Residents' Association Forum

Just received a letter from Caring Homes announcing that there will be a drop in session on Thursday 13th December between 10am and 5pm at the Old Swan to discuss the proposals.

Good to see there is at least some progress being made finally.

[img width=500 height=475]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/ScreenShot2012-12-04at154600.png[/img]

saw that, agree, good news, it looks v sorry for itself at present.

Hmmm parking at the HoC eh ?

Maybe they can open that up to customers of the swan for a small rental!!

;)

Thanks for posting that up, Ratty.  We were awaiting confirmation from CH and if readers would like the letter as a pdf file, and also two sets of drawings, I have put them where they can be downloaded here:

letter re open drop-in session at Swan 13 December:
http://residents-association.com/pdfs/HOC_notice_Dec2012.pdf

plans
http://residents-association.com/pdfs/HOC_1_revised_Dec2012.pdf
http://residents-association.com/pdfs/HOC_2_revised_Dec2012.pdf

Some years ago Caring Homes held a similar session for the original plans (of which these are a modification), at the Home itself, and it was well worth going along and talking to the architect etc.  So I urge all who are interested to do likewise on this occasion.

Your views after the event will be of considerable interest in formulating a response from the Association to CH and an eventual planning application.  Last time round (and unlike some other developers one could mention) Caring Homes played the consultation and the application very fairly, I thought.

Just bringing this back up to the top, as it is on tomorrow, in case anyone was thinking of going.

can anyone who goes report back pls, I'm stuck in office all day

I've just been along to see the plans.

Overall, I think they are OK - there are some additions with leaded roofing along the High Street view and a large extension on the left hand side (as seen from the river) which looks to be in keeping with the existing property.

Given that something has to be done for the building to be viable at all, this look reasonable and practical to me.

My main concern is that a large area running behind the wall from the HoC to the Swan is going to be a 32 space carpark, delivery area and additional slipway. Although I doubt there will be a massive amount of traffic flow given that it is a residential home, nevertheless that is an awkward corner already and I don't think increasing use of those access points will be a good idea, especially when there is a much smaller proposed car park at the back which could be extended instead.

Also, at such a prominent part of the street scene it has potential to be rather ugly. It looks like the leylandii which currently block the river view from the road will be gone (hurrah!) to make way for the car park, but that additional tree screening will be planted between the carpark and the remaining lawn which may again block the view. (Hard to tell at this stage)

So, those are my views at this stage. The plans will be going in after Christmas so there will be more time for discussion/support/objection then.

The plans look reasonable to me.

I was particularly interested in the changes from the plans previously approved, to increase the accommodation for inmates to 79 beds.  The architect assured me that the elevations as seen from the river and from the High St were unaltered, except that the roof lines at either end of the current chapel and stable complex are now simplified, and the glass cupola in the middle of the roofed walkway along the High St side has now been eliminated.

The change to enable additional accommodation (he explained) is entirely the doglegged extension to the new wing, visible from the Boyle Farm Road side.  That elevation is not shown in the pdf files we had been given, but was displayed on the exhibition board.  I would not object to it.

We discussed the unexplored tunnel-like structure heading riverwards from the basement.  The architect thought it most likely had been a surface water drain.  That and the unresolved aspects of a former ice-house makes me think that as a condition, there should be at least some brief archaeological exploration of the site before building.

Orrr it could be Henry the VIII's secret tunnel from the palace to Thames Ditton - so he could make night time visits to his numerous concubines!!

;)

Aaaarrrggghhh not that old hogwash again!

More likely an outlet from the Fitgeralds' khazi (or laundry) into the R. Thames.

Isn't there supposed to be a tunnel going under the High Street?

someone will be along in a minute suggesting we dig a tunnel from TD to London to avoid the A3, we can fund it with magic beans which you can exchange for car park tickets ;)

Different tunnel - you're referring I think to the one Mercer outlines (T & S p.29), in Henry Fitzgerald's time, from Boyle Farm to its kitchen garden on the other side of the High St; later used for laundry to/from the children's home (those nuns again) that was set up in Boyle farm cottage in the mid 1900s.

The one we're talking about leaves from the basement bay  (which is double skinned, presumably as a barrier against damp in the cellar there) pointing straight towards the river and is modest sewer pipe size (small man crouching), angling downwards till it forks and then gets dangerously wet & muddy, hence that's as far as anyone's been down lately

Ah probably not the one Henry the VIII used then. I'd imagine he would get a much bigger tunnel built for himself!

Interested to hear the feedback from Boyle Farm "inmates".  I note some of the original objectors have moved away - which is extremely bad form.

There was a terrific brouhaha from High Street residents when H0C tried to cut down the leylandii!  In the end just lopped the top off.

Having talked to a few residents, it seems the main objection emerging is to the positioning of the large and unsightly car park proposed between the building's fine façade and the river (this too is a variation on the original plans approved some years ago).  They argue that this car park really ought to be on the other side of the building between the new extension and BF Road.

There's a lot to be said for their arguments (not least, that planning permission for it is, I gather, unlikely to be granted and thus the application as a whole could fail, which would in my view be unfortunate)

Why would anyone object to thair removal? There used to be a lovely view of the river which the relatively recently planted and hardly conservation-worthy leylandii blocked very quickly given their fast growing nature.
On the contrary, my neighbours and I have been wanting them removed for years. 
There are other trees - especially the tall one with the flat-ish top that I don't know the name of - which should be protected (and it seemed from the plans that that one was to stay), but leylandii? Get rid and give us back the river.

im confused about where the view of the river was from? dont blame you for wanting it back, makes perfect sense.

From the High street, over the wall or through the gates, between the HoC and the Swan.
The firs directly against the wall aren't the issue - its the long bank of leylandii at a slight diagonal behind those that block the view.

(I will express a personal bias here, in that the river view was also visible from my house, which is one of the reasons we bought it, although I do know that a right to a view is no argument in planning law.)

no but i can understand why you're peeved, I'd be over late at night with some copper nails! ;)

I am sure CH changed the carpark to placate BF, who are dead against more people entering the estate; but god forbid this aspect delays yet again planning permission.
Please let 2013 be the year of action and the departure of the derelict site, which brings tears to my eyes every time I go past.   
Death to all leylandii!!!

This sounds likely to be the truth.  I can't see Elmbridge and Thames Landscape Strategy, or the rest of the caring village, letting the lovely sweeping grounds to the river be spoiled by a large car park.  Are we going to have another period when the Boyle Farm millionaires block the matter while they try to score some further advantage for themselves? 

I don't think they can block it.  Last time there was the leverage of the covenant, which needed their permission to be varied so that the house could be a private care home.  Their price was to get Caring Homes to build a private slipway for Boyle farm Road residents.  This time it is my belief that planning considerations alone will determine the outcome, and the riverine setting of what is and will remain the key aspect of the former HOC should be a deciding factor.

also you currently dont see the riverline at all because of the hoarding.

OK.  This seems sound logic.

I trust CH read these comments and put the carpark back in BF entry.

PLEASE bring back the heart of TD - and perhaps summer fairs in the grounds and other events.  CH's other homes seem to have a lively community.

I managed to attend quite late on by which time they were suggesting they would most likely drop plans for the new slipway as they "hadn't realised" there was already a public one on the other side of the wall! Given that it cost a six figure sum to install the slipway wangled by the BF residents I can't see why they would go to this huge expense anyway. 

Overall the comments left seemed positive, but most related to the car parking. These seemed to be a mixed bag. Mostly Islanders were positive about the parking as it allays fears of extra competition for the precious parking spaces on the High Street. Some even enquired if they might be able to rent the new ones. 

To me it seems objectionable that Caring Homes should replace the perfectly good existing parking spaces on the BF side with pens (sorry gardens with 4ft walls) for the dementia patients, but then tarmac over the lawn on the High Street side to make up for it. I think Waysider's suggestion can be the only explanation.

I only noticed four bedrooms for staff (one ensuite) so I'm guessing it will mostly be staffed by shift workers?

Yes, the car park seems to be a good opportunity to integrate and solve the park problems in the village.

The Architect also suggested, that they may consider lowering the wall to open up the views.

Yes, great idea.
In fact, if we could get them to tarmac over the whole HoC lawn it would be even better! ::)
All that green space - what a wasted opportunity.

(Or, heaven forbid, people could use the carpark that is already in the village that nobody bothers with.)

Hahahaha.

TDres, I just went to the Red Lion and see exactly what you mean ref the trees, did you approach them to ask for them to be lopped. Would be amazing if you can get a river view again

My neighbour did several years ago when it was still operational and they did cut them back a bit, which helped slightly - you can see the lower halves have been cut at some point, whereas the top halves haven't.

For the last few years there's not really been anybody to contact who could respond with any action and with all the planning stuff going on I daresay they would have been careful what they did anyway.

So I'm hoping something can be achieved either as part of the planning process (preferable) or as 'maintenance' once someone is actually using it again.

TDRes I'm with you.

I really hope this fails. The idea that you can cover a large section of the grounds with a car park is beyond comprehension. If you are charging residents £1000 per week (i.e. £60,000 £70,000 fee income per week) you can afford 8-10 season passes in the Ashley Road car park instead of destroying the finest grounds in the area. As a resident, one of the key attractions to the site is the vista of the river and the grounds. Do you really want to be sitting in the grounds watching cars come and go.  I also think a carpark would be a serious blot on the landscape. 

Caring's strategy is to cram in more high fee paying dementia residents who might need small gardens adjacent to their rooms. They are being incredibly greedy. They have a set of approved plans and gave the TD community a commitment to start building in October 2012. I was one of the few who doubted their commitment. As for the slipway, this is a sacrificial folly that they had no intention of building and I don't buy the "something is better than nothing" mentality, nor do I like the overriding plans which can be summarised as a series of small boxes inside a grand building. For the record, I live in Boyle Farm Estate.

I also note the Thames Landscape Strategy description of this landscape: 
" The trees on Boyle Farm Island and the southern end of Thames Ditton Island combine with trees in large private gardens beyond Boyle Manor to create an impression of rural peace before the treeless terraces of
1960s and 1970s housing and 3-storey apartments further downstream."

Andrew

It's great that Caring Homes offered a 'drop-in session' for the Home of Compassion on Thursday ( see www.residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0), but a shame they didn't recognise the 'village-wide' connection with 'our stately home' and invite more people to attend. Was it neighbouring residents and islanders alone that were invited ? (Thanks Ratty for your post, alerting a wider community).

I see that the RTPI has two publications regarding Community Engagement, a 'Good Practice Guide to Public Engagement in Development Schemes' (rev 2012)  and 'GPN 1: Guidelines on Effective Community Involvement and Consultation' 2007 available via www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/publications/community-engagement-publications that are supported by the CABE 'Open Space Strategies Best Practice Guide' from www.cabe.org.uk. This seems to be complemented with 'grass roots', popular and high profile strategies from Britvic/M&S/BBC 'Flower Pot Gang' and Groundwork (Environmental Charity) focussing on regeneration and examples of what  ' public consultation' and 'engagement' might involve, all of which seem to offer insight into a more inclusive process.

How can we ensure that public and private developments meet the current standards and that public consultation is taken seriously for buildings, open space, green and built infrastructure, rather than 'token gestures' that compromise the future of our shared public and private resources? 

I only found out about it from this forum and I live very close, so no idea who was formally invited.

I do agree that when public consulation is selectively 'advertised' it does rather limit its effectiveness.

I agree it seems that as usual it is for the chosen few again. I see that yet again many people have read the thread but have not engaged within the debate. I sometimes wonder if their is actually that many site users or is it someone just clicking the button :-)
You can never tell these days. I just can't see why so many peep in but then play silent? Is this the way forward for this site?
You seem to see more critical analytical debate at the lime tree on a Saturday lunch hr

Caring Homes mailshotted the immediate area including the High St close to the building, and we published details on this website -  a headline on the home page was put up on 5 December linking to the full details, including the pdf files of the plans provided.  All were welcome to attend - this was not an 'invitation only' event in any sense - unlike the September EBC workshops on the local development plan which were rather a closed shop.

Statistics for the site 5 - 13 December show that there were 4,710 hits on the home page and a much higher number for the forum - but the forum stats are inflated by would-be spammers and their bots (whereas the home page is not their target).  Many read but do not themselves choose to register and post in the forum.

A notice was also posted on the RA information board outside 24 High St.

In fairness, I think that's quite reasonable publication of a consultation that the developers took seriously enough to have their architect and agent at an all-day display.  

As always, the real issue will be what the plans look like when they are actually submitted. 

Dilys, in my humble experience it's the nature of forums that you always have a huge percentage of people who view and only a small percentage who participate. It doesn't always mean people don't care, it's often that people either see their views represented by others so don't duplicate, are nervous of posting or are simply viewing it as one might a newspaper without feeling the need to comment.

Ref Caring Homes, It's a shame more people didn't know about it, it was certainly publicised here and I posted it several times on the About TD facebook page as well as I'm sure, all of us here telling people we knew.

I'm not sure how they decided on the criteria for who got the letter, I'm guessing geographic location maybe, to be fair to them though, they didn't have to do so as far as I know, so anything is better than nothing I suppose.

Agree with Highways contact, would be a shame for the riverside gardens to be turned to car park, is there insufficient space at the top for this to happen?

In this case I am one of those that have been reading this thread and not commenting as I was unable to attend so feel like I need to find out more about the plans first!

I do agree that that a car park where it seems to be suggested is a bad idea - so hope at least that plan is changed.

I am interested in Village matters but find all the important factual "paperwork"/council documents etc difficult to understand and condense down.  I do therefore rely on what people post on here to get a gist on these sort of affairs.  So, I haven't read the paperwork relating to this case - but have seen the information about the car park replacing the gardens and know that this would be an awful addition to our village.  It is hard though, to put a forceful contribution to the debate when I am only acting on "hearsay" (albeit obviously well informed) and haven't read the documentation myself.  I actually think it is the written facts and details which puts me off contributing to many village concerns.

Remind me why they did not just add/ gain planning on the extension whilst continuing their business in the rest of the house? Or are they waiting for it to fall down/rot, like the boundary wall, which they did not see fit to erect.

ermmmm, Bluesky, the home was run by a charitable trust, that has morphed (with the proceeds of the sale) into Walsingham Care, a new charity that has no current connection with the HOC.  The HOC became unsustainable from cumulative regulations, and a need for maintenance and modernisation that was unaffordable - especially when Surrey's health authorities pulled the rug out from a promised grant.  The building was then sold to the present owners.  There was no business to carry on, and the place was unviable under the regs.  The inmates were rehoused elsewhere.

The sale was delayed by the wrangling with Boyle Farm Estate, which for the price of a slipway for their use agreed to change the covenants to permit a commercial care home rather than a charitable one.  Caring Homes got reasonable plans through, then was hit by the financial crisis and could not get the credit from the bank to start building as planned.  

The firm was in dire straits financially but has survived, restructured and improved the balance sheet. I assume, in its attempts this year to get bank credit, it has felt obliged to make the project more viable by increasing the number of beds, hence the proposed extension now to the proposed and approved new wing that was to be built.

Thanks Keith, I have know had a look at their corporate website and must admit they seem to be one of the few Care Companies that are challenging old views. 

Pleased to see that they also have community days, perhaps they could open up the chapel to the public rather like the Clink.

http://www.caringhomes.org/caring-cafe/

In regards to being able to pay for/finance for such ambitious works, I imagine its still flawed because there is now less of a need for such a home as both Anchor's at Moore Place and the a royal Star and Garter have beds under construction. I sense it is a classic white elephant and Caring are wasting money on consultants to create phoney plans to sustain their fixed asset position.      Does anyone know who are the backers,is it Berkeley Homes??  I know, a little cynical 

A few questions to help me see if I've got the gist of a few things. Sorry if I'm a bit late, but I don't get chance to post every day.

In return for a slipway - presumably for private use, though I stand to be corrected - have the Boyle Farm residents relinquished the safekeeping of the charitable nature of the covenant?

Has this now led to the likelihood of a car park between HoC and the river, due to the newly-introduced commercial pressures?

Will it also lead to more extensions (or extension applications) to the building, again for commercial and non-charitable reasons?

Have I understood this all correctly?

Touchpaper

You are correct that the covenant to enable Caring to operate a business was released by BFE when Caring bought the property. This is publicly available info and can be viewed via Land Registry. Everything else is determined by what Caring want to do and what the planning process allows them to do. I think there is also a restrictive covenant preventing any new building towards the river (i.e extending the buildling line Northwards). The issue of carparks, building design, scale, size etc. are all planning issues, ultimately to be determined by Elmbridge.  My guess is that Caring will be mulling over the risk that the carpark will be rejected and what this means for the revised plans. BFE or any BFE residents will be able to make representations on the submitted plans, in the same way that any resident can.  

Any news on this?

I've seen nothing since the open day, nor did they send the copies of the plans that they promised when I was there.

News flash!  - apparently Caring Homes have gone into administration!!!!

What does this mean for the Home of Compassion now?

I would suggest what it means for HOC is exactly what it meant when they brought it 3.5 years ago..... more years of degeneration and decay.

Until the covenant is overturned by the residents of BF to allow a sustainable and economically liable future for the building - e.g. residential development or something to add economic vitality to the village (e.g hotel), the building will lay empty and be at risk from further destruction. 

where did you read it was in administration? 

A hotel would be cool, at then it would be open to the public - I look forward to having a drink on the lawns down to the River. A friend told me about it, as he knew I was local.

I though BF were not involved anymore as their covenant had been bought out, new street lamps and little known river ramp. It's the nuns who have a hold on use however not for much longer.

There is a care home in Colchester which has gone into administration - but not Caring Homes as far a I can see.

Where are these Nuns you are talking about.  The last one is buried in St. Nicks.  Has she had an Easter rising?

I can't find any reference to the Caring Homes Group having gone into administration.

There could be many benefits to the village of a hotel such as local employment and extra footfall for local businesses. However, the main entrance to the HoC is via the private road owned/ managed by the BF residents. As such they are understandably unlikely to be in favour of the extra traffic a hotel would generate and have leverage beyond the covenants - as far as I know.

The debates about who would like what for the HoC have been ongoing for a long time on this and other threads.

Local businesses may like the 'extra footfall' of a hotel but local residents may not - and not just the ones in BF.
We all want to see the village prosper, but there has to be a balance between the 'busyness' required for the centre to survive and TD remaining a pleasant and peaceful place to live. A hotel may generate business for some of the shops but would also probably generate more noise and more traffic.

Anyway, we don't yet know if this rumour is true and, if so, whether the covenant can be changed. We may not get much of a say even then.

Only company I know of going into administration is Castlebeck (nothing to do with Caring Homes). I will keep a look out at work in the journals.

The parent company is Myriad Healthcare and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they are in admin. No announcements on Companies House etc. I am surprised though that they haven't yet filed a new planning app. The big question is can they justify spending £9 mill (my guess) on rebuilding when the could use the money to build on a new site or keep their bank happy by reducing debt? 

Not to mention the cost to keep it secure and ongoing maintenance...

It is actually quite amazing that that lovely plot is being completely wasted as this goes on.

Would it be possible to perhaps open it up to residents of the village (am I being a little too idealistic as I have no idea how this could be policed etc) - I, for example, would happily pay a subscription towards maintenance just to be able to use the grounds in the summer etc?


Could it be something the RA could run and own whilst it is in a state of flux? And raise money to cover teh costs?

i.e. offer to maintain the grounds and perhaps even hire someone (two people) as sort of grounds keepers?

Or is it not worth the effort?

Only real solution for HOC is compulsory purchase. IMHO this historical building is in enough danger to warrant this. It's a rare move but does happen. LBRT compulsory purchased a couple of buildings a few years ago near Richmond Green because of their dire state and historical importance.

I agree. The HOC is much too important a building to be allowed to fall into dereliction (whatever Caring Homes' plans for it really are).  
A more realistic future for the house would be a hotel, houses, apartments, offices or a combination.

I believe that Elmbridge do inspect the building from time to time and despite the sad appearance, I understand  that it isn't deteriorating.  I would much rather see it as a small block of apartments (say 8-10) which retained as much of the integrity of the building as possible. If you look at the care home building, they are creating 79 small boxes in a grand old building. A compulsory purchase looks a very long way off. 

Rudi - interesting point!

From the proceeds of a sale to an hotel operator hopefully the council can fill in the holes in the road and perhaps give some waterfront public space to the village. 

How does the council carry out a compulsory order such a building?

I know loads of hotel groups who would love to have a go at converting this building - not sure why caring homes are not occupying the property and converting now in accordance with the planning app, they already have - surely it's easier for them to get planning for a few extra rooms later on.

Apparently, their consultants BTP have been ill-advising them so that their own clients can acquire!! That's the word on the street anyway (or in the WestEnd).......there is something very dodgy happening

Any news on last night's planning committee?

I didn't think this was on the agenda last night.

I see Caring have submitted a new Site Layout drawing. Given that the drawing has been submitted at this late stage and is one of many alterations, it would help if they could also provide a document detailing the changes, some of which are obvious.  Given that the drawing was produced on 9 Jan, it is frustrating that they have delayed submission for this long. In terms of landscaping it seems a real shame that they feel the need to remove the large Yew near the North entrance. It also seems odd that given that the EA clearly stipulated no hard landscaping within 8 metres of the river bank buffer zone that they are showing extensive decking in this area.  They haven't reduced the mass of the East Wing which English Heritage objected to.  I'm also pretty sceptical that the "Arrival Plaza and "porous paviors" are another way of describing a car park! 

It is ridiculous to expect people to be able to keep track of all this and to keep commenting and re-commenting, especially when the plans are so large and detailed.
I agree with HC - it should be a condition of resubmission that new plans are accompanied by a list of all changes so that people have a fair chance to assess the situation without fear that something has been 'slipped in' that will be missed.

I can't see them winning this one. I understand from their building surveyors that there is now severe water ingress into the building increasing costs again because of the winds and the buildings deep basement. 

Tdres - suggest you make your views hearda at the committee meeting.

I quite like the look of Moore Place, Esher myself if I ever need a bed!

Also why isn't the entire west wall reduced to 600 and why is the view also obstructed by an elec. substation and bike rack.

Many of the existing drawings have been superseded by the revised layout which makes it very difficult to understand which drawings are part of the application.  All of the landscaping plans are now pretty much obsolete. I'm also struggling to understand what they are doing with the fixed moorings.  The EA stated that these should be for residents so why do they need to use the whole length of the site, which is an elegant listed wall, for moorings? They claim that the moorings are "fixed". What does that mean? Surely they will float and rise and fall with river levels which vary from 4.3m to 7.5m AOD. Where are the piles which the moorings will be attached to?  

Can anyone work out the height of the electrical sub station? The base is set at about 1 metre off the ground (to avoid flooding) but I can't see any dimensions.  The substation protrudes onto the path down to the river. I don't think they have thought this one through.  Also, I can't understand why they are keeping all the riverside tarmac - the old car park. If you have a landscape plan and cars are not an option, wouldn't you remove this tarmac?  

There are plans for these here
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans-1755395.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1755395&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1
under the previous application.

They give some dimensions, not including height, but by eye the substation height appears to be 4m plus the roof, if drawings are to scale. I have commented in previous objections that a perspective view of this area would be useful but none has been provided. It certainly seems to be a substantial building and English heritage also commented that it was detrimental to the setting of the folly tower.

Thanks for that. The bin store drawing is completely different from the new site layout.  Who knows which one they will run with. Agreed, the substation looks to be 5 metres high, plus the 1 metre base (ffl level flood proofing).  So, they are proposing a new building in the riverside grounds which is 6 metres high and in the middle of a path. 

What is obvious is that this application is in no way trying to be sensitive to the integrity of the beautiful original building.  You would think that we would be able to rely on Elmbridge to do the right thing and act as guardians of these sorts of buildings but as the Jolly Boatman shows, we cannot.

I think it is deplorable that such a magnificent building should be discedited in this way.

Boyle Farm - release the covenant so that it can be developed as a hotel, or multi occupancy block of flats on the condition that the original footprint cannot be enlarged and that the integrity of the original building be preserved. No red brick, no UPVC, no 6 foot high substations and no Barrett style block paving.

The motivation is purely to achieve maximum profit.  

There is no concern for the environment, for historic and beautiful buildings, nor for the poor residents of the proposed 'care' home.

Elmbridge Borough Council is always more than willing to assist greedy developers achieve their goal - be it the Jolly Boatman, Home of Compassion or the demolition of locally listed Moore Place, etcetera ad nauseum...

The application will be considered at the Area Sub-Committee meeting on Monday 10th March, starting 7.45pm at the Civic Centre.

Planning officer is recommending approval of this, in the meeting agenda papers.

Unbelievable - even for Elmbridge Borough Council.....I would imagine English Heritage will object though.

There is obviously plenty of local interest and concern in the future of this great building, and HOC need to make there acquisition into a viable business plan. 
Dependant on cost and commitment there may be a opportunity to submit an offer to part or whole purchase the building from a consortium of local investors (residents of TD), who can work as a team to ensure for a positive future of building benefiting the village life and a decent  return on investment. 
I would certainly be interested .... :)

You must have very deep pockets!    What's your business?

I see there is a new roof drawing uploaded yesterday. This is very late in the day. They also submitted a site layout drawing in February which was post all of the consultation responses. This drawing had substantive changes, including changes that conflict with consultation advice.  For example, the EA requested no landscaping within an 8 metre buffer zone and the drawing shows decking at up to 2 metres from the river. 

When applicants submit new drawings so late in the day it would be helpful if they included a short explanatory note to say if there are any changes to existing drawings and what new features are shown that weren't shown in previous drawings. 

I also see that they have lodged a conditions application in relation to the 2008 scheme. No documents attached at this point but if they are refused permission on Monday night they will have a race against time to get the 2008 conditions signed off before they are timed out. English Heritage were very negative towards the current scheme and also inferred that they did not like the 2008 scheme. 

Thanks for this. (2014/0855)
There don't seem to be any documents associated with it and no neighbours to be informed. Is this because of the nature of the application? Very few neighbours were informed with the original 2008 app (which may explain why it went through!)

With my cynical hat on, the timing of this seems to be 'if you don't approve on Monday you'll get the old one which was worse'.

Neighbours don't tend to be informed on conditions, but no reason why they can't comment if they spot the application. The 2008 scheme had an East Wing which was about 8 metres smaller (north south) and preserved the trees and much of the car park to the south. I think is one gigantic exercise in bluffing. Why have they spent so much time and money on the current scheme if they are perfectly happy to proceed with the 2008 scheme?  

I've heard if they don't get planning on Monday, they have agreed to sale to a private consortium of high net worth entrepreneurs. 

Would they be connected with the Boyle Farm Estate or are they completely unconnected, bluesky?

We will have to wait and see - the hearing is tonite! I suspect the guys on Boyle farm, aren't quite rich enough - try the Wentworth estate or Kensington Gardens.

A further revised site plan has now been provided - very late in the day with no time for comments or objections. Hardly a sound process.

However, the only changes that are marked are the removal of the moorings along the Thames and the electricity substation. Both good things IMO, though it does make me wonder where the substation has gone! Or have they decided thay don't need one after all? Very odd - but I'm not complaining.

Where is the amended drawing?

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2013/4334

Right at the bottom

Got it!, If you are using the new interface you don't see it. They have also removed the addition to the asphalt in the rear garden. 

Tdres  - these minor changes don't change the fact that is a totally oversized development. Was the meeting a storm in a tea cup or a genteel a fair?

You might want to edit that

The really disappointed thing was that the non-resident councillors didn't make a single comment. One would that they could add something of value. 

Yes - what was the result??

Both applications were approved with landscaping, materials, etc., subject to conditions which will come to committee. There was a discussion on "taking advice from the Georgian Group" who I think were not consulted on the 2013 scheme and objected very strongly to the 2008 scheme. Amongst other things they didn't like the size of the 2008 east wing and thought that a care home didn't make sense.  

I believe there may be a move for English Heritage to upgrade from Grade II to Grade II * which mean that EH could comment on what happens inside the building. Too late for this now. Caring Homes acknowledged that that they still have covenant issues to resolve.  

I didn't say that it did - just that removing the two elements I mentioned was an improvement. 

Highways - thanks, who was representing Carings last night and l don't understand the remaining covenant problem, what s the issue now?

Nicola Thornton spoke.  Covenants are mystery to everyone except the person who holds them! 

Is it Walsingham Care or the residents of Boyle Farm who hold the covenant or another party??


Maybe it's the Priory of Sion? (Da Vinci code!)    

The building is worthy of grade* 2 listing which will push the conversion up again  - Carings have many more hurdles hence why the Covenant holders are rightly not giving way - this makes the planning app. worthless

Boyle Farm Estate exercises the covenant.

It may be unpopular to say so, but I would be very surprised if the house is upgraded to grade II star.   Primarily, the surviving building is inconsistent in styles and periods.  Boyle Walsingham's Georgian rebuild was remodelled again in 1827 and the exterior, particularly the riverside exterior, was transformed in the early 1890s by then owner Herbert Robertson, a Manchester-born stockbroker in the City.  The nuns built that chapel in the 1920s and while Mercer may have described it as "beautiful" I am not sure that everyone would share that view, particularly as to its external appearance with a ghastly long wall fronting on the High Street.  Internally, institutional use has affected the main building.  In short, the building is something of a hotch-potch, while retaining some merit (and being well-loved locally, including by me, as much for its historical connections and position, I venture, as for its aspect).

I need hardly add that the aforementioned remodellings were done in an era when planning permission was not required.

BF - have been dealt with via their lighting / private moorings. I would be careful in making sweeping statements Keith unless you are a proffessional

Sorry I have to comment (in spite of the fact I normally try and ignore posts that I think are posted by a troller) - as that is a bit out of order. 

This is a forum where people are entitled to their views and comments (as long as they're not abusive / offensive I should add).

I for one find Keiths views to be well researched and very knowledgeable - and welcome his, and for that matter most peoples, contributions.

Further in my opinion he did not make any 'sweeping statement' as such but expressed his opinion and backed it up with historical references. Unless you are referring to him saying the building is 'well-loved locally'?

And as for people making 'sweeping statements' in general... well pot calling the kettle black comes to mind...

Its been a while since I have done a limerick on here: 

Bluesky likes to post on our local forum
With no regard for any proper decorum
He is obviously a troll
Sometimes a bit droll
And often offends the people that make up this quorum


(not my best effort but I was struggling with words that rhyme with forum).

How about " ignore 'em"?  :)

tdres that is genius - I should've thought of that and incorporated it accordingly.

Ah well!

It seems pretty clear that Blue Sky who enjoys posting sweeping statements and attacking others views, is one of those two or three posters who have driven away many other forum members who used to post here but now don't bother most of the time.  Including me.

Junin - why do you get possessive about being your website. -  I've been a resident for twenty years and understand that Caring Homes don't wish tokeep HoC.

It would be interesting to know how you know this and the other info mentioned above.

Probably the same source that leads BlueSky to conclude that this is my website...

For the record - I have nothing to do with this website. 

I just like to post on here and read peoples contributions. 

I say that but I should correct myself:
I _used_ to like coming on here and reading peoples posts but currently I find some people just wind me up.

I'll refrain from posting further and in fact on any contentious topic and keep myself in the areas where I am hoping to actually put a face to a forum name (such as the pub crawls, etc). 

Enjoy your trolling BlueSky.

Bluesky, your post last night could have landed you in a lot of trouble, I see you took my advice overnight and amended it.

Agree, Keith/Admin only ever posts worthwhile and well researched information, not random facts based on what has been overheard in the pub

I work in the west-end for a property fund and I know what's happening in the regions. Keith's view, was his view not fact although he was speaking as if it was.    

Craig - comment was probably a bit close to the skin, we don't want a twittergate in thames Ditton!

Can English Heritage still object, as HOC is Grade II listed, or have both applications now been fully passed (subject to satisfying EBC conditions) ?

The decision notice is online. 

It is sad that there were no objections from planning regarding the lift block/ prison tower and likewise the parking on the riverside.  Point 9 concerning the buffering suggests that the moorings are still part of the approved proposals?

Ratty, the landscape related details are essentially conditioned. If you follow the link below you can find the late amendment to the site layout revision Y. 

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2013/4334

Revision Y removed all moorings and riverside parking. 

Dear Ratty - as you live on Boyle farm you hold the keys to the development - if you are not happy don't grant consent yourselves, as mentioned there I know other buyers who will be willing to do a deal with you and Caring's for either retirement, resi or a hotel - send me a private message if you wish (nothing ventured, nothing gained?)

Caring homes are under constant investor pressure to do something at this site, they can now of course sell with a good uplift now 

Thanks, HC. 

The decision notice states "No development other than that which is necessary for the moorings shall take place within an 8 metre wide buffer zone along the River Thames unless agreed in writing..." Since moorings did not form part of the final revisions (Y) it made me wonder which plans the committee were working to when making their decisions and leaves a grey area were CH to apply an amendment to include mooring.

Good news about the riverside parking though  :)

My understanding of what happened is that the officer report (with the conditions) pre-dates the last amendment to the site layout (the one that omitted the moorings). Possibly they might come back at a later date with an application for moorings. I had a number of concerns re. the moorings. The EA stated that moorings had to be for residents, so even if they had a communal boat to take residents on trips, there was no need for 48 metres of moorings. Also, there was insufficient details on the moorings (no piles etc.). I also had a concern re. the wall which is falling down and needs a full structural survey.. much more than a bit of re-pointing offered by CH. 

Finally a result that everyone was looking for.  Caring Homes contacted Boyle Farm late last night to confirm that they are abandoning their care home project and have sold the site to a hotel group. It will include a restaurant run by the Roux Brothers.  Details to follow.  

I am mindful that this is the morning of April the First....

One more detail just coming through. Boyle Farm have added a covenant that the restaurant operator needs to get Three Michelin stars within two years. 

perfect ;)

Excellent news, if really true ! How much did it. go for??

How I larfed!

_{(Though am grateful to admin for reminding me of the date as prior to that I was starting to fume - naughty HC!)}

ARGH!

I completely missed this post before I posted mine at 11:40.

Honest gov!

Now my joke is even more shameful...!

I see the planning conditions are now online. 2014/1457. Interested to know what you all think. Interested parties can respond in the normal way. 

I'm very surprised by the two Home of Compassion conditions applications. Predictably the windows have been rejected by the conservation consultant who normally takes a light touch and they haven't responded to the EA's desire for a buffer zone by the river. These seems like pretty easy things to fix and ones that should have been anticipated. The whole project still baffles me. There is a very well established bench-mark that care home asset values are circa £100k per room. Given their acquisition costs (£4.3m plus), refurb costs which they claim are £9m and costs to date, the total costs look more like £200k per room for a property which will have above average maintenance and energy costs. The end product will be a pretty ugly building which was once attractive, most of the grounds to the south covered in car parking and a building that doesn't make sense as a care home. You have to wonder how you get funding for such as hopeless project. Given that Boyle Farm have stated publicly that the covenants should not be seen as a barrier to a sensible alternative scheme we can only hope that common sense sees the light of day.  

For reference, the HOC now has a starred Grade two llisting (I confess, somewhat to my surprise, but pleasure):  see http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1030197

The watchtower has been assessed separately as GII but the chapel and the cottage do not make the grade:  see http://residents-association.com/pdfs/HOC_watchtower_listing.pdf

Keith, 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the change is not that it is now listed, but that it has been "upgraded" from Grade II to Grade II *, which means that EH would need to be consulted on future work inside the building and not just the setting and external appearance.  I'm sure someone out there can clarify. 

This must be great news for the Home of Compassion and for local residents, but seriously bad news for Caring Homes.   

Now CH will be obliged to consult English Heritage over even the smallest change to the interior or exterior, and they may be required to rescue it from its state of semi-dereliction into which they have allowed it to slide since they purchased it.   

The listing will surely completely rule out use of the building as a residential care home, for the far-reaching changes to the building required to achieve compliance with the standards required for a modern care home cannot satisfy English Heritage's requirements for its conservation, given its new Grade II* status. 

I suppose CH could still use the HOC building for other purposes, assuming their new building will provide sufficient residential accommodation to be viable ?

There seems to be some movement. Part of the wall by the Swan has been taken down presumably to allow access for the plant equipment?

You are correct, and that was what I meant by 'now has a starred grade II listing' (....as opposed to its former grade II listing....)

The application to vary one of the planning conditions so that they could replace all of the windows in the main building with looky-likey double glazing has been rejected.

I was hearing that there could be some Tudor Archological remains in the basement and gardens at this site,  there is not only a tunnel but also a sacred crypt