Residents' Association Forum

Planning applications have gone in for a major redevelopment of Taggs Boatyard and 29 Riversdale Road.:

Detached four storey building comprising boatyard (380sqm) and offices (119sqm) together with 7 flats with associated parking following demolition of all buildings on site AND Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of all buildings on site (2011/6723)

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2011/6599

Thanks for flagging this up, Ratty.  Food for thought.

What do residents think about this one?

Would mean a massive loss of privacy for me, 3 stories and a roof terrace. Will have to fight this unfortunately.

having looked through these plans and having had a bit more insight into this development I hope we'd get the support of the RA in opposing it. 

Fine on the embankment in London but totally out of character with Thames Ditton, they are even higher than Ferryworks.

Not quite true, according to the dimensioned elevations, but I do agree that it is fairly bulky.

Personally, I feel that it's a huge improvement on the rag tag group of sheds, prefab offices and slabs of concrete that are already there, and I like the fact that the site is still maintaining a link with the river in the form of the boatyard being maintained.  The plans actually would see a reduction in the building area footprint (by 36 m²), and the total height is less than that of existing structures to the side of the site, so the developer cannot be accused of overdevelopment.  

from the Thames elevations it shows height levels above Ferryworks unless what I have been shown is incorrect.

Staring directly at this clearly affects me much more than others, it will have a major impact on us and our neighbours.

7 Properties + offices means more traffic through the village and potentially more parking issues which are already a problem also.

I stand corrected.  I've had another look at the elevations here:
http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Plans-1020087.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1020087&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

And I can see that it does appear to be higher than the works from the Thames (north east) elevation.  The strange thing is that from the North West elevation, it appears to be lower.  I'm not sure what's going on!

I would agree that there is the potential for more traffic through the village, but this is the same for any new development.  There does seem to be suffficient parking on site to cope with it though.

I realise that I'm not winning any new friends in my positive vote for the scheme - sorry!  I guess my views would be different if my property was being overlooked.

One of the purposes of this forum is to sound residents out.  You now join the many who find that planning issues become far more real when they affect you as a resident, and you will find practical support in the Association.  I suggest that you:
- talk quickly to others affected.  You may find that Riversdale Road as well as Summer Road will have concerns.
- with swiftly  collated views, email Graham Cooke (planning convenor) copied to Karen Randolph and Ruth Lyon (Karen is on the East Area Planning Committee; along with Ruth she tends to take a close interest in that part of Thames Ditton) and also Peter Hickman who aside from being county councillor, also chairs the Conservation Area Advisory Committee (this area is on the extremity of the TD Conservation Area).  Graham will help you organise and represent a case based on the current planning regulations and guidelines, and you can energise Islanders and others to lodge any well-reasoned objections with EBC so that the matter has to be promoted to the area planning committee (which I'm pretty sure it would be in any case, given its size and importance).

You might also like to take a closer interest in the forum thread on reform of the planning process: if government proposals are implemented, this kind of development will likely go through ("the default answer is 'yes'") and residents will have no recourse to challenge.  The consultation period is still open.

I cant seem to open from work to see how many spaces they have but ref parking..

7 apartments of this calibre would lead to a minimum of 7 cars not allowing for visitors , I think its 4 offices, that is 8 cars minimum.

Taggs have approximately 15 boats, every group renting one comes in 1 or 2 cars.

You can do the maths

thx Keith

You might also want to ensure that a couple of Islanders attend the Open Meeting on Tuesday 27 September 8.00 pm at the Vera Fletcher Hall to flag the matter up and present views.

Craig

If it concerns you, then you need to get a copy of Elmbridge's planning policy documents (pop into their offices) and get a good understanding of how the proposed building relates to EBC policies. Have a look at previous planning applications in the area (particular the river) and look at how officers have interpreted different applications with respect to these policies. There are a number of policies that relate specifically to building near the river (RTT1,3,6,7 etc), and Environment (ENV) policies.   These for example relate to proximity to the river. Also look at the Planning Inspectorate site. You wil also need to get other residents involved. 

Flood risk will be an area for consideration, particulalry if they are changing the footprint.  

Thanks HC, will be doing all of the above, they seem to have already had a flood risk assessment done, its a pretty comprehensive application.

We've had some classics in recent years where drawings of elevations, and artists' impressions of a site, are executed in such a way as to minimise some features and emphasise other.s- e.g. the pleasing artist's impression that bore no relation to the eventual 'eyesore' in the High Street, elevations of the 'chalet' of flats off Thistledene, that were not exactly what resulted, and one of the Harrow applications where the artist's impression of the frontage was completely shrouded in notional trees and the planning officer required them to resubmit.

Contesting planning applications to produce a better result is a laborious process and often attritional - exploited to the full by professionals for the developers, and countered by unpaid residents whose professions are very different.  This is the process which the government intends to weight even more in favour of the developers, reneging on the pledge they made when in opposition to make the process more 'symmetrical' by giving residents as well as developers the right of appeal.

An interesting twist on this application is that the applicants themselves do not currently own the properties. It is being made by a consortium of foreign domiciled investors who would apparently then only make a move to buy the land if the plans are accepted. However, given the extent and associated costs that they have already gone to with the application it is by no means an idle punt.

The current site is occupied by a house, office space, a boat hire business with at least 11 boats, residential moorings and an operational boatyard and workshops The plans propose maintaining the same amount of offices, expanding the boatyard and increasing the residential dwellings to seven (2&3 bedroom) flats with a four storey develoment. 

Yet, at the same time reducing the maximum capacity of the site by 11 car parking spaces. With local parking already a contentious issue it can only exacerbate the situation and will affect more than just the immediate neighbours.

The design of the development itself is described as being a "modern contemporary marine approach... which contrasts significantly to the historic Ferry Works buildings", i.e. it will look totally out of place by their own admission. One of the things that makes Thames Ditton special for me and is always remarked upon by visitors is the historic villagey look and feel of the place and it seems wrong to let that be destroyed, especially within the designated conservation area. 

It does make me laugh with their snide description of the existing boatyard building as "incongruous". Perhaps they should invest in a dictionary.

what ratty says ref the investors is spot on.

This subject now on the agenda for next Tuesday's  Open Meeting - 27 September

8 objections so far I see.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the open meetings. Were there any outcomes regarding this application proposal? TIA.

Yes:
- interesting background from owner of the house in Riversdale Road involved in the project at the outset and now opposed to its present incarnation.  Details not wholly suitable for publication.  He said that what had started as a modest upgrade to the boatyard and offices had spiralled into a money making scheme out of his control and for which at least two shell companies had been set up by the protagonists, one of which is registered in the Marshall islands for tax purposes.  You get the picture.
- However, objections must be based on the planning guidelines
- General impression is that the height and mass and design are wholly out of keeping with river bank development guidelines, EBC planning guidelines and Conservation Area guidelines
- Conservation Area Advisory Committee was to consider this Thursday (i.e. last night)  I haven't heard the outcome yet but I am sure they will be objecting.
- Graham Cooke, RA Planning Convenor, also on the CAAC, then to write letter objecting on behalf of the RA.
- individuals also strongly encouraged to lodge views with EBC urgently; the more objections, the greater the likelihood of influence.

Craig excused attendance with good wishes from all on account of new baby arrived within past 24 hrs!

Thx Keith, yep all of the above is true. These aren't people with any interest in td.  Financial 
Gain is the only motive.

I have other plans ;)

This application has apparently been withdrawn for the present, prior to reworking and resubmission.  To be watched closely.  It looks like being another long saga.

That's good news that the first chapter has at least come to an end.

Thank you, to everyone who took the time to register an objection.

The letter of withdrawal is here: http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Letter%20of%20Withdrawal-1032771.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1032771&location=Volume2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1[/url]

The case against this overscale and inappropriate development was building,

Meanwhile:  If anyone has substantive traces of applicant "New Thames Ditton Development LLp" with related companies/partnerships and names/addresses of those involved please post here.  The company is without trace on the internet, as far as I can see.  Its agent in whose name the application was made is A Ryley of PRC 
Planning, Masterplanning & Urban Design, 32 Victoria Road, Surbiton.

apropos:  At our Open Meeting a resident noted that there were at least two shell companies connected with this application, at least one of which is in the Marshall Islands (which coincidentally may be beyond reach of the UK Tax authorities)
[url]http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/marshall_islands/jmrcos.html
There are no requirements in the Marshall Islands for annual returns or filings, and there is no public register containing the names of directors or shareholders.  They also offer a favourable Marshall Islands Partnership and Limited Partnership.  There don't appear to be public records of those either.

Looks shady.  Are these the people bleeding our economy dry in the name of "growth"?!

You'll have to address that question to Mr. Ryley when (as expected) he presents his scheme.

[img width=500 height=219]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/New%20Thames%20Ditton%20Development%20LLp/Screenshot2011-10-05at142703.png[/img]

[img width=500 height=273]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/New%20Thames%20Ditton%20Development%20LLp/Screenshot2011-10-05at142751.png[/img]

[img width=500 height=414]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/New%20Thames%20Ditton%20Development%20LLp/Screenshot2011-10-05at142851.png[/img]

[img width=500 height=440]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/New%20Thames%20Ditton%20Development%20LLp/Screenshot2011-10-05at142930.png[/img]

[img width=500 height=379]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/New%20Thames%20Ditton%20Development%20LLp/Screenshot2011-10-05at143857.png[/img]

[img width=500 height=382]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/New%20Thames%20Ditton%20Development%20LLp/Screenshot2011-10-05at143918.png[/img]

Well done Ratty - what a wonderful forum this is.

So - two Marshall Island companies holding New Thames Ditton Developments which is registered at Mr. Parish's London address of 48 Campden Hill Gate (variously Garden Hill Gate and Camden Hill Gate in those documents).  And two individuals usually resident for tax purposes in Switzerland and Sweden.  Neither of whom, one assumes, will be living in Thames Ditton overlooked by their proposed development?

Correct

A new pre-application consultation has been initiated. This time it for proposals by the site owners, Taggs Boatyard and a new company, Thorstone Riverside Ltd.

The preliminary plans are for 9 residential units. One at the entrance facing Summer Road with archway underneath and 8 apartments at the river end with boatyard facilities operating beneath them.

hopeing to meet the developers to talk it through, see what they propose.

Have seen the plans, a lesser scale than previously, one property at the entrance to the site and closer to and on the river. Will be addressing my concerns to the developers who seem to be attempting to be open and frank and embrace concerns, we'll see.

plans submitted with seemingly no changes based on the "consultation" with residents

http://www2.elmbridge.gov.uk/Planet/ispforms.asp?serviceKey=SysDoc-PlanetApplicationEnquiry

Sorry, you may need to copy & paste the following application numbers into the form:

2013/2820
2013/2849

Is there a reason why the RA and Conservation Area Advisory Committee have not commented on this application?  ???

It is both within the historic core of Thames Ditton Village and the conservation area.

I'm not aware of one and will ask Graham what's happening.

Right:

I gather that the CAAC met only on Monday, and heard an excellent presentation from a well-known villager, then circulated for members' approval yesterday a letter outlining strong objections which I think went in today.

Some valuable arguments based on Thames landscape strategy were being awaited.

It is likely that a separate RA letter also objecting will now go in - the main discussion having been in the CAA first - and I await news from Graham.

I have not yet seen the CAAC letter.

Thanks, for the update.

I must disagree with Ratty here, I think this is great for the village as it retains the boatyard business and provides riverside living for those who cannot afford a house on the island, although I'm sure the flats won't be cheap!

I also don't understand what the islanders are on about parking, as they are ones who continue to block-up parking in others areas of the village.  The developer here has provided a tidy solution though out.

Text of graham's letter on behalf of the RA reads:

"We write to object to the above proposal for residential development on this very sensitive site within the Conservation Area.

The proposal is for a large and imposing structure that cannot be seen to improve or enhance the Conservation Area. Whilst it is accepted that the current structure needs refurbishment and renewal this should not be at the expense of an out of character development.

We believe that the proposed structure is sited too close to the river and would create unacceptable loss of amenity to the residents on Thames Ditton Island.

Finally, we believe that the 'hole in the wall' access that is proposed through a new building on Summer Road would create all manner of problems in terms of refuse disposal and access for larger vehicles which could impact on the viability of the boatyard business and offices. We question whether the existing businesses would remain viable in the longer term and the consequent lack of local employment could be an issue.
"

I'm still in support of this site.

If needs be the developer could perhaps push up the building up the hill by some some feet, but you are then making the boating business more questionable. I think they have the building on the current building line anyway. The rich islanders are just being a little snobby but why should they be the only ones to enjoy the river. This development provides boating access and living to the rest of the village.

I also see its a family business and so presumably they cannot not afford an upgrade and this is the best way for everyone to continue. This is a good solution I would suggest.

Ignoring your predictably provocative (yawn) comments,  islanders arent the only ones able to use the river, although naturally because they have chosen to live on it they have more immediate access clearly, however, a price is paid for that. 

Anyone can go to the slipway by the Swan with a boat or kayak and get out and enjoy it or indeed go to Taggs and rent a very nice boat at an affordable price, do you do this?

How exactly you think this development would provide any further boating access to the river to the village I have no idea. If anything, with the eventual demise of the working boatyard and rental which could result from this, the village would have less access to the river.  Do you imagine these will be affordable cheap housing with free moorings because I can assure you they will not.

Hang on, I thought you were disputing the parking - when I have seen Islanders park their Porsches on my roadway, and actually blocking my wheelie bin against my wall, it seems to me you are actually mindless to the fact that there others who live in the village . 

I have rented boats many times, and hence feel the boatyard requires an upgrade. I don't have a problem with the family doing this through development.

You are right, increased access will only happen if the RA press the Care Home site but if you wish to rent a boat, the new Taggs development will be a fine place to do it and probably the best on the River.  So what if this new development is a better place to live than the island, they will have parking and moorings and don't have tremble across a bridge with bias of food- it's clear to me you are envious.    I am for one, keen to purchase an apartment, if I can afford it!

I note the Freeholder/business owner of Ferry works is supportive.

My goodness, do you find it hard to get around with that large chip on your shoulder?

Parking is one issue but there are many, I can assure you, the only island Porsche never blocks your path so you need to look elsewhere for the culprit I'm afraid.

This place may have benefits over the island but envious I am not nor will I be.

As far as your quest for one of the hypothetical apartments, best of luck, you may find you need it

I read this thread and it saddens me. 

I realise some attempt has been made at redress on another thread but if someone came along and read this in isolation it is somewhat hanging so I am posting in the hope it goes towards closure - at least on the vein the thread has taken.

Personally - and I cannot speak for everyone - until I was made aware on this forum about the development application on this forum I was not aware of it. 

Craig was made aware of this - as the application directly affects him - and he raised this to the forum. It is up to us to then judge whether or not we support the application (and by raising the awareness - people are able to comment positively in favour of it as well...). 

I was grateful to be made aware of it - I read the application and for reasons that are in my letter I objected (and for the record I am someone who has used the boats at Taggs albeit not often enough and also encouraged others from friends and family and also in threads on here). And no - much as I would love to - I do not live on the island.

If someone disagrees with objecting to the development - rather than make accusations of NIMBYism and bring in an unrelated issue (which I will come back to later) - why not simply support the application and if necessary make your comments here? The accusations and for want of a better word attacks on another forum member should not be necessary. It would make me think twice on posting something I was concerned about (and I have done so in the past...).

He is impacted by his own admission so does that now preclude using the RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION forum to raise concerns about a development that he believes to be an over development without being accused of being a NIMBY?

In the about page of the residents association and its ethos- this is exactly the type of issue it was formed to assist with. And I have to say it saddens me further that even in the about page it has to defend itself against NIMBYism.


And Bluesky (I have tried to ignore your posts for a while but you have won this one because I couldn't resist this time) - why bring upa totally unrelated issue by complaining about islanders parking? 

If that is a genuine issue for you - raise it in another thread so that it can be dealt with. 

But what connection that issue has to the planning application - I cannot even see a tenuous link to bring it up to support your point?

In fact, rather ironically, the only link I can see is that the planning application is reducing the number of spaces that are in existence right now in Taggs so surely its almost an argument against the development - but that is for you to judge and make your opinion known.

In summary -  what I am long windily trying to say is that you are entitled to your opinion in favour of the development - so be it ... but can we not attack someone who both raised awareness of what I think is a concern for the village with the term NIMBY?

I agree with all that has been said above with regard to craig's right to express his concerns without being abused for it.

As for the term NIMBY - it surely should only be applied when someone objects to something that affects them negatively, whilst supporting the same thing when it only affects other people. Craig can most certainly not be accused of this - he has always been supportive of other forum members concerns.

I don't think the argument that the development would be good for the local economy holds true. One of the local businesses that would be turfed out if the development goes ahead has already commented on ABT's Facebook page that it would be difficult to find similarly affordable office space in the local area meaning the loss to the village economy of her and her five employees. The same could be expected for the other businesses in the upper floors.

The development will significantly reduce parking on site meaning up to an extra 18 cars needing to park around the village. The knock on effect, aside from the pressure of on parking for local residents, is that visitors will stop bothering to come to the village as it's too difficult to find parking. This will hurt the shops and more particularly the great pubs like the Swan and the Red Lion.

The application is positioned as coming from people who operate Taggs but it is actually being driven by a private developer called Thorstone Land & Property Developments Ltd who specialise in obtaining planning consents before selling on the land to builders and pocketing the increased value. As their website states: "TLP will continue to seek London and Home Counties opportunities, in partnership with cash Investors, where attractive short to medium term returns can be generated."

Yes, the site needs money spent on it but there has to be a balance between what's good for external investors and what's good for the village. 

As 37 objections have been lodged from the village it seems pretty clear that the balance is wrong. 

However, if Bluesky feels so strongly in favour of the proposals s/he should stand up and be counted by submitting a supporting comment to tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk instead of sniping at individual members of this forum. 

I am too late to put a letter of support in.  I know the council take these letters with a pinch of salt, if at all anyway.

I've indeed read the others and have to say, none are particularly convincing apart from the one from Ferry works. I would not say 37 letters is representative of the village, when they vast amount come from the Island.

I am actually off on holiday from today, so we will all see what the Planning office think.  They have some common sense, and will I am sure question the islanders logic about parking as ridiculous as they all use street parking in the village whereas this scheme actually provides ample parking in their smart new development.

People can always apply for more yellow lines or use the car park if they don't like cars about the place

er, no it doesnt.

They could always make the boatyard space a bit smaller and provide under croft parking, there are numerous options and I am sure they are far clever than us. It's an impressive scheme/application, that is want I still think.

undercroft?

Parking underneath the building, either partially or fully.  Like the ones towards the olde swan, not on the river side, can't remember the buildings name but its the red brick and has the mini roundabout. 

yup, I know what you mean now

fwiw this was totally rejected by planners last night.

New application now received for the site (no 2014/1600)

http://www3.elmbridge.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appName=planning&appNumber=2014/1600

Looks very similar to the previous plan, except that the ground floor has been set back.

I haven't had a detailed look at the plans yet, but assume that local residents will make representations. I have emailed their architect ad suggested that they hold a public presentation. Will keep you posted. It's often very difficult to review plans on screen or printed at small scale. My suggestion to interested parties on the Island & elsewhere is that you share the cost of a set of full size drawings (looks like A1) and meet and compare notes. EKA are very helpful getting drawings printed to the correct scale at a reasonable cost. 

Anyone else perused them yet?

For the most part it is pretty much identical to the previous proposal except a few of the flats will be a bit more dingy to prevent overlooking.

I had hoped the spread of high-rise blocks of riverside apartments would be contained at Kingston.

It's interesting to read that the developer claimed that they could only afford to contribute £19,000 towards affordable housing. Independent analysis found that the actual figure was £154,564 as well as provision of one of the flats. 

It's pretty clear where the developers morales/priorities lie. :-\

Thanks Ratty. Anyone else here looked at this?

Will the RA and Conservation Area Advisory Committee be objecting again? I understand that the official deadline for comments on this application is tomorrow.

My understanding is that the RA will be responding. Graham is currently abroad. 

I'm not 100 % sure if the number of objections required to go to committee is 5 or 10??  In theory, representations can be made up until the time it is determined, but the sooner the better and ideally before the officer report is submitted.  

Thanks, HC. I know that there is often a delay between comments being submitted to EBC and their publication on the website.
There will not be any recommendation until the official response is received from the Environment Agency so earliest decision is likely end of July.

With five objections it would go to sub-committee (if rec'd for approval), with 10 it would be with a public speaking opportunity. If recommended for rejection a ward councillor can still request that it go to sub-committee as happened last time.

People have also said to me that they have tried to submit forms online and they couldn't.

After the "consultation period" they can submit representations by emailing tplan@elmbridge.gov.uk.  They need to quote the application number and include their name and address.