We, as a group, should urge English Heritage to spot-list the site since the impact of its development will undoubtedly impact disastrously on Hampton Court Palace and its historic environs. This is quite apart from all the glaringly obvious arguments about planning and infrastructure. Clearly the greedy developers are all planning to emigrate once they've made their fortunes by blighting the landscape here. "

JMB 

I have returned from this evenings planning meeting somewhat confused by the lack of professionalism and detail displayed at the meeting. The issues that were being discussed were of local, regional, national, international and historical significance yet it was apparent that on the eve of such any important decision there was still no distinct clarity of what is actually proposed and how the development would function?

There was conjecture about how traffic would flow, whether vehicles would turn left or right from particular junctions and no presentation of expert opinion apart from percentages of probability. Councillors struggled to vocalise their hypothesis on what might occur? Where was the computer modeling, simulation, in depth research and clear financial calculations? I am sure (hope) at some stage that technical research has be done, but why were we left with a few pathetic PowerPoint slides for councillors to struggle with to support their arguments?

It was ascertained that no independent body had assessed the financial viability of the developers calculations and whether or not they were accurate? We are basically trusting the calculations of a profit led organisation who have a vested interest in presenting a positive spin on every aspect of their proposed development. Maybe I am cynical but the council should have independent analysis of every facet of such an important development close to hand.

The end result? The arguments against vastly overshadow the reasons for, but the final decision has been deferred which gives us all a chance to shout a little louder. God save Hampton Court, Molesey and this country!

CT
 

I have just been talking to a friend who is in the sad situation of husband being made redundant. They have three children at private school and now need to enter them into the state system. Every single junior school in Molesey, Thames Ditton and Walton have capacity waiting lists and are not accepting any more children onto their lists. When she asked what she could do she was told the only road open to them was home education !

Where do Gladedale propose the new influx of families on the Jolly Boatman site will go to school?

Jan Moor
 

Copy of letter to EBC Councillors for use on our website.

Dear Councillors,

I write to you because I am annoyed that I have been misrepresented by Gladedale.  Today I received a letter from Gladedale thanking me for my support and asking me to write to you affirming this.

I completed their questionnaire/card stating that I preferred the new "classical" style to the previous white box, but that I was unable to state that I supported it without seeing more information and detail.

They have turned this around and are stating that I support their plan which I DO NOT and have included me in their 2,200 supporting submissions!  I feel this is incredibly manipulative on their part, the questionnaire was designed in such a way that a negative response was impossible without adding extra comments (which I did, but which have obviously been ignored).  I therefore feel that there must be many others that have also completed their form - the mere act of which has been calculated as a positive response.  I therefore feel that all these 2,200 submissions supporting the plan should be ignored. 

Alexandra March
 

Anyone who has travelled during busy times along Creek Road will know that if a car reaches the end and wishes to turn right, those cars behind them back up to the roundabout very quickly, causing further congestion. With the traffic direction reversed, there will be no escape for those cars hoping to join the main road at Hampton Court Station.

There is an infant school close to bridge road without a crossing for children, any increase in traffic along Bridge Road will increase the chances of an accident with potentially tragic consequences.

Any increased traffic across Hampton Court Bridge will make this stretch of road impossibly gridlocked in the morning and at weekends. As a cyclist, I fear that those making the plans had not made any consideration for safety.

Aside from the safety concerns I have and the knock on implications of congestion and the pollution this brings, I cannot believe that Elmbridge Borough Council are even considering the scale of the development. I can't fathom how these developers so easily bully councils to maximise their profits by adding extra floors and the increased number of flats for sale that ensues. I thought that the overdevelopment of the riverbank in Kingston with massive high rise flats (painted red) have become a blot on a historic landscape. Kingston's payoff was the back handed gesture of a paid for theatre, down the line and millions of pounds worth of tax payers money (not developer's) later, we have a struggling theatre and the eyesore remains. Knowing how developers work with councils, what sweetener has been offered for this development?

Hampton Court is a national asset, would the French ever consider a development such as this alongside the Notre Dame? One quick decision now after the developers have played their time aged trick of wearing down any opposition through multiple applications, could leave an eyesore of, in my opinion one of the finest historic sites in Britain.

You may be surprised that I am, in principle, in favour of developing the Jolly Boatman site. I believe a sympathetic smaller scale development could actually improve this area close to the station. I fear that the greedy developers believe they have approval in their sites and are intent on squeezing every last penny of profit out of it.

John Lynes, East Molesey Resident
 

Words fail me... where will it stop?

Jenny Bourne, Hampton Wick
 

Brigitte Hubert, Esher
 

I also objected in Nov to the proposal of a late-opening night club (ref 2007/0777) on the ground floor of the ugly and cheap-looking Gladedale apartment block on Bridge Road, fully visible from Hampton Court Bridge. (Incidentally as others have pointed out, these apartments sit 80% vacant after 2 years)

It seems to me that cash-greedy developers inc Gladedale would like to transform the whole area into one congested and depressing mass of Kingston-like chain shops, restaurants, clubs and hotels. Whereas the area is actually developing it's own much more appealing and up-to-date brand of individualism, modernity and charm already, left to it's own devices and the hard work and needs of its residents and visitors.

Wake up Elmbridge.

Kind regards,

Rebecca Tong
 

The RS&G is caught up in a much wider and highly controversial scheme by developers Gladedale and Network Rail to build over the entire site surrounding Hampton Court Station. The home envisaged for RS&G is only one element of this, wedged in the middle of a concentrated development of high rise buildings. Elmbridge has to form a considered judgment on the scheme as a whole and cannot simply single out the RS&G as a separate entity.

It would be quite wrong to infer that if Elmbridge rejects the overall scheme, or if members of the public or relevant statutory bodies raise legitimate questions about its long term effect on the environment and the local community (e.g. flooding, traffic congestion, air pollution, over-development, destruction of the historic setting) that it is somehow disloyal to the RS&G residents currently living on Richmond Hill. Every right-thinking person would wish to see them housed in the best possible accommodation but one wonders how the RS&G Board could have allowed themselves to become embroiled in a massive scheme of this kind without at least having an alternative plan. Instead they are now involved in a highly complex planning application with its multitude of problems.

Surely it is incumbent on the Chairman, Sir John Dunt and his colleagues to tell the public and his own residents the terms of the agreement with Gladedale and Network Rail. Has RS&G been offered a financial inducement as part of the deal? Who will finance the building of the new home? Will RS&G own the building and the land it stands on? Will the Home be there for many years or will it be sold off at some future date for residential use?

It essential to find the right answer to this huge planning application. Let us do this in the best interests of the Palace, the communities for miles around and the 60 elderly ex-service men and women who seek a new home.

Yours sincerely,

James Sancroft, East Molesey
 

The 1999 Elmbridge Council Development Brief contains recommendations that the developer has chosen to ignore and, thus, building on the site should not exceed three storeys plus a pitched roof has translated into four storeys with a flat roof for the apartment blocks and three storeys plus a fourth, in the pitched roof, for the hotel which, because of the additional space is able to accommodate sixty plus bedrooms rather than the recommended 40. The effect of this design change on the apartment blocks is to produce three large lumps of building far better suited to an industrial estate than to any residential development. The 1999 ECDB recommends that the development …. masses appropriately with the East Molesey Conservation Area buildings. The hotel, referred to by Gladedale as 'a high quality hotel', is another piece of industrial building all too horribly visible and most certainly not below the tree canopy of the park. (ECDB).

These proposals – now formal plans and submitted to the council – have been arrived at, to quote a Gladedale representative at the November exhibition 'after consultation with local residents and other interested parties'. This 'consultation' was the responses on the 800 to 1000 feedback forms submitted after the August exhibition. (How valuable is feedback if, in response to a multi choice question about building type, Which do you prefer? There is no option: None of these. It is always possible to design a questionnaire to exclude unwanted answers.

There is a range of concerns about the underground car park: possible flooding; ease and speed of entry and egress at peak times; increased cost (car parking charges in the Molesey High Street car park have resulted in empty spaces and even greater congestion in surrounding roads); security (underground car parks are notorious for theft from cars, vandalism and mugging.); designated parking for the hotel, apartments and Star and Garter Home. On this last, a Gladedale representative said there would be one designated space per apartment in Blocks A and B but residents in Block C would be given a free permit for the first year. After which? They make their own arrangements.

Does this area of East Molesey require more apartments, cafes and shops? There are newly built, vacant, apartments on both sides of Bridge Road (some a Gladedale development). There are also empty retail units and, on a positive note, there are thriving cafés and restaurants in Bridge Road, some developed over the years in response to the lack of any refreshment at the station. They are busy, buzzing and very attractive and they serve locals and visitors alike. The station area would benefit from a Visitors' Centre, providing information about public transport, local amenities, the Palace and, possibly other historic landmarks in the area but cafes and retail outlets will either remain empty or will drain business from the local community.

Is there need for another hotel? For the majority of visitors, Hampton Court Palace is a day trip venue and, for those who wish to linger, there are already 'quality' hotels in the area.

Much has been made by the developers of the proposed transport arrangements at the station and the consequent improvements to traffic congestion on and around the bridge. A taxi rank, bus stops, a lack of private motorist drop-off points and a complete removal of coach space, meaning that all coaches will need to use the car park along the river road and, one assumes, most coaches (as some do already) will stop on the bridge to allow passengers to alight and, if the visitors are elderly, infirm or persuasive will return there to collect them. The car park has one entrance which will produce queues at peak times, thereby adding to an already congested system. Where are the improvements?

There have been significant changes to East Molesey since the 1999 Elmbridge Council Development Brief was produced: traffic over the bridge has increased; Bridge Road has developed new cafes and restaurants – and vacant apartments, Hampton Court Palace has become even more popular for tourists and school parties. Historic Royal Palaces recommend that the Development Brief should be reviewed, a view held by many local people.

Historic Royal Palaces are very much opposed to development of any kind; they favour landscaping as a continuation of the Cigarette Island profile and, in an ideal world, that would happen.

This 'ideal world' scenario exists in many European countries, where the jewels of their history are given appropriate settings. It has been said that we, the English, have so much 'heritage' that we are careless of it and, sadly, I think our carelessness encompasses many areas and, in some, we are beginning to realise what we have lost. It is very easy to say of the Jolly Boatman site 'Anything would be an improvement' but should we settle for a development that shows no regard for its environs; that reeks of maximum gain for minimum expenditure; that has the potential to damage the area and that, in a few years time, will elicit the comment "Who on earth let that happen?"

Signed

Elizabeth Candy
 

Please maintain the rage to oppose the plans going through!
Monique Foster
Hurst Park, W. Molesey
 

Our current Manifesto has the following but feel free to let me know if you want anything changed/included.

Hampton Court Palace Gardens/ Jolly Boatman site - From March 27th 2004 there has been a charge to visit the formal gardens for the princely sum of £4. We propose to move the London Eye from it's present location to the derelict area outside Hampton Court Palace Station (Formerly the location of the legendary "Jolly Boatman" music venue). Local residents will be given free admission to this attraction and be able to enjoy the best view of the gardens as the wheel spins round. Any donations/charges received to use the wheel will be used to open the public toilets at Hampton Court railway station. It is ridiculous that people visiting one of our top 5 tourist attractions have no toilet facilities. To aid the flow of visitors, we propose to divert the Eurostar to Hampton Court railway station.

Other uses for the Jolly Boatman site. Whilst we feel there is only one Molesey, we recognise the historic element of East & West. At present each area has it’s own Tesco, War Memorial & an equal number of roundabouts. We therefore propose the building of an East Molesey Hospital on the site. Alternatively, due to impending hosepipe bans, East Molesey reservoir would be constructed. Water from Loch Ness would be pumped down to stock the reservoir and after a period of time the resulting drainage of the Loch would reveal if the monster existed, thus two problems solved! Failing this, we will create a wasteland eyesore in West Molesey to retain the equal nature of the villages.

We also believe that the Jolly Boatman site should be preserved for future generations. Imagine the fun the Time Team crew will have in 500 years time unearthing disused drinks cans, old sofa’s and general rubbish from the early 21st century. In advance, for the residents of 2507, we will start the campaign to clear up the eyesore opposite the Jolly Boatman site currently known as Hampton Court Palace although by then it will probably be called Tesco Drive thru Palace or some other such nonsense. The reason for such an early start to the campaign should not be lost on those currently fighting to preserve the current eyesore from development.

Regards

Chinners

Shadow Minister of Fortean Spinning & Bouncing
Official Monster Raving Loony Party
www.omrlp.com
 

To plonk a great ugly lump of mediocrity directly across the river from one of Britain's finest and most fascinating secular historic buildings shows an indescribable lack of imagination and a disregard for the spirit of Hampton Court as a place of historic significance and unparalleled atmosphere.

The design ( if that is the right word ) of these new multi storey rabbit hutches shows such astounding lack of sensitivity, or indeed any apparent notion of quality, that the company should be ashamed of themselves. It should be required that they employ the most outstanding and sensitive architect possible and not just be allowed to shove some tired old 1970s shoe-box at us.

The idea of the Star and Garter residence is inspired but the whole scheme needs to be properly worked up by someone with a sound understanding of architectural design principles and a flare for juxtaposing ancient and modern forms and materials.

The fact that we ( the local residents ) have reluctantly put up with the grot of the Jolly Boatman site for many years does NOT mean we'll accept a grotty design now.

Jenny Murray Band

I was concerned that if I had lodged a comment at the exhibition at The Mitre Hotel it might not have been submitted as a Letter of Representation. This is the case with one submitted by my wife which does not appear in the Planning Application documents. If one has been omitted, how many others have been?

I wish to register my objection to the proposals on the following grounds:
a) Hotel
b) Car Parking
c) Traffic Interchange
d) Retail & Commercial floorspace
e) 'Thinking outside the box'
 

a) Hotel
- The design of the building is hideous and is supposed to reflect the character buildings in the vicinity. It shows no imagination and in such a prestigeous location the design should have been put out to Achitects such as Norman Foster or the local company Octagon. Rather than purporting to 'mirror' other buildings, I consider that it would be better to have a futuristic design that would have a 'wow' factor when viewed from the Palace. The proposed design looks more like a prison or something a primary school child would come up with.
- When speaking to the Gladedale representative about which hotel group they were negotiating with, I was told that they had 12 companies interested. The problem with the present design is that it is being done 'on the cheap' and would only attract the lower end of the hotel market. This end of the market also has particular 'house styles' and the proposed design would not meet their criteria. Hampton Court does not want a '****** Break' type hotel, but needs a luxury hotel to take advantage of the wonderful vista, the design for which should be as my first point.

b) Vehicle Parking
- I realise that the Planning Brief sets down criteria for number of spaces for each type of use. The 33 spaces for residential will prove to be totally useless, unless there is a stipulation that they are only sold to people with one car! Common sense dictates that people who will be able to afford such housing will have more than one car. I was told that spaces over one per unit would have to pay for space in the underground parking, so reducing the available spaces for commuters and visitors.
- I asked about the parking spaces for the care home and was told that they would be for staff, so visitors will have to pay to visit their relatives. This will place a further demand on the commuter and visitor parking.
- I am sure that the same applies to the hotel, so possibly 40+ spaces will be taken out of the number of commuter and visitor spaces.
- If the parking problem is not properly addressed, rather than hiding behind planning constraints, the street parking by commuters and visitors will 'creep' further into Molesey. At present, Palace Road, Wolesey Road and Hurst Road are a nightmare to negotiate with cars parked on both sides of the road. I can foresee that Bridge Road, Arnison Road and the northern end of Church Road will become as congested. This will then link up with the road congestion in Molesey Village created by the high Shoppers Carpark fees.
- In the earlier Planning Briefs, there was provision for coaches, which does not seem to have been addressed. I expect that the developers are expecting the coaches to 'drop-off' and park elsewhere. Elsewhere would seem to be lay-bys on Hampton Court Way provided for emergency parking. or the Hampton Court Green car park, which will place increased demand on the commuter and visitor parking on the site.

c) Traffic Interchange
- The proposal for bus egress from the site does nothing to address the problems caused by the need to 'pull across' Hampton Court Way to travel over Hampton Court Bridge.
- The entry/exit for the underground car park will create a potential 'accident spot' when vehicles speeding away from the pedestrian lights towards Esher are confronted with a line of waiting cars. A similar problem will occur when fast moving traffic coming from Esher is confronted by cars trying to turn right across Hampton Court Way towards Kingston.
- The provision of another pedestrian light controlled crossing to the South of the Creek Road junction will provide an added disruption to the traffic flow along Hampton Court Way.

d) Retail & Commercial floorspace
- There are 29 restaurant/coffee bar/snack bar/pubs within a ¼ miles of the Palace, not including the rebuilt Joshua Tree which seems not to have attracted any buyers. With this number of food outlets, why does the village need more. All that it will do is to create unneeded extra competition.
- This also applies to the proposed retail outlets, which, unless they are of a specialist nature appropriate to the village, will cause problems to existing local shops.

e) 'Thinking outside the box'
- At least the last three developers have not considered the impact that their proposals would have on the locality. They have not sought to discuss with other Agencies how best to address the problems caused on Hampton Court Way outside the Station. These problems are caused by traffic turning both ways from four traffic junctions, together with the pedestrian lights, which are the only way some traffic is able to turn across Hampton Court Way. Attached is a proposal for a 'kidney' shaped island that was included in one of the plans put forward in the 1990s. This proposal, linked with the Molesey Residents' Association proposal to make Bridge Road a Pedestrian Only area, would address the traffic congestion/flow and bring some tranquility to the 'Bridge Foot' area.
- The 1990s plan also suggested building a ticket office off the site and extending the platform length, so freeing a large are of the site for better use, which is shown on the attached. This proposal was rejected out of hand by Network Rail, because of the engineering work involved. There should be 'give and take' in all projects to achieve the best for the locality. If Network Rail had been more receptive then a further decade would not have passed.
- Again, the 1990s plan, sought to secure the strip of land on the other side of the River Ember, adjoining the Kingston Grammar School sports ground, to provide coach parking. Bridge supports exist that would allow a roadway to link the two sites. A copy of the plan for this site is shown attached.

We only have one chance to get the best use of the last undeveloped prestigeous site upstream of Hammersmith Bridge. Please do not allow this site to be 'raped' in the interest of commercial expediency.

R H Moore
 

I picked up your flyer at the exhibition at The Mitre on 16 November, and have been studying it and other information since.

While I agree with some of the objections to the development, on the whole I feel that the site is just so awful at the moment that we should go ahead on this basis - hopefully with some final amendments. We could spend many more years getting everyone to agree on a final design, while the site continues to deteriorate!

The things I object to are:

People seem to be forgetting what sort of an area this is. Apart from it's old beauty, this area is home to Hampton Court Palace, so all new developments MUST fit in with the one tourist site here which makes this area so special. This seems obvious.
The fact that such plans are even being considered is outrageous. Have they no respect for the heritage? Will this become yet another spoiled site? The designs proposed in the development plan are far too modern for this area. They will stick out like a soar thumb and spoil the surroundings, taking attention away from the the beauty of old standing listed homes and indeed the Palace itself.

Once a development of this scale is undertaken and completed, there is no turning back without serious financial loss. Therefore, any plans proposed must be sensitively designed and considerately placed.

The restoration and development needed for Hampton Court Station and the Jolly Boatman are clear; but they must be done with respect to the surrounding architecture and heritage of East Molesey/Hampton Court and to the people who live here.
 

It takes an artist to create something of true beauty which will compliment the area and age well with the historical architecture which has been rooted here for many years. Let us hope there is someone out there with the skill and heart to undertake such a delicate task.

G. English

Nothing relates to the Tudor Hampton Court Palace, the 18th century Mitre Hotel or the Lutyen`s Bridge over the River Thames.

Significant health and safety issues have not been addressed in relation to the precipitous terracing planned for the river frontage. Safety here is glaringly inadequate giving yet more evidence of an architecturally and environmentally ill-conceived project.

But, it is clearly a project that should not have been entrusted to a development company without the over riding vision of talented architects such as Sir Richard Rogers. The "approach," needs to be, "characterised by patient craftsmanship, deep understanding, and aesthetic rigour," (Steve Ross on Peter Zumthor, Guardian Newspaper Arts section, p.24, 19/11/2007).

The current derelict river frontage provides a unique opportunity to repair past planning errors and create landscaped terraces and gardens to preserve, in perpetuity, the unique view of Hampton Court Palace. This can then capitalise with aesthetic and intellectual rigour, on the development potential of the rest of the site.

It is not just any place in the Borough of Elmbridge or for that matter in England. It overlooks a Royal Palace renowned the world over and visited by thousands each year. A national and an international site, where maximising profits should take secondary consideration to enhancing the historical environment and tourist potential, even if this requires finance at national level. In the final analysis from across the River Thames, it is directly viewed by Hampton Court Palace.

Sheila Stiling Ward

As a resident of East Molesey for the past 13 years, and one who frequently uses the station and drives across the bridge, I applaud the decision finally to address redeveloping the eyesore that greets visitors from across London, the UK and the world. The station, with its dishevelled appearance and total lack of amenities, is an absolute disgrace as the gateway to a World Heritage site.

Any progress will arouse my interest. Any imaginative plan will get my support. Alas, this plan is not it! It beggars belief that any architect could come up with designs so disharmonious with the surroundings and so disloyal to the historic treasure across the river. Here is an exclusive opportunity to develop a site (and I am in favour of its commercial development as opposed to its mere landscaping) in keeping with the tradition and history of the area.

These proposed plans are prosaic. The “quality” hotel looks like a warehouse, the residences, including the Star and Garter, resemble pre-fabs from the fifties – dull, uniform box-blocks. The station, far from being integrated into the design, sits alongside like an orphaned child. Where, oh where, is the vision? Where is the ambition? Where is the civic pride?

Little or no attention appears to have been paid to traffic flow in the planning. The whole area is a notorious bottleneck throughout the day. I would have thought that the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic caused by 66 new homes, a high quality hotel, restaurants, shops and a care home – all in addition to a busy railway station – would warrant seamless integration of traffic and structural development.

I am a local resident, not an architect nor a town planner. I am in favour of commercial development but I am against what I perceive to be the replacement of one eyesore with another. This site deserves more respect. Please think again.

Peter Black