The Chair, or their nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 40.
At the time of publication of this agenda 2 questions was received:
Question 1 – Margaret Geraci, Director for Thames Edge Management Ltd
The five-storey height of Thames Edge Court was agreed with the Council to be broadly in keeping with the appearance of the riverfront and the scale of the cinema building it replaced. Does the Committee agree that the apparently proposed maximum height of 30 metres for the new hotel under consideration for the Bridge Street Carpark site in the Conservation Area, almost twice the height of Thames Edge Court and just 20 short metres across the road from it, is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable?
Question 2 – Mr N Rowe, nominated contact for the Riverside Residents (Staines) Coalition
Findings of the Royal Holloway research present a serious challenge to the further development of Staines, not only on groundwater flooding generally but as a potential source of increased flooding risk for existing residents from new large developments. Even the Council’s consultants said in July that the proposed Bridge Street development is “unlikely to be able to be managed to ensure the development would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” Will the Council therefore insist there is a contractual guarantee from the developer that the proposed development will not increase flood risk for nearby properties?
Minutes:
In accordance with Standing Order 40, four questions were received from members of the public.
Question 1 from Margaret Geraci, Director of Thames Edge Management Ltd
“ The five-storey height of Thames Edge Court was agreed with the Council to be broadly in keeping with the appearance of the riverfront and the scale of the cinema building it replaced. Does the Committee agree that the apparently proposed maximum height of 30 metres for the new hotel under consideration for the Bridge Street Carpark site in the Conservation Area, almost twice the height of Thames Edge Court and just 20 short metres across the road from it, is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable?”
Response from the Leader, Councillor Sexton
“The building envelope is a mechanism within the lease agreement which sets out the maximum height the building can be allowing for the provision of any Mechanical and Electrical Plant that may need to be sited on the roof i.e. any plant sited on the roof must also not exceed 30m from ground floor level. The permitted envelope does not necessarily mean a building the height and width of the building envelope will be constructed.
The committee report being considered tonight is to approve a conditional lease transaction only in the form of an agreement for lease, not the building design, height or mass. If the committee deem it appropriate to consent to the lease transaction, the developer must then commence detailed building design, which will be subject to planning determination.
Specific concerns about the suitability of the scheme will be determined by the Council as Local Planning Authority. As is usual practice for all planning applications, any future planning application on the Bridge Street/Hanover House site, will be assessed against all the relevant legislation, policies and guidance in place at the time (both national and local), including the Staines Conservation Area designation. A full application will be required, and it should be noted that within conservation areas there is a legislative requirement for an application to demonstrate that it preserves and/or enhances the character and/or appearance of a conservation area. The applicant will be expected to demonstrate this with documentary evidence, and this will be assessed critically the Local Planning Authority.
Any application will be subject to assessment against the Design Code (and the appropriate weight will be applied to that Design Code depending on how far it is through the adoption process)”.
Question 2 from Nigel Rowe, nominated contact for the Riverside Residents (Staines) coalition
“Findings of the Royal Holloway research present a serious challenge to the further development of Staines, not only on groundwater flooding generally but as a potential source of increased flooding risk for existing residents from new large developments. Even the Council’s consultants said in July that the proposed Bridge Street development is “unlikely to be able to be managed to ensure the development would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” Will the Council therefore insist there is a contractual guarantee from the developer that the proposed development will not increase flood risk for nearby properties?”
Response from the Leader, Councillor Sexton
“This Committee is being asked to consider granting approval for an agreement for lease only. If approved, the agreement for lease will condition the grant of the actual lease and ability for the developer to commence any work, on the developer being in receipt of a planning approval for their proposed scheme.
Flooding matters form part of the planning considerations, which can only be determined by the Local Planning Authority in terms of 1) impact and 2) suitability of any flood risk attenuation proposed as part of the new development.
It would therefore not be appropriate for the Council to include flooding conditions in isolation as part of the criteria that has to be met prior to the actual lease being granted and works being able to commence.
Due to the wider considerations about suitability of the site for development, the grant of a planning approval is the correct mechanism to ensure 1) all criteria are considered and 2) determine whether development proposals are appropriate.
It is key to split the two transactions (lease and planning) in terms of approvals. The decision taken in respect of the Agreement for lease in essence says the Council as Landowner is content for the developer to see if they can design a scheme that is acceptable to the Local Planning authority. Only at this stage with the certainty that the scheme is suitable will the Council as Landowner agree for the developer to redevelop then operate the site as a 4* hotel”.
Question 3 from Kath Sanders
“The Q1 Capital Monitoring Report indicates a "current cumulative budget" of £140,337,000 and a "Manager's Projected Outturn at 31 March 2025" of £141,194,008. This includes £64,290,000 for Thameside House in each case. However, I can't see a line for Thameside House in the Budget approved on 22nd February 2024. Where can the "Revised Budget" of £140,337,000 be found?”
Response from the Deputy Leader, Councillor Bateson
“Due to a misunderstanding a major item – Thameside House – was included in the Programme which should not have been included. We apologise for the confusion this has caused. A revised report was issued as an addendum on Friday 6th September removing this item from the Capital Programme provision. The new current cumulative budget total is £76,047k, and the revised Forecast Outturn against this total is £76,904k, leaving the projected outturn uncharged at £857k”.
Question 3 from Kath Sanders
“It is acknowledged that some projects totalling £2,989,500 were approved for removal from the 2024/25 Capital Programme at the Council meeting on 18th July 2024. However, please can you explain and provide a reconciliation showing how the cumulative capital programme budget has moved from £96,989,026 (as of 31st March 2024) to £140,337,000 (as at 30th June 2024), showing all the projects which have been added and which projects have dropped out, along with a rationale for each”.
Response from the Deputy Leader, Councillor Bateson
“Due to a misunderstanding a major item – Thameside House – was included in the Programme which should not have been included. A revised report was issued as an addendum on Friday 6th September removing this item. The new current cumulative budget total is £76,047,000. The cumulative Capital Programme budget of £96,989,026 (as of 31st March 2024) was increased by £20,197,574 by budgets approved by Council on 22nd February 2024 in 2024/25 as new growth (excluding programme lines suspended or removed), then reduced by £41,139,600 for 2023/24 budgets no longer applicable in 2024/25 (use of 2023/24 and earlier budgets, plus capital schemes suspended or removed). This gives the 2024/25 cumulative budget of £76,047,000. For more detail we will provide to a members of this committee a full written analysis of the changes”.