successor then conveniently changed his mind and allowed the Elmers to vote.  Meanwhile another conservative councillor purchased an expensive air ticket to fly back to the UK to vote favour according to party whip.  (Who paid for his ticket?)

A further Tory councillor (Jennifer Sutton) was PR officer for a developer at that time, she was supported by John [correction: David] Archer, himself a developer, who led on the Moore Place Hotel demolition scandal...and so it goes on.

Planning under Tory run Elmbridge.

Thank you for the link to the London Parks and Gardens Trust page (http://www.londongardenstrust.org/index.htm?atrisk/more.htm) which singles out the Boatman site and also Seething Wells as significant 'sites at risk' and gives succinct descriptions.

On planning and corruption: Martin Bell noted that corruption was never very far away from local planning.  I grew up in a Midlands locality where everyone knew the local building and development company, which grew rather large, had a stranglehold on the local, Conservative-dominated,  council and indeed many years after I left that area, they were prosecuted and convicted on charges of corruption in a major case.  But I have to say that over the past decade of following local issues I have not felt that there is a great deal of that in Elmbridge.  The kind of influence we have been talking about is insidious rather than illegal.  Regrettably, it is also quintessentially an "English way of doing things" with "people you know" or "friends of friends" - mutual backscratching done without direct connection between one thing and another.

It is the case that the Conservatives favour developers - the genesis and the thrust of the Government's planning reforms is all in that direction.  They will be predisposed to say "yes" before even the latest instructions to regard that as the 'default' answer.  It is the case that many more developers, either personally or via their companies, contribute to Conservative party funds than contribute to Labour or LibDem funds (though there are cases across the spectrum, and sometimes they match the distribution of power in local government - viz the case in Liverpool lately surfaced, where the power, the influence and the development company are all tied to Labour).

And it is also the case that Residents Councillors in Elmbridge have numbered among them a developer, architect or two, but there's no suggestion of mud there either.

Lastly, I would remind forum contributors please to remain civil and within decent bounds of legality in their posts.  These are delicate matters. If there is evidence of corruption rather than influence, it should be quietly forwarded to the police.  Whether their impartiality too will change when we have elected (i.e. party political) Police Commissioners, remains to be seen.

PS: I think you meant to refer to David Archer (Esher) rather than John Archer.  Neither to be confused with that Tory paragon Jeffrey Archer.

Article in today's Daily Telegraph by Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent: "Developers give thousands to Tories after planning shake-up unveiled"

This confirms the influence developers have over the Tory party - from the top down.  Maybe it also explains exMP Ian Taylor's urgent request to Blears not to call the Jolly Boatman development in for a Public Enquiry,  which would have likely stopped it.

As is stated on the Hampton Wick Association website:

"Do we allow this huge development to go ahead, with the permanent loss of the precious heritage setting at Hampton Court Palace, enduring the traffic chaos, the impact on our local communities and increased flood risk, OR DO WE STOP IT? Please, support our efforts to oppose this development".

HCRC sees the sustained court case, the withdrawal of the Royal Star and Garter Home from the joint venture, and a recession-hit housing industry, as the perfect climate for EBC to reconsider, collaboratively, its plans for the riverside site, especially under the spotlight of 2012".

Even John O'Reilly, Tory leader of the council said that the development was barely acceptable....

My apologies for not responding to your question sooner.

I see Emberman challenges my "veracity".

Evergreen's comments are right in terms of the position in voting ie. I did NOT vote for the scheme. I did abstain and I did vote against the amendment. The reason I voted against the amendment is that procedurally and in fact, it made no sense. It is worthy of note that one of the Molesey Ward Councillors abstained in that vote. I didn't vote for the scheme for the reasons set out in my previous and apparently over-wordy post.

If it is suggested that I wanted to "see how it was going to go" before deciding my vote I entirely reject that assertion. It is simply untrue.

In relation to the quote given by me I stand by my view. I understand entirely that others vociferously disagree and I am aware of how passionately views run on the subject. I respect absolutely those views on both sides. Indeed I respect the view of Steve Bax, Conservative candidate in Molesey, whom I believe you are also quoting. He and I may disagree about the merits or otherwise of the planning application on the site. We may also disagree on all sorts of other matters, I don't know. Ultimately though I simply don't follow the logic of suggesting the evil Tories are doing something dastardly if there is a palpable debate being had by all in the community regardless of their political affiliations.

What I find even more difficult is the use of a judicial process aimed at ensuring reasonable and rational decision making processes, being used to try and overturn a planning permission made on the basis of a reasonable and rational decision making process.

I accept absolutely that the decision itself is one that a significant and vocal section of our community don't like, and I respect that opinion, even though I may not agree with it in its entirety. But I am unable to accept that the challenge, in the Courts to the decision making process has any merit at all.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding regarding my voting and position on the subject. I have yet to hear the reasoned justification for the taxpayer footing the bill for the Applicant's misguided JR of the LPA...perhaps I never will.

Tim,

From the beginning, EBC could have submitted to judgement and let Gladedale pay the legal costs and fight their corner. This would have been a perfectly reasonable position. I think there should always be a role for JRs and the very threat of them is an important check to keep planning committees on their toes. If Garner's various legal challenges were without merit then they would have been dismissed a long time ago. Remember that the courts weren’t saying that the planning committee made the right choice, they were just saying that, on balance, they followed correct procedures. Garner has established the precedent of protected costs for legal challenges which have an environmental angle, so expect more JRs for this type of project.

Garner also highlighted the profitability of the scheme which I believe was not apparent to decision makers and might reasonably have resulted in a different affordable housing component. I’m also sure that some on the committee would have insisted that Gladedale revise their plans without encroaching on the river quite so badly, if they had known how profitable the scheme was.  For complex schemes, I think there is a role for third party advice on viability reports.

Going forward I’m sure that Gladedale will struggle to finance a care home project without a committed end-user signed up (as per Star and Garter) and no bank is going to fund a speculative care home project. I think time will show that the planners and Gladedale got this one badly wrong and I take off my hat to Garner for frustrating the project.  It would surprise me if Gladedale want to risk public vilification if they continued with the project in its present guise.

Tim, since Gladedale misled councillors when they voted, by withholding the financial viability report which showed a huge profit when they it was subsequently released, surely planning permission should now be withdrawn, since it was granted on the basis of gross misinformation: (i.e. that profit was only marginal). 

The site could be compulsory purchased (at market value = below £2 million), then retained in public ownership and landscaped.   There is little or no prospect of Gladedale being able to start construction, given their dire financial circumstances and liabilities, so the site is likely to remain derelict indefinitely.

On the basis that the profit was marginal (now shown to be untrue), a larger and higher density overdevelopment was passed than would otherwise have been the case.  Only 10% affordable housing, instead of the normal 40%, was permtted.  Minimal public benefit was allowed as a concession to the developer - e.g. no footbridge over the Mole and no pathway under Hampton Court bridge, which would enhance and open up the riverside for everyone.

Instead, all residents and visitors get is:

1) Permanent damage to the setting of and views to/from Hampton Court Palace and the river Thames. 

2) Vastly increased traffic congestion in the Hampton Court Way and on Hampton Court Bridge (additional traffic lights and four entries / exits into the development)

3) Inconvenience of a two storey underground car park (with ventilation shafts set several feet below flood level and no flood barriers)

4) No drop off point at the station for rail passengers or coaches

e) Development built on a flood plain against government regulations: this will increase the risk of flooding in the surrounding area. 


Meanwhile Gladedale is being sued by Dunbartonshire Council for £19 million, among other ongoing legal claims against Gladedale - see links below).  A similar situation is likely to ensue in Elmbridge.

http://www.milngavieherald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/council_chases_19m_1_1548306
http://www.menstrie.org/secr0906.html
http://www.building.co.uk/legal/gladedale-vs-paul-rogers-failure-to-pay/3133327.article
http://savethearcheryground.org/2meeting.html

Visitors to the Olympic cycle race, and global television audiences and international press will be greeted by cyclists passing a refuse tip of a site in a key position directly opposite the Palace.  Will Elmbridge Council allow that  to happen ?

Why can't tory councillors be big enough to admit "yes, we got this wrong, but we're going to put matters right now, before it's too late". 

By purchasing the site they would preserve the setting of the palace for present and future generations, and save potentially huge legal costs over future legal battles with the developer, and prevent the continued and deliberate dereliction of the site by the developer.

Who will pay for this, I hear you say: well, what more distinguished and high profile Lottery Grant candidate could there be to place this unique and high profile site in public ownership, with landscaping, not a four storey hotel.

As the leader of the council stated in a BBC interview: the development is barely acceptable.  Is that really good enough, opposite Hampton Court Palace - Sir Christopher Wren's masterpiece ?    

And does damning with faint praise justify the Tory councillors overruling, by en bloc voting according to party whip, the Molesey ward councillors, in whose ward the site is, all of whom voted against the development, and who represent the local people who will be directly affected ?   
Is that democracy or bullying ?

You say "I accept absolutely that the decision itself is one that a significant and vocal section of our community don't like" - however,  bodies opposing the development include the London Parks & Gardens Trust; the Thames Landscape Strategy; the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England, Historic Royal Palaces, and English Heritage"   These are statutory, respected and expert bodies - does the tory council really believe it knows better ?

We look forward to reading your responses, Tim.

Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone gripped by phallic obsession...

A piece by Simon Jenkins just published in the Evening Standard and relevant to the Jolly Boatman:

"Those of us who have long argued that London could be a thriving economy within a dignified civic environment lost this battle...When politics gets into bed with money, public or private, you can forget aesthetics".....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24015515-boris-johnson-and-ken-livingstone-are-gripped-by-a-phallic-obsession-that-is-destroying-londons-skyline.do

I think our Simon has lost it a bit.  I think that  the regeneration at Canary Wharf is splendid:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Canary_Wharf_at_night%2C_from_Shadwell_cropped.jpg/240px-Canary_Wharf_at_night%2C_from_Shadwell_cropped.jpg)

The Gherkin is a wonderful building, stunning, world-renowned, not even mentioned by Jenkins.
(http://img.homedit.com/2010/11/london-gherkin-building_2.jpg)

And I love the Terry Farrell buildings - Charing Cross (and look at that wonderful - and most phallic - Post Office tower in the distance, designed by the Ministry of Public Works, Glory be!):
(http://www.londonarchitecture.co.uk/Images/Strand/CharingCrossStation-001.jpg)

and the MI6 wedding-cake, which was built as a shell for residential accommodation but the developers Regalian were unable to sell it in the recession of the eighties, so Mrs Thatcher wangled it for the Secret Intelligence Service:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/01/article-0-00014E8800000258-327_468x317.jpg)
Yes, there are some horrible penny-pinching rectangular monstrosities, but also some wonderful buildings, and Simon's credibility is not really enhanced by this one-sided article, I'm thinking.

What is relevant to the Jolly Boatman is that there we have the prospect of a stolid boring provincial hotel building that is taller than what was agreed in outline as acceptable, and by no means a building that future visitors will look at and say, wow, that's really nice/interesting/wonderful/what imagination/how well proportioned/it really adds to the scene.  And nobody will be arguing for that boring hotel's retention when the next lot of developers want to demolish it in a hundred years' time, will they?  Will they....?

The London Parks and Gardens Trust says this about the Jolly Boatman site:

Hampton Court Palace (in LB Richmond upon Thames), the historic Tudor and Baroque royal palace, set in a grade-I registered historic landscape and a major international tourist attraction, has the misfortune to look across the River Thames to the Surrey Borough of Elmbridge.
For the last ten years and more Elmbridge has been encouraging the construction of a four-storey hotel and flats on the site of the former Jolly Boatman (a small inconsequential modern café building destroyed by fire some years back) and the car park adjoining Hampton Court Station. The station building (unlisted but in the conservation area) is a potentially attractive building of red brick, designed in 1848 by Sir William Tite to complement the palace, to which it still delivers a steady stream of trippers.

The unwanted but regrettably approved riverside redevelopment with its dull neo-Georgian motel facing Hampton Court has not happened and seems increasingly unlikely to happen, and the developers have allowed the site to become an eyesore, cynically refusing offers from Historic Royal Palaces to landscape the site pending any development. Next year, if the predictions are to be believed, the eyes of the world will be on London and the Olympics - so what will the Japanese, Americans, Russians, whoever, who find their way from Stratford to Hampton Court think when they leave the station (after a slow, desultory and expensive journey from Waterloo) and are faced with a disgraceful rubbish tip of broken concrete and discarded food wrappers and tins and bottles? They will think that the developers deserve a boot up the backside and that the local planning authority needs to tell them to show some civic pride.

When at the beginning of the last century the adjacent downstream area had become a motley hutment known locally, and one supposes ironically, as Venice on Thames, it was seen as a reproach and acquired by the Ministry of Works and cleared of development and turned into a public park to protect the setting of the palace and its gardens. By publishing a planning brief encouraging excessive development of the sensitive Jolly Boatman site, Elmbridge Council has inflated the land's ‘hope value’ and made its public or private philanthropic acquisition as open space an unlikely if not impossible dream.


London Parks & Gardens Trust was launched as an independent charitable trust at the Chelsea Flower Show in May 1994. Its objectives, as laid out in its Memorandum and Articles of Association, are to:

• Promote the education of the public on matters connected with the arts and sciences of historic garden land;
• Preserve, enhance and re-create for the education and enjoyment of the public, whatever historic garden land may exist or have existed in and around London.

Link to website: http://www.londongardenstrust.org/index.htm?atrisk/more.htm

May we hope that Councillor Grey's silence on this matter indicates his acquiescence to the application of a lottery grant to purchase the Jolly Boatman site for the nation: thus protecting and preserving the setting of our National Treasure Hampton Court Palace, and the River Thames, for posterity ?

So many points and I promise I won't seek to address them all. In relation to the last one: Yes you can! If there is the possibility of the site being purchased by someone philanthropic enough to turn it into a landscaped park or some such I for one would be delighted.

I did not realise the site was for sale?

How much would it go for? Whom does it currently belong to and how much did they pay?

Apologies I am sure that is addressed elsewhere ... but just easier to ask.

"So many points and I promise I won't seek to address them all".

I think I'll try that one on the wife next time I come home at 3 in the morning having forgotten to phone home.

I take it you mean that if the money could be found to purchase the site in this way, for the nation, then in view of Tim's sentiments above he would support a motion that Elmbridge  should organise the purchase the Boatman part for a fair sum with minimal cost to the borough? 

'A housing company has been described as "despicable" after demanding the return of £200,000 it gave towards a community project that was delayed'.  See BBC news item below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8126057.stm

That company is Gladedale/Bett Homes, so enthusiastically espoused by Elmbridge tory rulers as the developers of the crass Jolly Boatman over-development. 

On the basis of misleading financial figures, witheld from residents by Elmbridge's tory rulers, the council agreed to a much larger development, and Elmbridge taxpayers have been hoodwinked into getting almost no public benefit at all (on the pretence Gladedale would only make a marginal profit).  When these figures were finally grudgingly released, they revealed that Gladedale is in fact set to make a massive and above-normal profit.   Now there is no longer a care home in the scheme there is even more profit for Gladedale and less public benefit for everyone else.
The whole scheme has been based on deceipt and is a sham.

The number of major disputes and legal battles Gladedale are currently engaged in suggest Embridge will be involved in similar disputes with Gladedale: another fine mess courtesy the Elmbridge tory rulers.  Is it responsible for the council to get itself involved with such an unscrupulous developer ?

Expensive legal disputes, like all those in the articles below, will cost Elmbridge taxpayers dear.

One of these concerns the sum of £19 million which Gladedale /Bett Homes owe East Dunbartonshire Council.  The council won the case, but now Gladedale have taken the case to appeal.

Earlier, Gladedale had to be rescued, at huge expense, by Glasgow City Council.

http://www.milngavieherald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/council_chases_19m_1_1548306
http://www.menstrie.org/secr0906.html
http://www.building.co.uk/legal/gladedale-vs-paul-rogers-failure-to-pay/3133327.article
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/House-U-turn/story-13298376-detail/story.html

http://savethearcheryground.org/PivteEye.pdf
http://savethearcheryground.org/2meeting.html
http://savethearcheryground.org/index.html

I doubt the Elmbridge tory rulers or even Gladedale want the universal vilification and shame which this gross overdevelopment, wrecking one of the most important, beautiful and sensitive sites in Europe, would bring on them.

The site has now been added to the London Parks Trust At Risk List, because of concerns over the impending over development.   

Residents are puzzled that Tim Grey and the other tory councillors shrug off the opposition by claiming they are only a vocal minority; whereas the reality is that key statutory bodies formally oppose it.  They include:

Historic Royal Palaces (Immediate neighbour of the site, and the largest landowner in the area)
London Borough of Richmond
Surrey County Council
The London Parks Trust
The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England
The Thames Landscape Authority
The Hampton Wick Society


Meanwhile, we still await Tory Councillor Tim Grey's reaction to the suggestion to submit a bid for Lottery Funding to compulsorily purchase and landscape the Jolly Boatman site for the nation.

This would preserve the setting and views of Hampton Court Palace and the River Thames for posterity, and incidentally would also serve to avert costly and protracted legal disputes between Gladedale and the council, which, going on Gadedale's current and past track record, are virtually certain to ensue.

Problem solved.

This is a matter of the most serious concern to Elmbridge taxpayers and to the statutory bodies above.

We're waiting for your reply, Tim. 

Councillor Grey, we are still awaiting your response to our proposal to apply for a National Lottery Heritage Grant to purchase and landscape the site for the nation as an extension to cigarette island park.  This would be a wonderful way to celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year and the Olympics.

Property developer loses court appeal

Published on 12 January 2012

GERRY BRAIDEN

THE Court of Session has thrown out an appeal by a leading property developer, with the firm now having to pay a Scots council around £20 million.

East Dunbartonshire Council has been in a wrangle with Bett Homes, formerly Gladedale, over an alleged breach of contract involving payments for the land vacated when Bearsden Academy moved several years ago.

A judge at the Court of Session previously found in the council's favour "on a number of matters", but Bett Homes appealed the ruling late last year.

Alistair Crighton, head of legal and democratic services at East Dunbartonshire Council, said: "Bett Homes Ltd's appeal against the original judgment in the council's favour was heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session in the latter part of last year.

"The Inner House issued its decision on the appeal and the appeal has been refused."

The council agreed to sell the land to Bett to build new homes at a cost of £25m but later accused the developer of breaching the contract in 2009 when it said it would not be able to pay the final instalment of £14m on the agreed date.

Bett suggested making phased payments and made a counter-claim the council was in breach of contract for failing to move from the site.

Details of the Scots case show that at the very time that  Gladedale was assuring Elmbridge Councillors and the public that it had funding in place to carry out the Jolly Boatman/Hampton Court Station project, it was, in truth,  on the financial rocks  - no wonder officers didn't want an independent assessment of the information presented by Gladedale  on the viability issue.

In the light of all the above, are Elmbridge Borough Council senior officers really still prepared to deal with this shower and to steamroll this disastrous development through ??

"London 2012: Makeover for Jolly Boatman 'Olympic eyesore' offered.  A charity has offered to landscape derelict land on the route of the 2012 Olympic cycling road race across the River Thames from Hampton Court Palace.

Plans for a hotel and flats on the site of the Jolly Boatman pub have been approved by Elmbridge Borough Council.

Historic Royal Palaces wants to give the site, described by some as Surrey's "hot potato", a free "makeover".

Developer Gladedale said it was considering the proposal as it continued talks with the council."


I have taken the above from the BBC Website where the full article can be read.  Just thought some residents might be interested in the story.  25 January 2012 Last updated at 13:28 

London 2012: Makeover for Jolly Boatman 'Olympic eyesore' offered

Historic Royal Palaces, which looks after Hampton Court, has generously offered to clear and landscape the site at its own cost, opening up the space to planted riverside parkland.

Developer Gladedale said it was "considering the proposal" as it continued talks with the council...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16720685

And here is today's BBC interview with Ray Townsend of the Hampton Court Rescue Campaign about Hampton Court Palace's generous offer to Gladedale to landscape the site free of charge.

The site, which Gladedale have deliberately allowed to become derelict, will be centre stage, and the gateway to Elmbridge, for the Olympic Torch and Olympic Cycle Race.

Although Elmbridge Borough Council have the necessary powers to require Gladedale to make the site presentable, they are being weak in their dealings with the developer, and allowing Gladedale to choose whether to leave the site derelict or erect unsightly hoardings. 

However, hoardings fly in the face of professional advice given to Elmbridge about the Kent Town Conservation Area, in which the site is situated.
And a derelict site is clearly unacceptable, so the only option is to accept Historic Royal Palaces' offer to professionally landscape the site.

Of course Gladedale don't want that, as it would remove their ploy of leaving the site derelict to make a case for erecting their vast and unsightly hotel, blocking the view of the palace and the river for ever.

Whatever site Gladedale own, be it the historic Archery Ground in Hastings or in Scotland, they will always make it become a derelict eyesore !

Press the play button (arrow top left), then go to time 2.38 on the pink slider bar next to it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00mw1vc

This is an interesting one! Whatever they do, Gladedale are going to be vilified. Quite right. The idea of dozens of locals turning up and landscaping this site must terrify them.  They would temporarily lose control of the how the land is managed. I'll be there with my spade!

What would stop a group of 'guerrilla gardeners' from just going in there and landscaping the site anyway?

http://www.guerrillagardening.org/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/5154388/The-secret-life-of-the-guerilla-gardener.html

Good stuff. But please don't dig up the cricket pitch on GH Green to grow your asparagus!

The question of what was going to be done to clean up the Boatman site for the world's TV during the Olympics was raised at the EBC open meeting on Council Tax, which I attended last Monday.

The question (from a very articulate and cogent lady) was not really answered.  Gladedale are apparently proposing to erect hoardings, and a resident forwards this photo of what Gladedale has in mind, in response to a request to that company for information:
[img width=500 height=375]http://residents-association.com/news/images/galdedale_hoarding.jpg[/img]

At present, to illustrate how Britain is treating its heritage the choice seems to be between that type of eyesore,  or the derelict and heavily littered remains of the Boatman's foundations, or accepting the kind offer of Palace volunteers to clean up the site - similar to the offer by local volunteers which Gladedale rejected during the period when they kept the site unkempt, presumably thinking that that would increase 'pressure' on local residents to agree to their development.  (This is a tactic very frequently deployed by developers, and it takes in only the really naive: "anything would be better than that eyesore...")

I gather moreover that in an earlier decision by the Planning Inspectorate hoardings on this site are impermissible, on the highly relevant grounds that they would obscure public views of the Palace.

But Elmbridge seem to be thinking about what to do if, as the Olympics near, the developers have not cleaned the site up.  It's an embarrassment.

BBC on this - worth viewing: .be

Dramatic photographs well underline the embarrassment for Elmbridge and Surrey, especially in view of the cycling race.

I dont think HRP were very happy that is already in the public domain already considering they have not spoken with glendale yet about the situation.I work at Hampton Cour and my boss was bemused  at meeting this morning that this is out in the public domain.

Had a meeting about the Olympics today and on the day of the time trials, the palace will be open to 9pm in the evening with £5 entrance for all.It will have a cinema powered by people cycling so you will take it in turns to generate the power to run it.
No tickets avaliable yet but the start line and finish line areas will be all ticket which will be avaliable around April time.Grandstand going up on Hampton Court road by Hampton Court green for the finish line.The start line with be on the front drive on the Palace but no grandstand so just standing along the main drive.
You can also have your photo done in the evening on the Olympic podium in the courtyard.

LOL what a mess!!

I think the site should be left exactly as it is, and when helicopters fly over it during the race the locals should have a large white sheet with the names of all the councillors who voted for this development on it, so that the whole world will see how those provincial philistines treat an important site of national heritage value.

The BBC is pretty public! 

What a great idea to have the Palace open and the cycle-powered cinema.

The BBC piece went out last week sometime, I was told; and the news was already being discussed around Elmbridge.  I gather the video and a brief has been issued by HCRC to the local press.

Pic:
[img width=500 height=355]http://residents-association.com/images/boatman_rubble_palace.jpg[/img]

I wonder what Henry VIII would have done to the Elmbridge Council if he rode home from the Hunt to find this just before the French popped over for a visit??!!

Advertiser of 27 January (http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2107239_jolly_boatman_cleanup_proposed_before_olympics):  "A spokesman for Gladedale said: “We have received the offer from Historic Royal Palaces. We are considering their proposal in conjunction with ongoing discussions with Elmbridge Borough Council to agree the most appropriate way of maintaining the site until work can commence, with specific regard to the forthcoming London Olympics.

“We will be seeking to have discussions with Historic Royal Palaces in the very near future.”"

The council could put up those horrible little signs on posts, like at the roundabout on Hampton Court way where they made a big thing of planting a few bulbs, telling us that Elmbridge is a nice place to live?  Just a constructive suggestion  ;)

Keith thanks for the clarification and apologies to reply late again. I can only speak for myself when I say that yes if there was money available to ensure the site could be purchased and landscaped, then so long as the planning application made to do so did not fall foul of planning policies (and I think it would be unlikely that it would) I can see no down side. I am unsure if Elmbridge is the correct body to organise the purchase. It would seem logical that it would be but I can't say with any certainty. It maybe that the purchase would be made by, for instance Central Government, Surrey County Council or any number of other bodies. By all means if I'm wrong put me straight!

All that said as far as I am aware the site isn't for sale...but again I may be behind the times.

The site doesn't have to be for sale: it can be compulsorily purchased by Elmbridge Borough Council, if necessary with the aid of a Lottery Heritage Grant.  This would be very appropriate in the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Year.  

The price would be determined by an independent valuer.   It isn't worth very much anyway, as the Jolly Boatman can only be developed as part of a comprehensive development with the Station site - something which realistically isn't going to happen in the present climate.

In Gladedale's present weak financial state, and in the present financial climate, it is unlikely, if not impossible, that Gladedale could afford to build this hugely expensive development, especially with the complex two storey underground car park.  Even the financial report they commissioned admitted no other builder would touch it with a bargepole. 

Gladedale have recently lost their appeal against a legal case against them by East Dunbartonshire Council in Scotland which the council had won.  They have now been ordered to pay the council £20 million (See post above), thus depleting even further the funds they would need to build the scheme.   One can only hope a similar situation is not going to develop between Gladedale and Elmbridge ?

The site is currently on the London Parks and Gardens Trust At Risk Register because of the damage the development would do to the setting of Hampton Court Palace - the second most visited attraction in the UK, and one of the most important palaces in Europe.

I would love to see Elmbridge buying the site for restoration of the railway station and a modest development to help fund that, without the overscale scheme planned that will probably be disastrous for parking and other logistics as well as an unattractive set of buildings opposite the Palace.  Even if that part where the Boatman used to be is not purchased compulsorily, but for a fair commercial price, the Council has the money in the shape of £17m of accumulated reserves to do the job.  But not the will.

At the moment we seem to have reached low tide in this affair.  The legal campaign has run its course.  Gladedale seems to be in straitened circumstances.  It would be good to see the community pulling together to get an outcome everyone can feel good about, rather than one which (I believe) nearly everyone feels bad about.  Unfortunately, mostly because of the way it was railroaded through over the heads of local people and kept out of consideration at national level,  the matter has become entrenched in politics.

Disclaimer! I am one of the Conservative candidates.

A current rough estimate is that the JB site is worth about £1.5million, of course if luxury flats were built there (which many suspect is Gladedale's ultimate aim) then it might be worth a good deal more. There is a view at the council that this would be a significant chunk of the budget (which is about £20million in total I believe) and difficult to justify the spending while austerity is the watchword and we're fighting to avoid cuts to services. HCRC and presumably the Palace itself may have wealthy backers who are better placed to raise the money, but I also think the Lottery bid is a good one. Would this have to be made by the council? Could it not be something the HCRC could put forward?

Yes it would, because

1) The Elmbridge Tory rulers steamrollered the development through, by en bloc voting according to party whip, against the views of all the local Ward councillors who represent the residents who live in Molesey and Thames Ditton, of Historic Royal Palaces, The Thames Landscape Authority, Richmond Borough Council, English Heritage, The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England, and the London Parks and Gardens Trust, who have placed it on their At Risk register.    Having brought about this mess, the onus is on the Tories to now put matters right.

2) Only the Council has Compulsory Purchase powers.  

The Jolly Boatman site is in fact worth very little (£1.5 million has been suggested), because the 1999 Planning Brief only permits it to be developed together with the station site as part of a comprehensive development.  On its own, it does not in fact have Planning Permission.

I would disagree about the onus being put on one, or any, political party to act.  I'd like to see the matter de-politicised entirely, no posturing, and all pulling together in the right direction so all can feel proud and share credit for a better solution to the whole thing.

But the council as a whole would certainly have to be part of that.  At the moment, it is compromised and is not likely to lead; but could at least give a non-partisan and collective blessing to attempts to find a solution.

From Elmbridge's Website.

Improving appearance of Jolly Boatman/Hampton Court Railway station site
Following a meeting between the Council and the owners of the Jolly Boatman site earlier today, Gladedale has issued the following statement:

Gladedale have decided to work in partnership with Historic Royal Palaces to improve the appearance of the Jolly Boatman/Hampton Court Railway station site in readiness for the |Olympic celebrations and other important events taking place in the summer. Works will include the laying of turf, importing trees and plants and erecting a low level perimeter fence.

The plans, which are still being prepared, will be provided to Elmbridge Borough Council for informal comments in the next few days.

thats good to hear, be nice to see it all tidied up in the short term at least

It will very much depend on what they do, but i think the "tidy up" will have a dramatic impact on public sentiment and will reinforce to everyone, that this should be a public open space.

Could be very good.  A step in the right direction. 

Network Rail is currently repainting the (boarded over) windows of the station building designed by the great Railway Sir William Tite in 1849.
It is listed by Elmbridge as a building of historic interest, and is situated within the Elmbridge Kent conservation area.

Just seen this/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17907059

Thanks for the link.

Yes, Ray Townsend of HCRC was interviewed by the BBC yesterday morning  -  the full thing will be posted shortly, I gather.

Just before everyone starts to slap Gladedale on the back, do not forget that they are letting a charitable trust pay for this and are not paying any money towards this themselves.Also Historic Royal Palaces has this offer on the table months ago but they simply swept it under the carpet until LOCOG got involved.

Gladedale, the developer, have intentionally left the site derelict to engender the response 'anything is better than this mess' ....even their proposed huge overdevelopment ruining for ever the setting of the Hampton Court Palace, Hampton Court bridge, and the river Thames.  

Conservative run Elmbridge Borough Council have only applied pressure on Gladedale to tidy it up to avoid potential embarrassment during the Olympics, and possibly to gain support in Molesey for their election candidate. 

Having forced the development through, now this candidate is offering to 'influence' the conservative council to reverse the decision (if he is elected), however their leader says he is not prepared to do this (dissent in the ranks, or mere electioneering ?

This is the reason Gladedale have only now accepted Historic Royal Palaces' offer, first made several years ago, to landscape the site at their own expense.  It suited Gladedale's purposes to leave it a derelict eyesore, while the Conservative led council were content to stand by.

It was only since LOCOG got involved that Elmbridge Council thought they had better do something.I hope when we do make it over that Elmbridge council will keep the place looking clean and tidy.

I see Gldadedale have filed the first of many conditions for their Jolly Boatman development. This seems very OTT for an area with so many Bats, Kingfishers, etc.
I believe they have over 20 conditions to satisfy.  See 2012/1625.

The application, which concerns a fenced buffer zone around the River Ember, is on this link
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2012/1625

Its purpose appears to be more to prevent unauthorised access to the site, rather than protecting wildlife, to whom it would cause harm.

The riverbank there is a wildlife haven.  As well as stripping the banks of vegetation, species in that area which would be affected include kingfishers, herons, coots, bats, grebes, mink, water voles, hedgehogs, bats and more. 

The distance of the fencing from the river has been incorrectly measured - it is too close to the river, and does not allow for higher water levels. 

If five or more letters of objection are received, the application will go to the area planning committee for consideration.  Otherwise it is likely to be passed by council officers.

A letter of objection to the above application for a buffer zone and metal fencing, on the link below, raises some pertinent issues, including the point that the fence would be too close to the river bank, and breaches environment agency guidelines, so that in times of flooding animals could well be trapped between rising water levels and the fence.

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Letters%20of%20Representation%20-%20Object-1334380.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1334380&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Some work appears to have started at the far end of Hampton Court Station car park, near to the 'buffer zone' (generators, heavy machinery, area fenced off).  But permission has not been granted and in any case this application has to go to the Molesey North Area planning subcommittee....unless the work is merely resurfacing etc.
Does anyone know what's going on over there ?

is it not the "temprary" clean up works for the olympics?

You could be right, but this work is at the opposite end of the station car park, behind the car dealership, close to the banks of the Mole/Ember river.

There's not much to be seen of the Jolly Boatman site landscaping yet, at the moment it is just preparatory clearance work.

Can confirm a nice little picket fence has been erected around the site, iit would seem that the long awaited tidy up has commenced. Shame a few other TD eyesores can't be tidied up whilst they are at it!

What are you thinking of?

Try this lot for starters...

Ye olde Harrow
TD Hospital
Home of Compassion
Water works next to the marina
Summer road shops
Post office

...do you need anymore? The list seems to be ever growing unfortunately.

I agree with some of these but wouldn't describe all of them as eye sores.

For example the Summer Road shops - not necessarily the prettiest but they look like pretty standard convenience store/offy , newsagent and launderette to me...

must admit i dont really know Ye Olde Harrow or TD hospital.

Home of compassion I agree with but we all know the issues there
water works near marina, yes, could be much nicer, does this not come under the whole seething wells thing?
Summer road shops seem ok, I dont see what changes needed there, its not an especially villagey bit
Post office agree, dire.

Went for a walk up to Hampton Court yesterday evening to see how the area is shaping up for the Olympics.
Checking out the Jolly Boatman site and what a turnaround. Turf has already been laid and was about 2/3 completed. What with the new fence all round it, it looked an absolute delight. Can't wait to see it when it's finished. The walk round it, and along Cigarette Island and back was a real pleasure.
Now with the station freshly painted too it's all looking very picturesque. I do hope they paint the white kerb edges in the front station car park though as that's still looking very grubby.

Midibob

It is just going to be the grass and fence now.Historic Royal Palaces wanted to put some tree and beds in as well but Gladedale for some reason denied that as they wanted HRP to rip it all up after the Olympics. HRP would have liked it there looking nice in future in opposition to Gladedale developing the site.

Why on earth would Gladedale refuse Historic Royal Palace's generous offer to landscape the site with trees and beds free ?

Possibly because it is a conservatrion area and they would need permission to subesquently remove any tree with a diameter, I think, of over 75mm.  Tempting to plant a few! It will be very interesting to see how Elmbridge respond to 2012/1625.

I just think they were worried that people would find it so attractive and if they do not start building within the time limit set by the first planning application that was granted.if they were to reapply for a new proposal , then people would be more up in arms if the site was to look nice in the future.I am just hoping that Elmbridge council keep the site clean from rubbish with regular rubbish collections.

Passed Jolly B site today.  People have charmingly added newspapers, plastic bottles and a beer can to this site.  Ah it's beginning to look familiar again.  What a shame.  By the way, question about the shared footpath from HC to Summer Road.  The hedges are now so overgrown that it is impossible for more than one person to walk on the pedestrian side without having to walk in the cycle lane.  Shouldn't that be trimmed occasionally?

And even on the cycle lane there are some over hanging branches that can catch the unwary cyclist (err me!) out if the person happens to be busy eating an ice cream and cycling at the same time!

This is the last chance to submit emails of support for the new application for
the application to landscape and create a public open space on the Jolly Boatman Site - Planning Application 2012/2362. 

The consultation period closes on Monday 30 July.

This is our opportunity to save the setting of Hampton Court Palace and the River Thames from a huge urban development which would ruin the setting of the Palace for ever, cause massive traffic congestion and increase flood risk in Molesey and Thames Ditton.

Nearly 300 representations of support have already been received, and the number is still growing - demonstrating the enthusiasm and support this great scheme is inspiring !


Comments should be submitted to tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk   

It is essential to quote the application number and to include your name and address for your comment to be accepted - please head it 'Support'

It is not advisable to use the online 'comment' button - it is unreliable, and your comment may be lost without trace!

Details on http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2012/2362

Ah - I did use the button.

In the past it has worked just fine?

From what I remember they actually appear on teh application? I'll double check tonight and send an email if necessary.

Just checked and mine is there OK.

Midibob  ;D

Mine too!

Although it is not showing on Elmbridge's website, the date for responses has been extended to 10 August and if it goes to committe the date will be some time in September.  If anyone would like to reply to the application after the stated end of consultiation period, they can email Embridge ( tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk ) and quote 2012/2362 and provide their response and name and address.

Many thanks,

Andrew
 

Not official yet, but we understand that planning permission granted by Elmbridge. A great first step. More later.

That's fantastic news

Gladedale, would-be developer of the Jolly Boatman, have lost their appeal for their overscale development on Hastings' historic Archery Road site.

Brilliant Christmas news from our friends in Hastings, lucky enough to have a half-decent council:

More details will soon be posted on Save the Archery Ground's website: http://www.savethearcheryground.org/

Gladedale now faces massive legal fees, together with the sums they have spent on their failed application to date (fees for architects, planners spin doctors etc etc)

Well done Campaigners !

This sets a significant precedent in getting the huge Hampton Court Jolly Boatman development refused - but the battle is by no means won, as Elmbridge's tory councillors continue to steamroller the conditions through, often on very suspect ground, in their eagerness to implement planning permission at any price.

This is against the wishes of the more than 800-2 majority of Elmbridge residents who recently voted to support the rival landscaping scheme.

John O'Reilly (Leader of the ruling tory caucus) said at a recent council meeting "this is merely a bureaucratic exercise"......

That is a trite and irresponsible comment given the seriousness of the issues involved, which include public safety concerns.  It demonstrates arrogance, and scant respect and consideration for Elmbridge residents, who will be affected by massive traffic disruption caused by the development.

Surely we can expect better from the leader of Elmbridge Borough Council ?

It does make you wonder in whose interests Elmbridge represents - the greedy developer, or the local residents and taxpayers the council exists to serve ?

Read more on http://www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com/

New HCRC VIDEO of the part-demolition plans for Hampton Court Station

Many supporters have already sent their comments on the proposed part-demolition of the Hampton Court Railway Station to Elmbridge Planning Dept., but time is now running out.  The deadline is 17 January.

Please click this link to open a stunning and impactful, short film that explains exactly what is being proposed and how you can help.

http://youtu.be/CVgar9rTU5A

HCRC is trying to reach the Societies and interest groups that can most help Hampton Court Station to survive this threat, so please email or Tweet the film to your friends and neighbours.

Thank you all for your prompt support


HCRC Communications Tweet

You can Tweet us at @HCRCMary

or visit www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com

The Hampton Court line will be closed for five months during the construction of the Jolly Boatman development.

To close for 5 months? Who told you that?

It's here (apologies for cross posting with SWT thread):

Gladedale's Planning Potential Environmental Statement: 2008


3.2.3 It should be noted that whilst it is intended to keep the Railway Station open
throughout the works, this may not be possible during some piling works.




3.3.2
Table 0.1: Indicative Demolition and Construction Activities and Duration
Activity, Approximate Duration of Works
(in months)
Enabling / Preparation Works 1
Piling 5
Excavations and Construction of new basement structure 13
Superstructure 10
External envelop and cladding 6
Services and interior fit out 10
Overall Construction Period 36

Am confused.  Is the Jolly Boatman project going ahead?  I thought we still had a chance of a park there? 

The Hampton Court Way will be partially closed for an unspecified period during construction, while drains, sewers, water mains, gas mains, electricity cables, telephone cables and broadband cables are dug under the road (there is currently no main drainage or water main supply on the site.

Given that the recent modest roadworks at the roundabout by HC bridge caused traffic jams all the way to Oxshott and Esher, one can only imagine the ensuing mayhem these roadworks will cause.....

Developers Gladedale are pressing ahead with their application that was railroaded through by the Conservative majority in Elmbridge almost five years ago.  There is currently a long running tussle over whether or not they meet the several planning conditions imposed.  If I recall correctly, they will have to apply again if works have not begun by the time the current permission expires, but if anyone has chapter and verse on that please correct my recollection if necessary.  Gladedale own the site. 

Meanwhile, you do not have to own the site to make a planning application for it, and the plan for a riverside park put forward a few months ago was also approved.  The hope of many is that having a specific, proper, planned and approved alternative, rather than just a vague idea; an alternative that is better supported by the community, and could be financed, will lead to a successful future bid for that part of the site before Gladedale builds there.  But to achieve that, Gladedale has to be persuaded to sell it.

Have they ever indicated what figure would work for them?

What did they pay for it ? (apologies if this has been covered)

How did they get hold of it? And how long have they had it?

See youtube feature here: .be

Latest news on twitter: https://twitter.com/HCRCMary

Have recently learnt there will be no parking at all at Hampton Court station during the construction of the two storey underground car park.  Gladedale suggest station users use public transport to HC station, or park at Esher or Surbiton instead.    As Esher is in the next zone, and doesn't offer oyster cards, fares from Esher will be considerably more costly.

I cannot believe they are allowed to build a 2 storey underground car park there, shocker.

I suspect they will have to allow season tickets from Hampton Court to be valid at Esher otherwise its very unfair as Surbiton is both considerably more expensive to park at and much further away for most users of hampton court station (who drive there). That doesn't help the more occasional traveller / weekend traveller or oystercard holder.

Car park charges below... not including TD.

(parking in TD is free... and closer for most 'users' of Hampton Court Station than Surbiton... I wonder what that will mean!)

Surbiton Station
Charges: £9.50 peak, £5.00 after 1100 Mon- Sat off peak, £9.50 Mon-Fri, £3.00 Sat, Sun and Bank Holidays daily, £47.50 weekly, £152.00 monthly, £456.00 three-monthly, £1670.00 annually
Sat £3.00 -Sun £3.00.
Weekend tickets available from1100 Fri £10.00


Hampton Court
Charges: £6.00 peak, After 1600 Mon-Sat £2.00 off peak, £6.00 Mon-Sat, £2.00 Sun daily, £27.00 weekly, £72.00 monthly, £216.00 three-monthly, £720.00 annually
Sat £6.00 - Sun £2.00
Weekend tickets available from 1200 Fri £8.00

Esher
Charges: £6.50 peak, After 1600 Mon-Sat £2.00 off peak, £6.50 Mon-Fri, £3.00 Sat, £2.00 Sun daily, £32.50 weekly, £89.00 monthly, £267.00 three-monthly, £910.00 annually
Sat £3.00 - Sun £2.00.
Weekend tickets available from 1200 Fri £7.00.

Is there sufficient parking space at Esher and Surbiton for the additional cars from Hampton Court users ?

Well that does not bode well for Thames Ditton does it!!   Since we are the only railway station for miles, with unrestricted car parking on our roads, we are going to be the free car park.  More people will be forced to look for parking here and thus, they will realise what a great freebie we give them.  They certainly won't go to any new expensive underground car park, or any old paid car park for that matter.  Madness!!

That's why we need more yellow lines, most commuters who park here especially along station road have no interest in the village anyhow.

What happened to the "park proposal" that was documented in this thread?

What is going on there today.  They are putting up boarding round the site?

Planning permission has not yet been granted.

Two of the conditions have been refused by EBC (1. Partial demolition of Hampton Court station and 2. Travel plan.  Gladedale have appealed to the Planning authority against the latter decision, and an enquiry with an inspector is shortly to be held at the council.

It is expected that the hotel and care home will just become yet more profitable luxury flats (there is no hotel or care home operator involved) therefore the developer's profit has been maximised at the expense of any public benefit.

Meanwhile fliers have apparently already been posted on the 8 foot high hoardings.   

It is still hard to believe - and to accept - the way Elmbridge have steamrollered this huge, hideous and unpopular development through against the wishes of Elmbridge residents who fund the council through council tax.   

You cannot help wondering who the council is there to serve ?

Saw the boardings over the weekend and they look awful indeed.

Is this a step for them to begin works before the planning permission expires?

I'm not sure I fully understand the situation reading the posts back on this thread - but is there anything else we can do to push for the park instead?

Did Gladedale actually purchase the site? And if so how and for how much?

As I understand it, Gladedale own part of the site and Network Rail the station.  The Elmbridge Conservatives railroaded through planning permission and with the two exceptions mentioned (traffic plan & platform canopies) have railroaded through subsequent representations by Gladedale to have met the various conditions attached to their plan.  Other aspects (especially the inclusion of a care home) that formed part of the case for Gladedale's plan have dropped out but this appears to have made no difference to the EBC Tories' intentions towards the developers.

Anyone can file a planning application even if they don't own the land, as happened with the application for the public park on the Jolly Boatman part of the site.  In showing that there was a viable alternative that enjoyed great public support especially from local people, and what that would look like, the aim was to reinforce public pressure on Gladedale to sell, on the analysis that financial difficulties, inability to meet conditions properly, public concern, and a reasonable offer would do the trick.  The developers, however, have resisted.

Gladedale to be sold off - who will own the Jolly Boatman in 6 weeks time???


http://news.sky.com/story/1079487/housebuilder-gladedale-heading-for-auction

How much pressure has been put on Lloyds regarding the plans for the site?

I tried to have a nosey over the weekend over/through the boards and I can't see any changes made.

(well other than the boards being painted black)

Now is the time to protest:
email John O'Reilly, leader of Elmbridge Borough Council:
joreilly@elmbridge.gov.uk
and Rob Moran, chief executive: rmoran@elmbridge.gov.uk


See the youtube videos on:
.be
and
http://youtu.be/bMH-1UxXYj8

Although Gladedale have been refused permission to demolish parts of the station, including the magnificent but neglected Victorian platform canopies, council officers are not replying to queries about this, which is worrying.

Visit https://twitter.com/HCRCMary for regular updates on the Jolly Boatman scandal.  Views of the Hampton Court Palace from the station, the HC Way and pavements are now completely obscured by the tall and hideous black hoardings.

Have sent my email of protest off to Joe - I really hope that it does some good. 

Sorry "John" not "Joe"

Please could as many people as possible contact John O'Reilly (council leader) and Robert Moran (chief executive) to give them the message loud and clear that residents definitely do not want the Jolly Boatman development!

The development will impact on Thames Ditton in a number of ways: including gridlock in the Hampton Court Way during construction (digging drains etc under the HC Way, and as there is a no right turn out of the development all the heavy construction vehicles loaded with earth and rubble etc will have to turn left, drive down to the Embercourt roundabout then back up the Hampton Court Way to the bridge. 

During the lengthy period when there is no parking at Hampton Court station, many train commuters will park in Thames Ditton, rather than pay extra to travel from Esher station).

"The Elmbridge Conservatives railroaded through planning permission and with the two exceptions mentioned (traffic plan & platform canopies) have railroaded through subsequent representations by Gladedale to have met the various conditions attached to their plan."

Hang on a minute. I have looked at the minutes of the special Council meeting on 18th December 2008, freely available on the EBC website. First, there was a motion to refuse planning permission for the current proposed development. It was defeated 33-23, with all the Tories bar the deputy mayor voting against plus 2 Lib Dems and one RA councillor. Then there was a positive motion to grant permission for the current controversial proposal. It was carried 29-24, with the same 2 Lib Dems and 1 RA councillor supporting the proposal. This time 3 Conservatives abstained in addition to the deputy mayor. Had the 2 Lib Dems and the RA councillor voted against it, this development would have been refused permission.

Since then, all Gladedale's applications have gone through the North area planning sub-commiuttee, where there is no Conservative majority and the chair (and therefore the casting vote in the event of a tie) is held by Chris Sadler who, last time I looked was a RA councillor for Walton. Thus, whatever happened in 2008, it is absolutely impossible for the Conservatives to railroad anything, even if they wanted to. And given that when permission was refused to pull down part of Hampton Court station was opposed by some of the Conservatives on the committee it's hard to see how it can be said that the Conservatives do want to railroad this.

Finally Steve Bax, the Conservative candidate for East Molesey & Esher at the County elections has made no secret of his opposition to Gladedale's plans.

All the tory councillors voted for the Jolly Boatman scheme in 2008, using en bloc voting.

All the Molesey ward councillors voted against.   The tories even flew one of their councillors back to the UK to ensure they voted the Jolly Boatman scheme through at the 2008 planning meeting.

John O'Reilly, Elmbridge tory leader, referred to the voting for the numerous Jolly Boatman conditions as "merely a beaurocratic exercise", and whenever the planning committee debate the conditions, he instructs them not to waste time and get on to the next one (presumably in case some awkward flaw becomes apparent.

The conservative councillors have voted through all the conditions, save for the demolition of the station and the travel plan by en bloc voting.

At last week's planning subcommittee meeting the tory councillors also voted in favour of excluding all members of the public and press from agenda items concerning the Jolly Boatman, to jeers of "Great Democracy", "Democracy in Action" etc.  Secrecy and closed doors have characterised the manner in which tory led Elmbridge Borough Council has forced through planning permission for Gladedale against the views of local residents.  Democracy ??

Mr Bax has been voluble with public relations statements but he was not among members of the public writing to Elmbridge to object to Gladedale's plans, although even as a journalist on the Advertiser at the time he was free to do so,  neither did he add his support to Andrew Roberts' very sensible and attractive plan to landscape the site for public use. 

Persons of long experience might conclude that Mr Bax is more concerned with making a show in order to get votes in Molesey, in his attempt to get started on a political career.

Given that we are so close to elections and Mr Bax is standing, this time for the county, the highlighting of him by new forum member "elmbridgeblue" at this time makes me wonder whether elmbridgeblue is actually Mr Bax in disguise?  I thought Mr Bax was already a member of the forum in the name Molesey Steve.

Gladedale uncovered Hampton Court Station's historic 1850s steam turnturntable yesterday, and destroyed it for footings today, all without planning permission. 

http://www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com/

Images on https://twitter.com/HCRCMary

https://twitter.com/HCRCMary/media/grid

That is heartbreaking vandalism.  They should be stopped immediately. 

I cannot stress enough the importance and urgency of emailing the chief executive (rmoran@elmbridge.gov.uk) and the leader (joreilly@elmbridge.gov.uk)

Tory councillors have steamrollered this development through against the wishes of the majority of residents.  Council officers recommended that this awful development be approved, and that every planning condition be passed.  They have assisted the developer Gladedale at every point.

At the last planning meeting, tory councillors voted to exclude the public and press from the meeting.

The whole saga is quite shocking, shameful and undemocratic.

Elmbridge Borough Council ("open and transparent" is refusing to release minutes of the planning committee meeting where residents and press were thrown out

This refusal could well prejudice the Travel Plan Hearing next week, because residents who are speaking against the development cannot reference the content of that part of the meeting, which was about the Hearing, and which apparently featured vitriolic disagreement.

Does this inspire confidence in the democracy competence of bumbling Elmbridge Borough Council, and its ability to handle planning applications ?  As has been commented "Commercial and Planning interests are worryingly intertwined chez Elmbridge.

11 May 2013
Inspector extends public consultation by two weeks

On May the 8th and 9th, the Government's Planning Inspector heard Gladedale's Appeal against the Elmbridge Planning Committee's rejection of Condition 18, Travel Plan.

Gladedale, the developer of the Jolly Boatman, made an early plea that the Inspector might review her decision promptly, as its principal Planning consent is due to expire on June 16th. Instead of this consideration, the Inspector noted that Elmbridge Council had failed to post amendments to Gladedale's Travel Plan on its public-access portal until 4pm on Friday of the recent May Bank Holiday. She was rightly concerned that parties might not have seen the new statements, or had time to adequately prepare for the Appeal because of the long weekend. As a result she lengthened the consultation period to
Friday 24th May 2013.

Not only did she throw the poor Jolly Boatman a life-line, but she also heard nine, separate, third party presentations from HCRC, Councillors and residents. We are extremely grateful to the Inspector for allowing us so much time and input, over and above the legal discussion. For example, she permitted the screening of this video that challenges the highway safety of the new Cycle Lane. Hampton Court Rescue Campaign appreciates the strong feelings held by residents and road-users about the problems of traffic and parking at Hampton Court and Molesey and that supporters might wish to comment further on the new amendments.  See the video on http://www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com/

If you would like to review the revised Travel Plan documents, go to EBC's Planning website www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/online.htm using application reference 2012/3262. The amended Framework Travel Plan is revision A07.

We appreciate the strong feelings held by residents and road-users about the problems of traffic and parking at Hampton Court and Molesey and that supporters might wish to comment further on the new amendments.  There will be no parking at all at Hampton Court Station throughout the construction phase.  That means drivers will park in the streets of Thames Ditton during that period - which could be open ended if Gladedale, who are in massive debt to Lloyds, and are about to be put out to auction, go bust...

Hi is there anyone out there who can explain in REALLY SIMPLE terms what impact on the  Hampton Court area, Hampton Court station, the local roads and Thames Ditton station and roads,  the planned work at the Jolly Boatman site is going to have?  I am following a protest group on Twitter - but there seems to be so many different concerns with the plan that I can't really get to grips with what is happening.  I gather that the work has already started even though they haven't got permission, and roads are going to change direction, the BR station is going to close etc etc etc.

Many thanks for your help

Come on folks - it can't be that difficult. I am really concerned about the massive impact that I think the traffic is going to have onThames Ditton and want to know if it is warranted or not.

I would imagine you're right to have some concern.

I don't know the ins and outs and other will know better and can maybe advise but from what I understand yes, the station will close for a period of time so naturally people will come to TD to travel and in turn will need to get to and from here, and park here somewhere so thats the immediate impact.

Work hasnt started as far as I'm aware, they have merely put up large hoardings for no apparent reason although I'm sure there is a hidden agenda.

Thanks Craigmax.  I am only gleaning surface information.  I hate the fact that they might be allowed to put a modern construction on the river at Hampton Court - these constructions age so badly and become so dated quickly.  I think they should have focused on the history of the BR station and exploited a historical tourist attraction.  (little money involved I suppose). 

Anyway,  from what I gather. there seems to be two main areas of concern for Thames Ditton, these are Hampton Court station closing and the fact that there is going to be some diversion in traffic and change of traffic flow at Hampton Court.  These two things happening on there own would have a big impact on Thames Ditton, but happening at the same time can only be very bad for us.

So I would really like to have someone tell me in simple terms if the above is actually correct.  If it is - we need to know what plans TD has to help ourselves in all the possible mayhem. 

I know that the developers have not been given the green light to go ahead - but the twitter site I have started to follow shows lorries turning in and out of the site etc.  It also informed that the historic BR turning circle had been discovered and "ruined". 

As I have said I do not fully understand what is going on at Hampton Court - so am hoping that all the above is totally incorrect!!!  Please can someone explain in very simple terms all that is going on.

MANY THANKS mg

I think probably the only forum members here with sufficient grasp of the JB situation to comment on this meaningfully are Highways Contact and Emberman.

Though I have the general impression that yes, HC station will be closed for a while during works, and yes, that will probably cause temporary displacement of HC commuters, including car parkers, to TD with corresponding grief while the construction works are going on, I have seen no attempt by Surrey Highways to quantify this.  Without hard facts it isn't at all clear how big the problem will be, and it's certainly not easy to envisage what plans might be formed to mitigate it.

To date there has been uncertainty as to whether Gladedale would be able to press on with their development or whether the forces of good would prevail.  But now I think mg has a very good point in asking about contingency planning here in Thames Ditton (and thank you for raising it, mg).  The Association's next Open Meeting is on 25 June (in All Saints' Church hall) and this would be an excellent opportunity for residents to raise the question.

As far as I can tell, the main problems are likely to be caused by traffic congestion caused by construction vehicles turning left out of the Jolly Boatman site, driving to the Embercourt roundabout, then returning back to Hampton Court Bridge, as there is no right turn out of the site.  Congestion will also be caused by vehicles travelling towards Hampton Court Bridge and turning right into the Jolly Boatman, thus holding up both lines of traffic.

Later, there will be no parking at Hampton Court Station, so rail users are likely to travel from Thames Ditton station and to park in the surrounding roads. 

The one-way flow in Bridge Road is set to be reversed, which will make it more difficult to drive to the shops there.

There are regular updates on twitter - HCRCMary

Hi Keith

Thanks for replying.  I agree with everything you said (press LIKE button) and it is worrying.  (still keeping fingers crossed that it doesn't go ahead).  I see Emberman has tried to reply but it is blank at the moment.  Hope he re-posts.  Many thanks again.

Hi

Thank you Emberman - your post has now appeared on the forum.  I imagine too, that if the traffic is constantly held up at Hampton Court by lorries, deliveries, etc then people coming from Kingston direction will make a habit of coming down the Portsmouth Road and through Thames Ditton to get to the other side of Hampton Court.  (and the return direction).  I hope that Keith can put this on the next RA meeting agenda.  We need to have a plan or our lives are going to be very miserable.  Living on Station Road I hear many "unhappy" drivers at rush hour (or two) beeping horns and shouting.  Can't imagine what more "unhappy" traffic and drivers will be like.

Just seen video  footage on YOUTUBE, of the building work which has begun on the Jolly Boatman site, before planning permission has been granted.  Sorry don't know how to put up the link but if you search -  Gladedale construction activity - on YOUTUBE then the video will come up.  What has happened when companies can do this?  If the planning permission is not granted do they put everything back to where it was? 

Thanks for the heads-up, mg.  I duly searched and the link is here:

I trust that the HCRC will have demarched Elmbridge Borough Council.  The track record of the council's ruling party on this application from its approval through to the conditions speaks for itself.

Hi Keith

What does the bit that says Elmbridge have put a Category C Notice on it, mean?

Thanks

Can anyone tell me what the Category C notice means?

From a quick search I believe it relates to grounds for investigation due to any of the following (happy to be corrected)

Category C:
◦Material Change of Use, e.g. a business is being operated from a dwelling
◦Unauthorised Development which is complete.
◦Adverts
◦Satellite dishes
◦Untidy land
◦Any other breach of planning control

Oh - so that sounds like a good thing then.  Thanks Craigmax :)

This has just been put on Twitter. by

Hampton Court Rescue

‏@HCRCMary

With 4 days left on its Plan/Perm, Planning Inspector upholds Gladedale's Appeal over @HamptonCourt development. Palace views doomed @HRP RT

So it looks like the modern "development" (what an ironic word that is) is going ahead!!  That would be such a shame.  Thames Ditton needs to get their emergency plans in place asap - or so it seems.

Not so fast! Yesterday, Andrew's case questioning the legitimacy of Elmbridge's approval of one essential condition has been up for judicial review at the Royal Courts of justice.  News awaited.

Oh Keith - is that one last straw to clutch at?  I hope so.  As it all seems so very complicated - will you let me know when the final decision has been made.  Many thanks.

Alas I gather that the case was lost.  There seems little now in Gladedale's way.  Sad.

Oh no - very sad.  Now we need to protect Thames Ditton while the work goes ahead. 

Elmbridge Borough Council Tory councillors have disgracefully steamrollered through this huge and damaging 'development', wilfully ignoring the views and wishes of local residents and all the local ward councillors. 

Council officers also recommended the scheme for approval, and have assisted Gladedale at every juncture during the planning conditions. 

The Tories were so keen to force the scheme through that they flew one of their councillors back to the UK to outvote the local ward councillors via their customary bullying en bloc voting tactics.   

John O'Reilly, leader of the Tory administration, cynically dismissed meetings when councillors were meant to consider and democratically vote on the numerous planning conditions as a 'mere beaurocratic exercise'.

Now the council has awarded Gladedale full planning permission

- the 500 year old settings and views of Hampton Court Palace will be lost for posterity
- severe traffic congestion will ensue in the Hampton Court Way and the whole area during the three year construction period
- Hampton Court Station users will use Thames Ditton station during this period, clogging up our roads.
- Increased traffic congestion once the development is built including right turns into the Hampton Court Way just before Hampton Court Bridge.


We have a council that blatantly ignores the views of the residents that pay for it.   

This is likely only the first of many similar planning episodes - could we initiate a Vote of No Confidence in Elmbridge Borough Council ?? 

The Conservative Party promised before the last general elections that they would introduce a power of local referendum at the initiative of the community on any issue.

This is another pledge that has not been honoured.  In fact, they did 'try', but the legislation was amended in the Lords.

Referenda can be held on Neighbourhood Plans (we don't have one) and council tax.

The matters are set out here:  http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03409.pdf

I suggest a stone monument be erected at Hampton Court with the names and party of all the councillors who voted through this scheme engraved upon it.

I agree with the stone monument because the people that have allowed that historical view to be obliterated need to be remembered by all in the years to come. 

I know I've asked this before BUT how do we flag this urgent issue up for a Resident Association Meeting (which reminds me I haven't paid my "dues" this year how to I do that now?}

Seem to recall David Cameron's speech :-

"I'm making clear that big change and a new politics is exactly what people can expect from a Conservative government.

"We will begin a massive redistribution of power in our country, from the powerful to the powerless, from the political elite to the man and the woman in the street."

Perhaps the inscription on the stone should be :-

To Cameron's 'Power to the People' pledge and all those who sank with her!

A bemused
Midibob

I see this site now has planning - I do take your point about the view but its only really affected when driving on the road. I look forward to the views from the new restaurants and if I can afford it from one of the apartments!

Stones, can be moved like in Kingston and this is in my mind what Cameron wants and is good for jobs, regeneration of areas.

The period during which there will be no parking at Hampton Court station, is two years.  Hampton Court station users will park in Thames Ditton roads instead.  

There will also be disruption to traffic when new drainage and other services are laid under the Hampton Court Way, and when the road system is altered in the area near to the development.

But if whoever buys Gladedale (Lloyds are putting it up for auction) runs out of cash during construction of the new underground car park, then there would be no station parking for an unspecified period.   

I understand there are no legal 'bonds' between Network Rail and Gladedale (or their successor) that would require the development to be funded to continue in the above circumstances.  This is normally standard practice in large scale developments. 

Elmbridge Borough Council assured Councillors such bonds were in place when they voted to pass the development, then later said he knew of no bonds in place.

Southwest trains should have information about the degree of disruption to the Thames Ditton train service.

Print a subscription form off (see top left of home page for link) and mail with subs to Peter Haynes or leave in envelope with subs at Boots TD High St.  Look forward to seeing you at the Open Mtg.

Never let it be said that Emberman turned down an opportunity to make a party political point. But let's just clarify a few matters, shall we?

1. The original vote on Gladedale's planning application was not whipped. Yes, the then leader of the Counoncil was obviously in favour. But if you check the votes there was not a 100% Conservative vote in support.

2. Some of the Molesey councillors have opposed just about every subsequent application for confirmation that planning conditions have been met. They have not commanded the support of other non-Conservative members of the planning sub-committee.

3. Gladedale's travel plan was opposed by Conservative councillors.

4. This supposedly hell-bent pro-Gladedale council then spent thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money defending the decision to refuse approval for the travel plan. Sadly, the inspector then approved it.

5. The same Council officers who have supposedly supported Gladedale at every turn also approved the application to develop the site as an open space. Unfortunately the site is not in public ownership and no-one who opposes the planned development has been able to amass enough cash to buy Gladedale (or their creditors) out.

Still, why let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

Thanks Admin - have found form and printed it off.  Will deliver it to Onslow Gardens.  Will try to attend open meeting.

Elmbridgeblue's post is disingenuous in overlooking the basic fact that Elmbridge tory councillors used their majority to steamroller this development through against the views of local residents, and the local Molesey and Thames Ditton ward councillors, who democratically represent them, all of whom voted against the development.  So the Tory's ignored the views and wishes of the residents living close to the development who will be directly affected by that.    Isn't that deeply undemocratic ?   

PS I understand Elmbridgeblue is Steve Bax, unsuccessful Tory Candidate for Molesey in the recent elections.

So if the Conservatives didn't want it, Labour didn't want it, RA didn't want it .............  who did want it?

Below are two tweets from Roy Green, Residents Association Councillor for Hersham:

11 June: Every Tory councillor who voted in favour of this should resign in disgrace! No care about history or community.

11 June: Remember House Builders Fed gave Tories [6 million] donation last year. It stinks! Why vote Tory?
See https://twitter.com/hershamroy

And from John Higgs

"Absolutely disgraceful decision - I guess money talks louder than history and what residents want".

The fact is that none of the EBC Residents Association Councillors voted for the Jolly Boatman development.   The Tories used their majority to undemocratically force it through against the views of Molesey and Thames Ditton residents and councillors.

John O'Reilly, Tory leader of Elmbridge Council, made the jaw dropping statement in a BBC Radio interview that he considered 'the architecture was just about OK'   

Is that appropriate for a large high density complex buildings directly opposite Hampton Court Palace, one of the most important historic palace complexes in Europe, and the second most visited visitor attraction in the UK ??

Residents are still waiting for O'Reilly to explain why his party forced this development through against the views of local people and the ward councillors who democratically represent them ?  Perhaps Mr Bax could also explain this in his next post ?

No Emberman, it really is NOT ok to say that the architecture is "just about ok".  That statement is appalling.  A beautiful site, right on the river, opposite the amazing Hampton Court, should not be ruined by just about OK development.  Oh dear - how can we stop this happening?  We are just too "nice" aren't we - any other country would be demonstrating in the streets.  We just sit and "write" about it. 

There's an online survey on the link below on the Crossrail2 proposals (one of which will bring crossrail through Thames Ditton to Hampton Court station.

Crossrail2 has the potential to transform Thames Ditton and the wider area (for the better) and probably to raise house prices. 
However the proposed demolition of the station and sale of the station land by Network Rail to Gladedale will be to the detriment of Crossrail2. 

Gladedale's proposed development would demolish part of the historic but neglected station designed by Sir William Tite in the 1840s, would reduce the number of platforms from the current possible 4 down to 2, and also reduce car park spaces and passenger circulation space. 
This seems shortsighted, given the extra space and facilities a Crossrail2 terminal will surely need.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail/2/consultation/intro/view

Sorry slow response to the above post.

I had a look at the TFL cross rail consultation on the website:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/27405.aspx

And the two proposals I saw (metro vs regional) seemed to extend as far Wimbledon (metro) and Kingston/Surbiton (regional) but not quite Hampton Court.

In some ways Surbiton makes more sense (much as we'd prefer it nearer us) - as that is more of a hub with all the SW trains passing through.

Is there anywhere with information on how the proposal would look through Hampton Court?

I would think that with the two maps that are currently on the website with the consultation period now open - its not something they are looking at - but I never understand how these things work.

I know it says something like these are just indicative stations and nothing has been finalised but I'd be interested in the 'map' showing Hampton Court.

Edit:
I should learn to google BEFORE I post!

It would seem one thing being considered is running the cross rail west of surbiton - now that would make sense as SW trains already provide fast trains down to the, well, south west...

The wiki page google brings up is good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail_2

Quote:
"On 5 February 2013, business group London First's Crossrail taskforce (chaired by former Secretary of State for Transport Andrew Adonis) published its recommendations [1] on Crossrail 2, favouring a route almost identical to the regional option above. Later the same day, Network Rail endorsed the plans. Proposed changes from previous plans were:

Services west of Surbiton would go to Hampton Court instead of Woking "

And here is the full proposal mentioned in the above post:
http://londonfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/LF_CROSSRAIL2_REPORT_AW_Single_Pages.pdf

Page 25:
"Second, commuters using suburban
services on the Kingston, Epsom,
Chessington and Hampton Court routes
into Waterloo, would be offered a step
change in capacity, journey times and
choice of central London destination
from their local station."

And a nice map on page 26!

Not so sure we want house prices to go up any further (already being priced out of our upgrade!) but a new fast service would be well... amazing...

I was wondering about this at the weekend. The proposals I have seen show Hampton Court and Surbiton as stops but make no mention of Thames Ditton. Would TD station be closed? I can't see them running an additional stopping service from Hampton Court just to service it.

Thats a good point.

I would've assumed cross rail would be in addition to the existing service ?

From the little googling I have done - cross rail appears to be standard gauge so I would not think the existing tracks would be a problem (though may well need an 'upgrade').

And I guess scheduling a service won't be too tricky seeing as we only have 2 trains an hour right now (at best!).

My understanding is that under the regional option they would add tracks to Surbiton. All of the plans I have seen mean no improvements for TD and HC.

Hi - does this mean (have skim read document) that we could potentially get a train from Thames Ditton to Tottenham Court Road without changing trains?

We'll have to wait around 20 years until the early 2030s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21333361

Have your say here with the official Crossrail 2 Consultation (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/27405.aspx)

(http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/ScreenShot2013-07-23at183852_zpsb2aa1db7.png)

::)  Oh 20 years - well won't hold my breath then

Just heard Gladedale are poised to sue the council for massive costs over their successful appeal against the council's rejection of the Jolly Boatman travel plan.

No doubt Gladedale is delighted that even more tapayers' cash is about to swell its profits (it is set to be sold off by Lloyds, itself bailed out by taxpayers).

It is important for residents to write to O'Reilly, the tory leader, to give him a strong message we expect the council to appeal against these costs which we will all have to bear.....

Meanwhile a food bank is needed in affluent Cobham, to help residents who can't afford to eat.

Surely council funds go to help these people, rather than spending massive amounts of our money enabling this crass scheme to go ahead that residents do not want, will not benefit residents at all, and which all the local ward councillors voted against ?     

Profoundly undemocratic behaviour from the tory led councillors, who used their majority to steamroller the development through. 

Elmbridgeblue - alias Steve Bax, unsuccessful tory candidate for Molesey, has fallen silent on this matter.....

There's just no satisfying Emberman, is there? The Council opposes part of Gladedale's plan, they are taken to the Planning Inspector, they spend money on lawyers to defend the decision but lose. They are hit with a costs order because the Inspector thinks the decision to refuse planning permission was perverse. Perhaps Emberman would prefer that Elmbridge had done what he suggested they do when the original decision was judicially reviewed - i.e. not defend the claim and let the court / inspector decide. I didn't read him suggesting that. Now he wants the council to spend more taxpayers' money appealing this costs decision irrespective of the merits. Flip, flop, flip, flop.

Any sensible litigant faced with a decision like this one would take legal advice on the prospects of winning an appeal, and decide accordingly. That is probably what Elmbridge will now do. As it has always done under Conservative control, spend taxpayers' money wisely.

On his other point, the Cobham food bank is being organised by Churches Together, an umbrella group of local churches. A voluntary organisation which knows the local need best. Big society in action, for Emberman's information, not Stalinist state control, which appears to be his answer to everything. Along with handing over taxpayers' money to lawyers.

By the way, I have no idea who Emberman is, so how he "knows" I'm Steve Bax I really cannot guess.

Could Elmbridgeblue please explain why it was that the tory councillors used their majority to steamroller the jolly boatman development through, riding roughshod over the wishes of all the local ward councillors, all of whom voted against the scheme, and who democractically represent residents who elect them.

This overruling of the local ward councillors by the Elmbridge tory councillors seems to run contrary to the role of the borough council, which is to represent the views, wishes and interests of the local community. 

Residents look forward to reading your response.

Five months later...residents are still awaiting Elmbridge Blue's explanation....and are puzzled why has it taken so long to receive a response from the would-be Tory candidate for Molesey ? Why were the Tories so keen to force the Jolly Boatman through when local councillors and the residents they represent do not want it ?

Oh dear, I see Emberman had nothing better to do in the run-up to Christmas other than re-hash his tired old anti-Conservative conspiracy theories once again.

I refer Emberman to a post I wrote back in April last year, which he either hasn't read or has conveniently forgotten about:

"I have looked at the minutes of the special Council meeting on 18th December 2008, freely available on the EBC website. First, there was a motion to refuse planning permission for the current proposed development. It was defeated 33-23, with all the Tories bar the deputy mayor voting against plus 2 Lib Dems and one RA councillor. Then there was a positive motion to grant permission for the current controversial proposal. It was carried 29-24, with the same 2 Lib Dems and 1 RA councillor supporting the proposal. This time 3 Conservatives abstained in addition to the deputy mayor. Had the 2 Lib Dems and the RA councillor voted against it, this development would have been refused permission."

I can't speak for the reasons which led individual members to support the proposal. The support of the Star & Garter home would have had something to do with it, I suspect, as would the fact that no other proposal for improving this eyesore was in the offing nor likely to come forward so far as could be seen at the time. Further, it is a well-established principle that planning decisions are not taken solely by the councillors local to the site. That is a sensible rule as local councillors are more likely to be swayed by the fear of losing their seats and therefore will be unable to give any consideration to the greater good of the borough as a whole.

"a motion to refuse planning permission for the current proposed development. It was defeated 33-23, with all the Tories bar the deputy mayor voting against plus 2 Lib Dems and one RA councillor. "

There you are then.

Also,  Mr Bax, who was then a journalist on the Surrey Advertiser I believe, did not add his name to the pu8blic objections although he could have done so quite freely as a private individual and resident of Molesey.  Also, Mr. Bax, despite trying to convince Molesey voters  that he was not in favour of the development and would prefer a greener version, and no longer a journalist but a Conservative candidate trying to get himself elected as a councillor to begin a political career, never added his name or a missive to Elmbridge Council among those supporting the excellent alternative planning proposal put forward by Andrew Roberts and Keith Garner.

There's such disgust with politicians and their empty "promises" if only they are elected!.  Labour, Conservative,  Liberal are proven liars. My friends in Molesey are going to support UKIP.

Oh and Elmbridge blue forgot to mention that the resolution to refuse planning permission for the Jolly Boatman overdevelopment, which was voted down by all those Tory councillors, was proposed by the Elmbridge Residents and Independents councillors.

Construction on the Jolly Boatman site is due to start now. 

We should expect a considerable increase in station parking in Thames Ditton while Hampton Court Station car park is closed for the three and a half year construction period, which was approved by the Elmbridge tories. 

A further unknown is the length of time the Hampton Court and Thames Ditton line will be closed during the Jolly Boatman construction, or whether the franchise the tories agreed with Southwest Trains requires them to run replacement buses during this period.

Its still so gutting that this actually is going ahead the way it is.

On a side note - how high did the water get on the site recently?

If I recall correctly one of the objections to the plans was that it would be a new development on a flood plain.

If I look on the website:
http://www.hamptoncourtrescuecampaign.com/why_we_say_no.htm

The implications there are to the safety of building an underground car park.

The railway bridge over the river Mole at Hampton Court Station was only one or two inches away from flooding during the recent high water levels.   

The Jolly Boatman development is due to start this month: Hampton Court station users will park in Thames Ditton during the three and a half year construction period when there will be no car parking at Hampton Court station.

Construction of the huge Jolly Boatman development at Hampton Court Station was due to start in March, so is presumably now imminent. 

Presumably Hampton Court Station car park users will park in Thames Ditton instead while the car park is closed during construction work

For how long will the Hampton Court and Thames Ditton line be closed and what alternative arrangements will be made ?

What will the situation be if Avant Homes (formerly Gladedale) run out of cash and stop construction while building the two storey underground car park ?  Will there be no car parking nor train service for Thames Ditton and Hampton Court for an unspecified period ?

Tory run Elmbridge Borough Council forced the development through against the wishes and better judgement of all the local ward councillors.

What contingency plans do they have in place for the while Hampton Court Station and its car park is closed during the three and a half year  construction period ? 

Now Steve Bax has been elected councillor for Molesey North, will he stop the Jolly Boatman site development ?  That was his election manifesto in the previous elections.

When did a politician keep his word?

Won't be long before Mr Bax is trying to get on the A list of Conservative candidates for Parliamentary elections, Molesey is just the first rung of the greasy ladder I reckon!

See the HCRC's latest bulletin for an update on the Boatman (now landfill) and Gladedale (now "Avant Homes"), copy here: BOATMAN_LANDSCAPE2LANDFILL.pdf

Molesey RA councillors are urging the council to clear the mess up. 

More importantly, it will be interesting to see whether Bax, now elected councillor in Molesey, delivers more than just more fine words against this project. 

Does Mr Bax, now Molesey tory councillor, have a solution to address the mayhem which is going to ensue in Molesey and Thames Ditton during the three and a half year construction period - during which there is likely to be no parking at all at Hampton Court Station, and no train service at Thames Ditton or Hampton Court ?

(This catastrophic development was forced through by the Elmbridge tories and our MP, for reasons only known to themselves). 

All the local ward councillors, who represent the local residents who will be worst affected), voted against it.  It was also vigorously opposed by Historic Royal Palaces, English Heritage, London Borough of Richmond, Thames Landscape Strategy and countless more bodies and individuals).

As far as I know, no-one has been able to obtain an answer from Gladedale/Avant, Network Rail nor Southwest trains about a strategy during the construction period.

Meanwhile the site has now become a rubbish dump.  The fine landscaping generously given by Historic Royal Palaces for the Olympics has been wrecked by Gladedale/Avant so that it has become an eyesore.     ™

A fine mess, thanks to the elmbridge tories...and Mr Bax remains silent since winning Molesey seat, based on a campaign 'promise' to resolve the Jolly Boatman fiasco.   Merely fine words from Mr Bax...or does  he have the solution to this crisis ?

According to Gladedale’s approved construction programme, March 2014 should have marked the start of Phase 1 of its Hampton Court Station/‘Boatman’ site development, yet months later, there is still no sign that the Planning Application has been progressed.  On the contrary the Jolly Boatman plot has been allowed to deteriorate from an attractive grassed open space (generously landscaped by Historic Royal Palaces), to an eyesore of a hoarded landfill site blocking views of Hampton Court Palace ?  (Ironic that Gladedale used the word 'eyesore' to justify their development....)

What has gone wrong ?  Is the scheme not going to happen, or is the extended disruption in Molesey and Thames Ditton caused by the scheme and lack of station parking about to begin ? (The construction period is three and a half years - that is, if Gladedale / Avant doesn't run out of cash and downs shovels half way through - it has already been rescued from the brink of collapse once before - with taxpayers' money).

Does anyone have any news about the site, or contingency plans during construction ?

It has been a while since any comment on this matter, and even longer since any activity on the site.  Anybody know what is happening ?  I pass it regularly, and it is still a horrible eyesore.  When the workers came to clear the illegal fly tip, I asked them why the attractive landscaping for the Olympic Cycling event wasn't left until the development began;  they were as mystified as I was.    Why isn't EBC doing something about it ?

I do not know why the Hampton Court Rescue campaign approach Lloyds bank who have shares in Avant in exchange for Avant/Gladedale not being able to repay loans.Correct me if I am wrong.

When Crystal Palace Football Club went into admin, the ground was owned by Lloyds.A campaign was set up to approach Lloyds so that the football club did not go into administration. The fans picketed Lloyds HQ on a day they were making a decision.The fans said the club was part of the community.Thousands of people would be affected if the club went bust.If the Jolly Boatman  was to be developed it would have a negative effect on thousands of people.Palace fans told Lloyds that the would cancel bank accounts, change mortgage providers etc losing Lloyds thousands  if not millions of pounds.

Lloyds decided  it would be good publicity on their part  and they let the new owners buy the ground on the cheap which Lloyds owned.Good P.R. for Lloyds bank as it is owned by the public as well.

The rescue campaign should approach Lloyds.