Dear All
cc Mr Geach: Please include this comment in materials for the Committee Meeting on Thursday
cc. KRSC: Please note the significant possibility that there will be no new or refurbished leisure centre under this scheme
cc. NMRA: Please note that the community hub may never be created
cc Mr Slogett: Please note how the viability assessment you prepared is being used
cc MPs for Kingston: Please note the need for local politicians such as you and our councillors to start considering the long term interests of people who have elected them and to be honest about your objectives and the way you intend to implement them
The SPD for Cocks Crescent is misleading and unsound. It makes grand assertions that are not based on sound information or facts and leaves the door open for developers to come in and offer something that is completely different to what local stakeholders have said that they want for the area. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that, as the SPD stands, there is a significant possibility that both the public square and a new or refurbished leisure centre may never happen. Cocks Crescent redevelopment will then become merely another big residential development such as we are seeing happening throughout the Borough.
For example, the SPD for Cocks Crescent gives potential developers the ability to say that certain other features of the site, such as a "new public square" are not viable, so that such a space will not be created: "The Council has identified a key opportunity to deliver a new public square within the site that flexibly caters for local needs such as the farmers’ market. Development proposals will be expected to give consideration to the creation of this space where appropriate."
I note that the New Malden Residents' Association say specifically that: "This is our town centre and other towns throughout the UK have or are, realising the importance of a community hub that not only provides a meeting place for residents, but is a development that is designed and built for long term benefit, not short term profit. "
The recommendations for approval of a development strategy for Cocks Crescent must not be made on the basis of assertions made in the report about the nature of the development as though they are fact when they are not and on figures from the viability report. Councillors who have been elected to represent local people must, in the interests of local people, turn down the SPD for Cocks Crescent as it currently stands.
Please read carefully what the SPD says and do not be misled by the glossy presentation and the assertion that it is based on community consultation. Consultation is only useful if it ends up informing the outcome of a process, not if it leaves open the possibility that it is completely disregarded.
Inadequate viability assessment for the purpose of approving this SPD for Cocks Crescent
The summary viability assessment by GL Hearn that underlies this proposal provides a completely inadequate financial assessment of the scheme for the purposes of the SPD being presented for approval. What was the brief for the study and how much has the Council paid for a study on which such an important development brief is being put forward for approval?
No short and long term assumptions, for example relating to costs and inflation, are available to support the assertions that the consultants make, no sensitivity analysis has been applied to figures and, as the consultants themselves say, their report is "based on very high level concept designs for the site and limited site information". The study was completed in the very short time frame of two weeks. I was trained and worked as a credit and financial analyst in the City for 14 years, and this report and the SPD for Cocks Crescent, which relies on it, would be thrown out.
Please note in particular the following excerpt from in the report on page 32 in which the Council uses an inadequate viability report to suggest either that there will be NO new community hub on the site OR that there will be a significantly reduced number of "affordable" housing units on the site. from the 50% base assumption. Also, what in fact are the "needs of the wider Borough"? Are these needs of local residents and businesses or of new and transient people coming from the "international businesses" that are at the heart of the Council's growth strategy for Kingston, also up for approval on Thursday?
"This SPD has been prepared to support the comprehensive redevelopment of Cocks Crescent. It sets out the long-term vision for the site and creates a planning and design framework to realise the vision. The SPD has been prepared having regard to the need for redevelopment to be commercially realistic and deliverable. It is supported by a high-level financial appraisal. One of the key messages received from stakeholders during the Stage 1 and 2 engagement on the SPD was a desire for improvements to the leisure and community provision on the site. There was significant support for the delivery of a new community hub at Cocks Crescent incorporating a replacement leisure centre and there was also support for the refurbishment of the existing Malden Centre. The financial appraisal prepared by consultants GL Hearn indicated that a new community hub would cost approximately £15 million at 2016 prices. Previous assessments have estimated that a comprehensive refurbishment of the Malden Centre on a like-for-like basis would cost up to 60% of the cost of a new facility. The Council’s starting point is that the redevelopment of the site should be achieved on a cost neutral basis. This means that new and upgraded community infrastructure must be funded in full by enabling residential development. The financial appraisal which supports this SPD provided an indication of the amount of residential units which would be required to deliver a new community hub and other uses on the site on a cost-neutral basis. The quantum changes significantly based upon the Delivery percentage of affordable housing. 100% Market Scheme = 210 homes 80% Market/20% Affordable Scheme = 268 homes 50% Market/50% Affordable Scheme = 900 homes To deliver a new community hub and deliver 50% affordable housing on the site would require in the region of 900 residential units without Council or other public subsidy. This figure does not include any additional costs associated with car parking, other than surface car parking, or third party land acquisition. This level of development cannot be realistically accommodated on the site. As set out in the SPD Vision, the Council seeks to comprehensively redevelop the site in a way which responds to the aspirations of the local community and the needs of the wider Borough. Achieving this objective within the context of the site’s limited capacity and the Council’s financial constraints will inevitably require prioritisation about what gets delivered. This will involve difficult choices about what is included within the scheme and what is excluded. The Council can only viably deliver a community hub by delivering a lesser percentage of affordable housing. Alternatively the Council could deliver more affordable housing by refurbishing the Malden Centre rather than delivering a completely new facility. Further feasibility and viability work will be required to establish a range of deliverable development scenarios and these will need to be assessed and ranked having regard to the full range of factors outlined above."
If this SPD is approved, anything could happen in Cocks Crescent and, in my opinion, there is a significant possibility that it will not include a community hub or a new or refurbished leisure centre and it will include development that is primarily not targetted at local people.
Yours
Canbury Ward resident
cc Mr Geach: Please include this comment in materials for the Committee Meeting on Thursday
cc. KRSC: Please note the significant possibility that there will be no new or refurbished leisure centre under this scheme
cc. NMRA: Please note that the community hub may never be created
cc Mr Slogett: Please note how the viability assessment you prepared is being used
cc MPs for Kingston: Please note the need for local politicians such as you and our councillors to start considering the long term interests of people who have elected them and to be honest about your objectives and the way you intend to implement them
The SPD for Cocks Crescent is misleading and unsound. It makes grand assertions that are not based on sound information or facts and leaves the door open for developers to come in and offer something that is completely different to what local stakeholders have said that they want for the area. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that, as the SPD stands, there is a significant possibility that both the public square and a new or refurbished leisure centre may never happen. Cocks Crescent redevelopment will then become merely another big residential development such as we are seeing happening throughout the Borough.
For example, the SPD for Cocks Crescent gives potential developers the ability to say that certain other features of the site, such as a "new public square" are not viable, so that such a space will not be created: "The Council has identified a key opportunity to deliver a new public square within the site that flexibly caters for local needs such as the farmers’ market. Development proposals will be expected to give consideration to the creation of this space where appropriate."
I note that the New Malden Residents' Association say specifically that: "This is our town centre and other towns throughout the UK have or are, realising the importance of a community hub that not only provides a meeting place for residents, but is a development that is designed and built for long term benefit, not short term profit. "
The recommendations for approval of a development strategy for Cocks Crescent must not be made on the basis of assertions made in the report about the nature of the development as though they are fact when they are not and on figures from the viability report. Councillors who have been elected to represent local people must, in the interests of local people, turn down the SPD for Cocks Crescent as it currently stands.
Please read carefully what the SPD says and do not be misled by the glossy presentation and the assertion that it is based on community consultation. Consultation is only useful if it ends up informing the outcome of a process, not if it leaves open the possibility that it is completely disregarded.
Inadequate viability assessment for the purpose of approving this SPD for Cocks Crescent
The summary viability assessment by GL Hearn that underlies this proposal provides a completely inadequate financial assessment of the scheme for the purposes of the SPD being presented for approval. What was the brief for the study and how much has the Council paid for a study on which such an important development brief is being put forward for approval?
No short and long term assumptions, for example relating to costs and inflation, are available to support the assertions that the consultants make, no sensitivity analysis has been applied to figures and, as the consultants themselves say, their report is "based on very high level concept designs for the site and limited site information". The study was completed in the very short time frame of two weeks. I was trained and worked as a credit and financial analyst in the City for 14 years, and this report and the SPD for Cocks Crescent, which relies on it, would be thrown out.
Please note in particular the following excerpt from in the report on page 32 in which the Council uses an inadequate viability report to suggest either that there will be NO new community hub on the site OR that there will be a significantly reduced number of "affordable" housing units on the site. from the 50% base assumption. Also, what in fact are the "needs of the wider Borough"? Are these needs of local residents and businesses or of new and transient people coming from the "international businesses" that are at the heart of the Council's growth strategy for Kingston, also up for approval on Thursday?
"This SPD has been prepared to support the comprehensive redevelopment of Cocks Crescent. It sets out the long-term vision for the site and creates a planning and design framework to realise the vision. The SPD has been prepared having regard to the need for redevelopment to be commercially realistic and deliverable. It is supported by a high-level financial appraisal. One of the key messages received from stakeholders during the Stage 1 and 2 engagement on the SPD was a desire for improvements to the leisure and community provision on the site. There was significant support for the delivery of a new community hub at Cocks Crescent incorporating a replacement leisure centre and there was also support for the refurbishment of the existing Malden Centre. The financial appraisal prepared by consultants GL Hearn indicated that a new community hub would cost approximately £15 million at 2016 prices. Previous assessments have estimated that a comprehensive refurbishment of the Malden Centre on a like-for-like basis would cost up to 60% of the cost of a new facility. The Council’s starting point is that the redevelopment of the site should be achieved on a cost neutral basis. This means that new and upgraded community infrastructure must be funded in full by enabling residential development. The financial appraisal which supports this SPD provided an indication of the amount of residential units which would be required to deliver a new community hub and other uses on the site on a cost-neutral basis. The quantum changes significantly based upon the Delivery percentage of affordable housing. 100% Market Scheme = 210 homes 80% Market/20% Affordable Scheme = 268 homes 50% Market/50% Affordable Scheme = 900 homes To deliver a new community hub and deliver 50% affordable housing on the site would require in the region of 900 residential units without Council or other public subsidy. This figure does not include any additional costs associated with car parking, other than surface car parking, or third party land acquisition. This level of development cannot be realistically accommodated on the site. As set out in the SPD Vision, the Council seeks to comprehensively redevelop the site in a way which responds to the aspirations of the local community and the needs of the wider Borough. Achieving this objective within the context of the site’s limited capacity and the Council’s financial constraints will inevitably require prioritisation about what gets delivered. This will involve difficult choices about what is included within the scheme and what is excluded. The Council can only viably deliver a community hub by delivering a lesser percentage of affordable housing. Alternatively the Council could deliver more affordable housing by refurbishing the Malden Centre rather than delivering a completely new facility. Further feasibility and viability work will be required to establish a range of deliverable development scenarios and these will need to be assessed and ranked having regard to the full range of factors outlined above."
If this SPD is approved, anything could happen in Cocks Crescent and, in my opinion, there is a significant possibility that it will not include a community hub or a new or refurbished leisure centre and it will include development that is primarily not targetted at local people.
Yours
Canbury Ward resident