Apr '11
Thu 14th
Location
-
- Holiday Inn
- Portsmouth Road
- KT6 5QQ
- Map
- 0208 786 65650871 423 4876
-
- Seething Wells Filter Beds
- Portsmouth Road
- Map
Developers looking to use of floating technology have announced dates for a public exhibition.
The developers spokesman said: "The scheme will improve the environment and ecology of the filter beds, allow local access to the river and around the site, and help the flood defenses of Kingston town centre."
The exhibition will allow people to view the plans in detail, talk to the project team and leave their comments before a planning application is submitted.
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/8958419.Dates_for_floating_technology_...
Date:
Repeats every day until Sat Apr 16 2011 .
April 14, 2011 - 3:00pm
Date:
April 15, 2011 - 3:00pm
Date:
April 16, 2011 - 3:00pm 
Comments
This place has some incredible history and should be preserved for education purposes.
Let's invest in the community's future not a short term profit for a small minority.
http://seethingwellswater.org/Seething_Wells_-_Surbitons_Hidden_Heritage...
As a keen and active sailor and sailing instructor at Thames Sailing Club in Surbiton, located on the stretch of river adjoining the development, I have to say that the proposal to add residential moorings as part of the development has not been thought though.
For those unfamiliar with the stretch of river, it is one of (if not) the narrowest section between Kingston and Hampton Court and is already congested with rowers, canoeists, leisure boaters, punters, large sightseeing Parr and Turks boats, sailors, sailing training courses, board paddlers, river swimmers etc etc etc. Whilst all river users try to share the river and show consideration for one another, the available space is already at capacity. The suggestion that you can simply take a ~50m wide section (the useable width of the river) and take 10m-15m for residential moorings is untrue and unsafe. Please note that the developer has quoted a width of 60m but this takes no account of the tree life on both banks or the natural swallowing at the banks (there is also a submerged punting ledge that could never be dredged). Please also note that when we run our sailing beginners training courses, we are also obliged to place buoys down the centre of the river to create a safe area for trainees and a channel for other traffic. The idea that you can train someone in a 18m side section of river is simply untrue. We have trained hundreds of people over the last ~10years. The first ever Royal Yachting Association training course was held at Thames!
The river is also used by the most historic and largest sailing dinghies in the UK (possibly the world), the Thames A Rater at 28ft / 8m long with 45m high masts. These boats have been sailed at Surbiton for the last 130 years and are recognised and respected in the world’s sailing community/literature/magazines etc. A boat specifically designed to sail on the particular section of river (an historic race course as much as Brooklands and Silverstone!) that is now being proposed for change without any consideration for what will happen to the A Raters of Thames Sailing Club, itself established 140 years ago in 1870.
I would urge all those reading this that have concerns about the development to kindly note and communicate the above when opposing the development.
Many thanks,
Chris Martin
Thames A Rater Class Captain.
It would be a good idea to write your concerns to Kingston Council and to Ed Davey (your local MP) 21 Berrylands Rd Surbiton KT5 8QX or email edwarddavey.co.uk and/or Zac Goldsmith (an enviromentalist) 12 King Street Richmond Surrey TW9 IND or email zac@zacgoldmith.mp@parliament.uk.
The Council cannot do anything unless people write in or deliver petitions. Getting MP's to take up the case ensure that the Council Officials are forced to at least consider the points you raise.
You may have done this already but I'm posting this so that others may write in as well.
I think this looks hugely promising.......we'll, at least compared to some previous plans we have seen.
It would certainly be a step up on what is there currently. I find it genuinely astonishing that there are people who want to preserve the site in its current state. Derelict water treatment facillities can hardly be described as pleasing on the eye. The stagnant water seemingly serves only to unleash plagues of flying insects on the town.
This plan appears to tick all the boxes: Innovative, provides additional housing, opens up the riverside, provides leisure facillities for the community and pays token regard to the wildlife currently in place.
Those living near the site would clearly suffer some disruption during its construction but there are thousands in and around surbiton who could benefit from improved riverside access and the facillities which would come with it. The good of the many should outweight the short term inconvienience of the few!
what you describe as "plagues of flying insects" illustrates exactly why we shouldn't develop this site.
These "plagues of flying insects" actually support the Thames ecology, especially bats.
Removing them would be massively detrimental to local widlife.
There are obvious cheerleaders acting on behalf of the developers or their cronies posting on this thread. There is no appetite for this development amongst the general surbiton public.
As said before, a scrawny overlooked patch of the site being laughingly billed as a "nature reserve" does not justify development of Open Metropolitan Land. Open Metropolitan Land can only be developed for exceptional benefit to the public.
The current plans fall well short and should be rejected. The end goal should be public benefit, not private profit. This site is too prominent and strategic for yet more housing.
As an alternative, the site could easily be improved to support wetland wildlife at little cost, and with no enabling housing development. Londer term, the bridge suggestion is also an excellent idea, if funding is ever made available. Does anybody have an idea of how much a footbridge would cost?
This article provides a bit more background on the importance of Seething Wells to the bat population:
http://residents-association.com/tdt39/simply_bats.php
Simply sticking up some new 'bat roosts' is not a solution as it is the resultant light pollution from the development that will devastate the existing Daubenton and Natterers colonies. As all bat roosts are protected by law I think the development should be rejected on these grounds alone.
I find comments that refer to the site as a 'dump' somewhat disingenuous and extremely tedious. Before being drained, the site provided a beautiful protected environment filled with fresh water, birds and aquatic life. I hope the beds are replenished as soon as possible before and further damage is done.
I would also suggest that the development will result in a lot of semi-enclosed water, shielded from winds by buildings and jetties - so, the 'plagues of flying insects' will remain, if not increase as the bat population and wildlife which consumes them vanishes. The fresh water will become polluted with oil, excrement and the other detritus associated with an enclosed marina and human habitation.
Allowing the 'South London' Holiday Inn and Big Yellow Storage block to be built opposite was a deeply shameful act. Please, let's not allow any further demonstrations of avarice in the face of common sense.
I too agree with you and am deeply concerned about the impact of this scheme to the wildlife and the fact that The Developers have drained the beds into the Thames to do a survey. But at the exhibition they stated they were not planning to put water back in until the last part of the development and even then it will only be 1 metre deep around the housing.
I have written about my concerns to Zac Goldsmith MP who is an enviromentalist. So if you and others here do really care about the wildlife etc I suggest you write to Zac Goldsmith at 12 King Street Richmond Surrey TW9 IND or email zac@zacgoldmith.mp@parliament.uk.
Its worth a letter!
I agree with last part. Walking back from Kingston along the Queens Promenade, the Holiday Inn/Big Yellow part of the area now looks like an industrial estate, and is really different from the leafy residential feel of the riverside at the Kingston/Surbiton stretch.
Kingston/Surbiton has it's fair share of ugly riverside developments, right from the Bishops Hall to all of the mini tower blocks at the end of the river roads. I do think that these have mellowed with age (I have probably just got used to them!), but they should still have not really been built in an area that would have looked much better without them.
Of course, the Holiday Inn is deep into the borough of Elmbridge, so it would not have been a Kingston council planning issue like the filter beds are.
Did any of you who commented here go to the exhibition? Its a shame they did not show a drawing of the all the buildings face onto the Portmouth Road. Is a very modern development in keeping with the area. I think they could have made an effort to blend in better with the original victorian buildings in the area or am I being old fashioned? Will we be proud of this development for future generations?
I was a little dissapointed as the scheme seemed to me a little mundane,I was hoping for a modern version of the Art Deco style and I agree that the view from the Portsmouth Road lacked detail.
All in all I think some type of development is called for and I guess if it has to include housing then that housing should be a landmark iconic type of building.Perhaps a newer more edgy architect is needed and there should be much more emphasis on riverside use such as a houseboat area and perhaps a marina.
Take all the hyberbole form delveopers with a huge pinch of salt.
A grand sounding public nature reserve usually translates into a scrawny overlooked patch of grass or reeds that will be of no real desire or consequence to the general public. Remember that this land is zoned as Metropolitan Open Land, ie land to be left undeveloped for the benefit of the public, unless there is an exceptional benefit to do so.
By instinct, I'd be against the visual vandalism of letting anything get built in this prominent site, but could be persuaded if there was an exceptional and significant benefit to the surbiton public.
The only suggestion that meets my criteria would be a footbridge across the Thames that opens up access to Home Park. An insignificant patch laughingly billed as a "nature reserve" comes nowhere close to justification for this development. To the developers - either foot the bill for a footbridge or leave the site to be developed as a real nature reserve.
I can't see a single mention of a footbridge in the plans other than the one going over the Lock entrance. Suggestions that the development would result in a footbridge across the Thames would appear to be a red herring gasping for breath amongst the dried up remains frog and toad spawn and other aquatic life that benefited from this protected site.
The potential for an extension of the 'Riverside Walk' is a further 10 meters into the car park of the Harts Boatyard at one end and Thames Marina car park at the other. Hardly a destination for a pleasant stroll! It is also pretty certain that the path leading to the floating homes will be gated requiring security codes to enter (eg. Hampton Wick development)
Something stinks and it is not the filter beds!
http://www.hydroproperties.co.uk/projects.php
There is no 'need' for this site to be developed and no reason why it should be.
Jerry,
what most people are saying here is that there should be no development of this Metropolitan Open Land unless there is a footbridge included, ie an exceptional benefit to surrounding residents.
Most people want the current plans to be rejected because, as you rightly point out, they offer no meaningful, substantive benefit.
The mooted nature reserves are pitiful, and the riverside path offers a walk to nowhere.
The so called poppy meadow is the sie of a supermarket aisle. A mural on a carpark wall doesn't do much for me either.
A footbridge across the Thames, on the otherhand, offer a real and substantive benefit to local residents..
It opens up the underused Home Park, and walks on the opposite bank of the Thames without having to traverse Kingston bridge.
It may even draw people into Surbiton on weekends, to enjoy an afternoon walk / river ride to Hampton Court.
If the developers resubmitted the plans with a well designed footbridge, my guess is that there would be a lot of support.
For once, Surbitonites might actually get something decent in return out of these flat developments.
My back of an envelope calulations suggest that a footbridge is affordable.
Flats in a riverside location sell at a premium, so a conservative average of 300k each would net the developers a whopping £18 million.
The other developments on the site would net several million more.
My guess is that a footbridge would probably cost two to three million, ie emminently affordable in the context of developing the site.
Designs could even accommodate tall masts - see this site for examples:
http://www.bennettmg.co.uk/Footbridges.aspx
I would encourage as many people as possible to reject the current plans when they are formally lodged with the council.
Councillors should only approve similar plans if we get a footbridge.
regards
Paul
Has everyone god mad? Nature reserve? What planet are you people on?
The place is a dump and as a proud Surbiton resident I welcome such innovation.
Firstly as much as i'd like a bridge, it's not going to happen! Lets be real about this please.
Secondly what on earth would you people like to see apart from a nature reserve? Exactly, you don't have any useful ideas but are happy to shoot down what could be a perfect solution to the area.
I certainly don't want to see Surbiton's standards slip, other wise the next thing you know is that prices will drop and it will soon open the floodgate to all. (And we certainly don't want to end up like some of our surrounding boroughs!)
Let them have their say and if it really won't work then bring on the next idea, but i suspect those who oppose change will be very disappointed at the eventual outcome and personally I can't wait to see the look on their miserable little faces!
It only looks a dump because they're draining the beds and have done little to improve it e.g. plant trees, painting the fences, introducing proper ecological areas. It has a lot of potential as a proper nature reserve, perhaps an education centre for children to explore and learn about nature? it's vital we keep nature reserves like this alive. Where are all the bats I see flying around at dusk that nest there supposed to go? What about all the birds that nest there? Oh let me think, the scrawny 'nature reserve' hydro properties will throw in as a sweetener. Yes this site could be improved but NOT with yet more housing!
Simples - no bridge, no development
Perhaps it would be sensible to view the plans and talk to the developers before becoming TURBO NIMBYS.
The site is bound to be developed as it commands such a prominent position in what is, after all, a fairly pleasant place to live,personally I hope it is not high rise,does NOT contain "low cost" homes or any daft eco friendly, but quite useless, wind turbines etc,but as I say I will go along and check it out.
We must not let this go through. Everyone I have spoken to sees this development for what it is: a money spinner for callous, unscrupulous developers and the expense of the good people of Surbiton.
We will not back down. WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!!!
Wait a minute....are you telling me a fenced off cess pit full of rubbish, manky water and shopping trolleys is a great use of space in such a prime piece of real estate? This idea will breath new life into this waste land and become an inspirational show piece of how housing developments should be done. By opening it up it will give people access to the nature reserve instead of peering in at it though a rusty fence. An education centre will educate people on the importance of looking after our environment and be a great day out for school children. Its all about balance, so we get a few floating houses (which are fantastically innovative and non intrusive) But we also get some open space and access to the river and a chance to see the wildlife in a properly managed, properly maintained environment. This could be a model of future developments. Previous plans for the sight included a large supermarket, at least this is in keeping with its surroundings and respectful for its environment as one day it is going to be developed by someone who may be less sympathetic!
This is the sad truth of the matter - this site WILL be developed in the near future, so it is just a case of deciding if this proposal is likely to be better than what is around the corner.
Surbiton is hardly prime central London, but is a sought after residential area, so there is no hope that a site like this will just be turned into a nature reserve or anything like that. The 'strategy' of the current owner has been to let it become an eyesore so that there will be less opposition to over developing the site as it will be better than is currently there.
I personally don't think that this proposal looks too bad, and it is quite nice to see something primarily residential/leisure based. Portsmouth Road has become very industrial now when you pass the Brighton Road junction, and the last thing we need are those car showrooms, self storage sites etc crossing onto the Surbiton side of the junction.
This will harm the character of Surbiton, but Portsmouth Road's fate was effectively sealed years ago in this regard when permission was granted for all of the 'mini tower blocks' that line it now.
Having lived in the flats that overlook the filter beds for the past 8 yrs and seen all the wildlife (inc bats) where are they supposed to go? Don't tell me, the so-called 'conservation area'. Yet again greedy developers looking to make a quick buck.
LEAVE IT ALONE!
The key thing for Surbiton now is to make sure that the right type of development is done each time permission is granted.
Surbiton is a sought after area and will remain so because of the amenities, but the housing stock is too small for the area to develop.
Small houses have been knocked down to make way for flats, larger houses have either been knocked down or converted into flats. The tiny number of smaller houses that are now left in the town centre have become so pricey that people looking to move up from a flat are priced out.
The problem is that there are quite a number of 'up and coming' areas closer to London where this type of development has not happened. They still have their rows and rows of terraced houses and they are available at £250k each, not £500k like in Surbiton.
OK, so these areas might not be particularly desirable now, but over time as people start moving there the amenities will follow. Eventually, a house in Penge or Shooters Hill will become more desirable than a flat in Surbiton and where does that leave the 100's of flats that are still being built now?
You know what, I'm quite excited by the prospect of something innovative being done on this site. I remember Kingston years ago when access to the river was severely restricted between the bridge and the end of Queens Promenade. It was if the town had turned it's back on the Thames. How much more pleasant is it now that the tow path has been opened up. Anything to improve accessibility has to be welcomed. But I'm guessing some of you hold different views...
I can only presume that author of the above post does not live anywhere near to the filter beds or has close ties to Hydro Properties, who are proposing:
'60 residential units, a nature reserve, 90-berth marina, residential moorings, restaurant and education centre on the site.'
The result of which will no doubt be huge profits for them at the expense, both in the long term and the short term, of residents in the vicinity.
In the short term we will have to put up with the years of noise, the eyesore of a huge building site on our doorstep and increased traffic in the local area. As well the inevitable problems caused by the excessive consumption of Lord knows how many labourers and tradesmen frequenting the local down market establishments such as the Fox and Hounds.
In the long term we will have our view of Hampton Court replaced by huge imposing flats, completely out of place with the architecture of the local area and the tranquility of the surrounding area disturbed by the brash types who are attracted to new marine developments.
I for one will be standing shoulder to shoulder with fellow residents to halt this voracious, parasitic proposal.
You lot are really starting to bore me.
This foot bridge idea would be a nice to have in some respect but it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, the sooner you realize this the sooner you can get on with you lives.
It's like me saying you can build this development if you buy me a Ferrari F40 or you can build this development if you get Angelina Jolie to go on a date with me. Completely unrealistic demands.
It seems to me that most of you who oppose this development don't actually give a stuff about the wildlife.
On one hand you say you don't want the current nature dump, sorry i mean reserve taken away and on the other hand you are saying 'Oh it's fine to level that stinking dump and build your homes as long as you give us a bridge'.
Make up your mind people!
OK for argument sake let us say that they did build this bridge, has anyone thought of the impact that this would have?
It would be a great idea for us locals but then what about the down side?
A huge surge in extra traffic(Cars and people) trying to park down our river roads (Which are free at the weekends). All wanting to avoid the Kingston parking charges and gain easy access to the other side of the river.
The mess, the pollution and noise left by these people would be disgusting. You only have to walk along the river to Kingston and see the state that is left in the morning after.
Then there is the riff-raff who will view the area as a crime heaven knowing they have a very easy escape route from the police should they need to. The junkies, drunks.....the list goes on.
Unfortunately what would seemed like a very good idea turns into your living hell, and for those who say it wont happen then i think you need to open your eyes and live in the real world!
There was me thinking that a bridge would be rather nice, giving locals easy access to a beautiful big park, and I hadn't even considered that it could be used as an escape route for scallywags and ne'er-do-wells. Well done you for pointing that out. It would be just like all those other footbridges across the Thames where you constantly see the Old Bill giving chase to petty criminals laden down with their ill-gotten booty.
Quite frankly the only sensible point you make is the unlikelihood of Angelina Jolie every going on a date with you.
I thought I made several sensible points actually!
I'm guessing these point don't really apply to you as you probable live no where near the intended development so of course you are going to be for it. (Please don't be pretend you do). I'd be all for it if they planned to build a nuclear power station out side your house.
I'm privileged enough to live where I do and to me its a genuine concern, you would no doubt have seen and heard about the issues that residents of Victoria Avenue have to put up with.
It won't turn into some kind of crack den with helicopters circling above and rehab clinic popping up on the corner but it will bring with it it's fair share of problems and quite frankly I don't want to have to deal with that.
Anyway reply back if you must but to be honest i really couldn't give a monkeys as it will never happen so say as you please and live in hope.
As for me I'm off to relax in the sunshine with an ice cold drink, some bread for the ducks and a smile for the pretty ladies.
Enjoy your weekend.
That is quite simply one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen written.
The post largely exposes itself for the irrational rambling it is so I won't dwell some of the more offensive assertions contained within it. However, perhaps you could elaborate on how exactly your view of Hampton Court (from elevated road level at worst) is going to be obscurred by low rise river level flats?
Irrational Rambling? Offensive Assertions? Could you please elaborate on your vacuous, lackadaisical, recreant response.
"As well the inevitable problems caused by the excessive consumption of Lord knows how many labourers and tradesmen frequenting the local down market establishments such as the Fox and Hounds."
What a horrifically snobbish attitude. If it wan't for labourers and tradesmen willing to do the dirty work nothing would get built in this country. I for one hope the development goes through, mainly because that part of town is rather barren and also because it will annoy stuck-up cretins like yourself.
I agree. Surbiton itself is almost completely closed off from the river. There is Hart's Boatyard, and then the Queens Promenade starts at the end of Grove Road, but that is only 100m from the border with Kingston anyway. The other way, there is no riverside access until the other side of Thames Ditton.
The Charter Quay development is the best thing to happen in Kingston for many years - a disused part of the town centre has become possibly it's very best part.
Over development is a concern, though. If you walk past Kingston Bridge and look at what they have done to the Hampton Wick riverside, it is a bit of a disaster. It looks more like a mini-docklands rather than the river frontage of a Surrey town/village.
Hi all,
i have posted on this topic but on the forum, I will be going to the meeting tomorrow to see what exactly the plans are.
To whom ever posted 'get real' to a foot bridge. are you an architect? because i believe that a footbridge/swing bridge would really be a great thing. it will give access to the park which last time i looked was a pretty decent nature reserve. we are not talking the milau viaduct here.......
Developers are going to be in it to win it. i.e the bottom line. they want to make money.60 houses seems a lot as well as the 'marina' i can't help but think these elements are for a certain level of buyer/investor. i.e rich ones.
i agree that if there is a bridge develop the place.
think people.
if we had a bridge our 'bottom lines' will improve (this applies to home and flat owners) it is win win. its not as if the bridge is going to see the influx of a load of ner-do-wells is it?
chav dears drinking in the fox and hounds getting lippy with the home park bats?
progress is good and we will all benifit.
Has no-one (including the developers) considered that getting finance to buy one of these flats will be extremely difficult?
Mortgage lenders are nervous at the best of times about lending on 'non-traditional' properties, so in the current lending climate I suspect we will end up with many empty properties, which will then have to be let out by the developer (or their successors) because buyers (long term residents) cannot get finance.
I would be keen to see something done with the site though - improved access to the river frontage and a possible footbridge would be excellent, but 'cutting-edge' developments like this are inherently risky
Well thank god we have the efficient, innovative and well run Kingston council to make that choice for us.......
that was a joke BTW.
i went to the meeting and was actually impressed with the efforts gone to, not as impressed by this as the holiday.....wow. That aside. RBK must reject the plans if no footbridge is included.