20^th December 2012

Ref: Planning application number 11/16502 – Surbiton Water Works, Portsmouth Road, Surbiton

I write on behalf of Yogan Yoganathan, Mary Heathcote and myself as St Mark’s Ward Councillors on Kingston Council.  Mary and Yogan will confirm by email that they agree with this letter being sent on their behalf.

We wish to object to the planning application by Hydro Properties Ltd for 64 floating homes, a 94 berth marina, residential moorings, a restaurant and car park on the site known as the Filter Beds on Portsmouth Road, Surbiton.  Our grounds for objection are listed below and taken together we believe that they very clearly demonstrate that the application does not meet our policies as set out in the Core Strategy or the ‘very special circumstances’ required to build on Metropolitan Open Land.

Core Strategy and RBK Policies

>RBK Councillors have recently adopted our Core Strategy with its promise to enhance the important ecological and landscape features in these Filter Beds.  It even removed any mention to promote and manage development here which appeared in earlier drafts.  In the adopted Sustainability Appraisal that accompanies our Core Strategy, it notes that the reasons for these changes were:

• ‘to confirm the high ecological value of the Thames Water Filter Beds, and ensure the Core Strategy provides adequate protection of these values / features’
• and ‘to confirm the intention of the Core Strategy that any development of the site is to be for nature conservation, leisure, and outdoor recreational uses, as opposed to other types of development (e.g. housing) as may have been unintentionally indicated

In the Core Strategy Addendum, it states that ‘due to the ecological value of the land it is not seen as a suitable location for housing development; and it would likely be contrary to other Core Strategy Policies to promote housing development.’

These explicit changes were made to the Core Strategy to make it absolutely clear that housing is not considered appropriate.  Only then could the independent Planning Inspector agree the Strategy’s soundness.

We believe that the Core Strategy is correct to give such strong protection to this important site, and that any consideration of this planning application must adhere these policies.  Following our Core Strategy and Policies, it is clear to us that this application must be refused.  To overturn such a detailed policy within our Core Strategy would leave the Borough open to future applications on other protected sites, considering the need for consistent decision making.

This site was afforded the maximum protection from development after previous planning applications.  The last application in 2001 was refused by Councillors (upheld on appeal) and was for ‘a) The erection of 59 dwellings, (including 2 in Pump House), with amenity space, access roads riverside walkway and, b) The use of the filter beds for recreational purposes in the form of an open space / area of nature conservation.’  This refused application has clear comparisons to the current application and the reasons for refusal are clearly still valid, strengthened by the current Core Strategy.

Ecological/Environmental

The site is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and it supports a multitude of wildlife, including threatened species.  Large expanses of standing water (a priority habitat in the London Plan) are rare in Kingston and across London.  It provides a rare habitat with a rich variety of birds, bats and fauna.  We are aware that many objectors and the Friends of Seething Wells have provided lists of the species that have been known to visit or roost on the site and its regional importance to biodiversity, so we will not repeat this in this letter.  It is sufficient to say that these species include bats protected under European legislation (Habitats Directive) as threatened.  The London Bat Group, as the specialists in this area of conservation, has objected to the development in the strongest terms.  They have stated that as well as the European protected species, Daubenton, other bat roosts are known on the site, but the developers only point to those external roosts, which were known prior to their tenure. We can see that ten bat species have been recorded as ‘being associated’ with the Filter Beds and this, we are told, is the best site in the borough for bats.

We note that Natural England has withdrawn their objection to the application, and clearly this must be taken into account by planners and Councillors.  However, this is far from the ‘support’ for the development that the applicant is claiming.  Natural England’s only responsibility is to European protected species, and as such their comments cannot be taken as a comprehensive report on the potential damage to the biodiversity of the site were the development to go ahead.  Indeed, Natural England has to focus on mitigating damage to the Daubenton bat maternity roost (as the only European protected species on the site).  It is important that whilst Natural England has a duty to those European Protected Species identified, it is up to us, as a Borough, to consider all the ecological aspects of the site including the UK protected species (such as grass snake, which is rare in the London); UK and London Biodiversity Target Species and habitats, (which are material planning considerations under the NERC Act); and the ‘no net loss of biodiversity’, which is council policy and enshrined in legislation.

There remain many ecology groups that actively continue to oppose this development including London Wildlife Trust, Surbiton District Bird Watching Society, Royal Parks and the ecology officer at Richmond Council as well as the London Bat Group.

Natural England’s letter mentions an additional habitat provision linking the bat roost to the foraging habitat as they are at opposite ends of the site, but we are unclear how this is to be provided on the site.  We believe that the applicant has underestimated the light pollution from cars entering/leaving and from within the homes in their calculation for such a corridor to be possible.

Whilst much of the ecological information provided by the developers refers to the last two years, there is considerable information available from before this time including 900 records from the London Bat Group.  We know that the site was drained twice, damaging the filter bed and leading to algae growing on the water surface and a reduction in wildlife using the site.  The baseline used for activity must be, in our opinion, taken before the drainage took place.  As well as surveys from the previous planning application 10 years ago, Surbiton District Bird Watching Society has considerable records from their members which show a much greater level of activity than reported in the applicant’s ecologist’s reports.

We take into account the proposed nature reserve for the site.  This is approximately a quarter of the site, not up to 65% of the site as again claimed by the proposed developer.  The developer has claimed that only the floating homes are the enabling development, which is 15% of the site, but the marina, restaurant, moorings and car park must also be considered in this enabling development calculation.  We cannot think of other applications where it is considered these form part of a community benefit.  This makes the main community benefit only the nature reserve and proposed river walk (considerably less than half the site).  Given the lack of open space in Surbiton, this area of MOL is vital and needs to be maintained rather than reduced dramatically to a section of the site.  None of this is in line with policies to limit enabling development on MOL.

We are also aware of the discussion around the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust consulting arm’s involvement in the site.  We have been shown an open letter from the Chief Executive of WWT which states very clearly that they ‘offered WWT Consulting’s services if the environmental and ecological concerns are addressed by the planning process’ and that they ‘halted negotiations in order to minimise any undue influence that our name may have on the planning process’.  If planning permission were to be granted we would want WWT to be involved in the nature reserve part of the site, however WWT’s potential involvement should not be a consideration in the planning process.

We would also point out that WWT’s potential involvement is somewhat different to the Barnes Wetland Centre where the initial aim was to provide a nature reserve then look at what enabling development would be necessary for the works.  In this application Hydro Properties Ltd have looked for a site to enable them to build their floating homes in their own words ‘to showcase the technology’ and have then put in a nature reserve to try and gain planning permission on Metropolitan Open Land. We suggest that this difference of emphasis is what has resulted in a mere 25% of the site being a nature reserve and a substantial element for enabling development.  This cannot be accepted as meeting the ‘very special circumstances’ required to build on MOL.

Heritage

The Chelsea and Lambeth waterworks complex that includes this filter bed site was undoubtedly vital in providing clean water to London.  Again we are aware that objectors and the Friends of Seething Wells have provided great detail on how these sites were used, so we will not repeat this here.

These are the last filter beds of a large complex of works that has been lost to development. With the advantage of hindsight, maybe both Kingston and Long Ditton Councillors at the times of these planning applications should have taken a different view.  However, we find ourselves in the position that these developments have taken place.  Any decision to allow the remaining filter beds to be destroyed now would, we believe, prove to be equally regrettable. Contrary to what the developer has stated this development would destroy all the remaining filter beds, only a settling bed would remain.

We recognise that the development has elements to promote the heritage of the filter beds.  However, this is extremely limited compared to the loss of the actual filter beds themselves.  We believe it is merely paying lip service to gain planning permission.  This historical site in our Borough has been designated as of National Importance in the Step 3 Water Report for English Heritage (September 2000) and deserves better recognition than is proposed in this application.

River users

This section of the Thames is very busy with a multitude of boats – row, sail, pleasure crafts, ferries etc.  The River Thames Sports Alliance has been set up to represent many of the river users with over 1,000 members in 11 clubs representing a multitude of disciplines.  Whilst Kingston Rowing club have withdrawn their objection, most of the groups using this stretch of River Thames still remain completely against the proposed lock gate and residential moorings.   Literature we have received from the applicants state that ‘a number of rowing clubs agreed to remove their objections’, however we are only aware of the Kingston Rowing Club (based approximately 2 miles from the site) having done so.

We have been fortunate to see a presentation by the group which demonstrates the ‘traffic’ on the river and how the lock gate for the marina would prevent many of them from using this stretch.  We believe it would be useful for officers and Councillors to see this presentation to fully appreciate the issues from a river user’s perspective.

The slight modification to reduce the size of the mooring for the ferry, does not change the main objections and the issues to those that practice their sport on the Thames.

Other considerations

As well as the 4 main reasons for objecting to this planning application, there are other secondary issues that concern us.

• Traffic – We are concerned that the turning into the site would cause extra pressure on both the Portsmouth Road generally and the junction with Brighton Road specifically.
• Car parking/cycle parking – we do not understand why a site that developers proclaim to want as a nature reserve (with enabling development) has an oversupply of parking spaces and undersupply of cycle parking.  Obviously this could be changed by condition but it does not give any confidence in the environmental credentials of the applicants.
• Affordable Housing – whilst we appreciate that ground rents may be too high for affordable housing to be provided on site, there is a case that the amount offered is very small in consideration of the size of the proposed development.  The Council’s Core Strategy expects a significant proportion of housing to be affordable and is confirming this in its SPD document.  This planning application proposes no affordable housing on site and only a £200k contribution to housing elsewhere.  The previous application refused by Councillors offered 25% affordable housing on site.
• Public Opinion – the developers have stated that public opinion is on their side and suggest this adds to the ‘very special circumstances’ to enable development on this site.  Whilst we recognise that there is support for this scheme, there is considerable opposition to this development as well. From the emails we have received and the public meetings, we believe there is a considerable depth of feeling against the proposal.  These residents from throughout the Borough have clearly read the details and formed a view on the damage that would happen to this vital site if it went ahead.
• Out of Character – the design of the floating homes is not in character for this area of Surbiton.

Whilst not a planning consideration directly, we are also concerned about the information that has provided in briefing for councillors.  For example, in ‘Member Briefing for Neighbourhoods’ it states ‘Natural England have agreed a full suite of ecological measures to protect the existing ecology, minimise disturbance during the construction phase of the project and also, importantly, improve the biodiversity opportunities once the proposals are operational, all of which will be ‘policed’ by WWT’.  As already stated Natural England are responsible for European Protected Species and therefore their response is specific to the Daubenton bat only, not protecting all the existing ecology.  We also cannot find any references by Natural England to improving biodiversity opportunities as implied in this paragraph.

There has been a great deal of information put out to residents and Councillors by both the applicant/their PR company and the Friends of Seething Wells and the debate has become quite heated.  We mention the above example only so that Development Control Councillors can be clear on the factual information to make their decision.

We ask that Development Control Committee Councillors (and the planning department in their recommendation) should refuse this application as it is clear that it does not meet the ‘very special circumstances’ required for building on MOL and it is a clear departure from our agreed Core Strategy and Policies.

Yours sincerely

Liz Green                     Mary Heathcote                      Yogan Yoganathan

Cc: Councillors on Development Control Committee