Tag Archives: Kimpton House

Kimpton House not putting up with poor double glazing experience

2017 was a year of major works on the Alton Estate, both East and West, with regards to having double glazing installed as part of major works. On the Alton East the six buildings were – Somborne House, Chilcombe House, Rushmere House, Farnborough House, Crondall House, and Kimpton House. This being in the Manresa neighbourhood.

There has been some noise about the quality of the works that took place and one building with a newly established Residents Association, this being the Kimpton House Residents Association (KHRA), decided that in addition to the noise it would challenge the service charge which was applied to for the works.

The following is the letter which was sent to Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC).

The following is the response from WBC and we’re no experts, though it does not appear that the concerns of the KHRA letter were adequately addressed? The response is below;

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Advertisements

Kimpton House yellow lines became more interesting

Not sure what observations a reader should make of this. Yellow lines were introduced in December 2017 near Kimpton House with no notice to residents and especially no mention to the Kimpton House Residents Association (KHRA).

In January, residents received a letter which is shared below.

Questions for the readers;

  • Should this have been done before the yellow lines were completed?
  • Should the Wandsworth Borough Council worked with, or notified, the KHRA prior to completing the yellow lines?

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

 

Can Twitter help you get things done on the Alton Estate?

It has been mentioned at the recent meetings of both the Alton Regeneration Watch (ARW) meeting of 17 January 2018 and Alton Leaseholders meeting of 8 January 2018 how powerful the use of Twitter can be to assist with having things done. It is appreciated that not everyone has access to the internet or is on Twitter, though if people form groups then maybe one or more people can access Twitter to make the points. It is an extremely useful tool for having issues resolved.

Some examples are provided below.

The great water fall of Hersham Close 41-71. This took five months of effort  by the Hersham Close Residents Association (HCRA) to have something done and it kept dragging on. Once a video of the water fall was placed online with Councillor Sue McKinney copied into the Tweet as well as the Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) this got resolved quite quickly. Now it might be the case that the Tweet and the sorting out of the situation are related though there was a step in attitude from WBC to get this resolved after the Tweet, perhaps it was a fluke? Have a look at the Tweet here –  https://mobile.twitter.com/AltonWatch/status/946741512842498049

A recent bust water tank on Kimpton House (surprisingly a resident of Stoughton Close mentioned this at the recent ARW meeting) perhaps this might have had a similar expediency if the water spillage was filmed and placed on Twitter?

Bessborough Road planning application (2017/6977) somehow, the application date was 12 January 2018 and the date for comments was by 5 January 2018? Clearly an error and was quickly looked into by the WBC and a response by Councillor Carpenter. Here are a couple of links which highlight this –

https://mobile.twitter.com/notwandbc/status/954003331889991681

https://mobile.twitter.com/AltonWatch/status/953976158902681600

There was a hole in Alton Road near Heathmere School. Despite ongoing mentions to WBC even during Stoughton Close/Greatham Walk Resident Association meetings it appeared that being proactive was a bit too much to ask? In the end by placing this on Twitter copying in Thames Water it was resolved very quickly – https://mobile.twitter.com/AltonWatch/status/918461886290628608

Very recent examples regarding fly tipping and a messy work site on Hyacinth Road on the Alton East show how quickly WBC responded –

https://mobile.twitter.com/AltonWatch/status/954272140504784896

https://mobile.twitter.com/AltonWatch/status/954271815060414465

Now imagine that every time there was an issue that was not being resolved quickly or being ignored. You take a picture, Tweet it and copy in the WBC and a Councillor and maybe other relevant groups. Other groups see this and then Tweet it. The situation might become harder to ignore and it might get resolved quicker?

An idea could be that each building or group of buildings on the Alton Estate have Twitter champions who make Tweets and maybe things might be done a bit quicker around here. Who knows?

It’s now up to you.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

A lesson in how not to paint double yellow lines?

Kimpton House residents on the Alton Estate recently had an interesting experience with regards to how the Council painted double yellow lines next to the building.

The following photos were taken on the 17 & 18 December 2017.

This first photo shows one side of the road on Fontley Way as having the double yellow lines completed.

The next photo shows parts of the double yellow line, though notice the white vehicle which is relevant for the next photo.

The white vehicle is now gone and it can be seen that the double yellow lines have not been completed.

The Council was approached about this semi-completed job. A reply has yet been forthcoming though the following photo was taken on 20 December 2017 and the double yellow lines had been completed. Coincidence?

In any event, these double yellow lines might add to further problems with regards to limited car parking spaces in the area. Also the question has been raised with the Council with regards to how these double yellow lines will be enforced and the answer may be of interest to local residents.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

What became of the portacabin planning application?

For background on Roehampton University’s portacabin planning applications this can be found in previous articles within this blog under variance references such as ‘portacabins’, ‘2016/1385’ or ‘2016/5912’. Many people have asked about this planning application, for various reasons whether it be what happened or how did it not go to the Council’s Planning Application Committee (PAC), and this blog is to highlight some further background which might be of interest, not just for this application, though perhaps for others.

There were three retrospective planning applications, with the first two being withdrawn.

Application number: 2015/5648

Proposal: Erection of six portacabins for a temporary period of five years.

First Council document mentioned is on 14 October 2015 and the decision notice of 19 February states this application was withdrawn on 14 February 2016.

The portacabins in question are highlighted in the photo below taken from Kimpton House. Keep an eye on the portacabins in the red rectangle. Parkstead House (Grade I listed) is in the background.

Application number: 2016/1385

Proposal: Retention of seven portacabins sited against the southern boundary for a period of three years (affecting the setting of a Grade I listed building).

Decision: Withdrawn

Notice the retention change in the proposal from five years to three years, though the number of portacabins increased from six to seven?

This application was started on 15 March 2016, only a month after application 2015/5648, though was able to continue until December 2016. At this stage, this retrospective planning application had been in motion for a year with two withdrawn applications. There were a lot of objections which were lodged against this withdrawn planning application meaning that objectors had to start again with the next planning application.

Application number: 2016/5912

Proposal: Retention of three portacabins at the southern end of the site for use as additional teaching space for a further 3 years (Affecting the setting of a Grade I listed building).

Application Registered: 14 November 2016, though documents started to be uploaded on 11 October 2016

Decision: Approve with Conditions 14 February 2017

Again, there were a lot of objections, though have you noticed two further amendments.

The retention is now for three cabins instead of seven. Also, the date of approval is 28 months after the first document was uploaded (15 October 2015) with the first planning application (2015/5648).

The following photo, also taken from Kimpton House, highlights the now removed portacabins.

Didn’t Councillor Carpenter suggest he was going to provide resident representations at the Council’s Planning Application Committee (PAC)?

Yes, this was stated at the Roehampton Forum, yet didn’t happen. It has been suggested that Councillor Carpenter may not have been aware of the Council’s delegated power which permits planning application to be agreed by the Council’s planners rather than the PAC. This application was approved as it was less than 500 square metres of non-residential floor space. If this is true, one hopes that Councillor Carpenter is aware of the delegated powers now that he is on the PAC?

Another suggestion was that maybe Councillor Carpenter did not make his views known to the PAC that he wished to make representations at the PAC regarding this planning application. If this is true, then could Councillor Ambache, who was on the PAC at the time, could have informed Councillor Carpenter to make his representation position known to PAC members?

At the Let’s Talk event of 12th September 2016 wasn’t the portacabin planning discussed?

Yes, it was, and the following is taken from the Minutes;

“4. Roehampton University

Question/Comment – A resident said that he had contacted the planning service, without response, about the portacabins that had been erected without planning permission in the car park at Roehampton University facing Kimpton House. He said that the portacabins had been in place over 4 years and reduced on-site parking provision at the University that had been pushed out onto already busy roads such as Holybourne Avenue and Fontley Way. He suggested a survey by the University about staff and student parking during term and non-term time to determine the impact of the portacabins and said that residents were being forced into accepting a CPZ because of University demands. Concern also raised that the University is ‘getting away’ with not following due process and who is auditing the process? A resident raised the issue of excessive noise emanating from the University portacabins that affected Kimpton House and ‘terrified’ some residents.

Response – It was noted that an earlier planning application had been withdrawn but a revised one was due to be submitted including a transport assessment. A planning enforcement notice was still valid in respect of the unauthorised structures. Councillor Carpenter said that the University claimed that the portacabins did not reduce parking as the car park had been repainted to provide the same number of spaces as previously. He again advised residents to come along to the councillors surgeries to speak about any problems and if possible to attend the Roehampton Forum and Roehampton Partnership meetings. Councillor Ambache told the meeting that breaches of planning control should be reported to the planning service at the Town Hall and that, as a member of the Planning Applications Committee that would consider any application, he would not be able to ‘take a position’ on the matter but was listening to the related dialogue. He also confirmed that he was available to be contacted on any of the issues raised and this could be done in a variety of ways.

Councillor McKinney said that she understood the portacabin area to be the psychology department.

 With the consent of the meeting, Rev. McKinney then spoke as a governor of Whitelands College to inform the meeting that some concerns had been expressed at the Roehampton Forum. He said that he would raise the issue of the noise with the college and also that as far as he was aware the portacabins would be removed as the need for them had now reduced”.

Note that there is a comment in the Let’s Talk Minutes which states that the “portacabins would be removed as the need for them had now reduced”?

What does this application and Ibstock School’s planning application (2015/5074) have in common?

Both applications have taken at least two years to work their way through the planning system before being approved, though were being utilized by the applicants to some extent. As this is typed, Ibstock School’s planning application was registered on 22 September 2015 and is yet to be approved.

Three attempts for one planning application, maybe something to think about for 66 Alton Road?

With so many objections to the second application having to be repeated for the third application, is this a lesson as to the fate that 66 Alton Road (planning application 2017/3082) may face? Residents and interested parties may need to be vigilant in keeping an eye out for further attempts to demolish this building.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

 

Western Area Housing Panel (4 December 2017)

The latest meeting of the Residents Association (RA) Western Area Housing Panel (WAHP) takes place on 4 December 2017.

The following RAs are members;

  • Cadnam Point Residents’ Association
  • Crown Court Residents’ Association
  • Finchdean House Residents’ Association
  • Glenthorpe Sheltered Residents’ Association
  • Hayward Gardens Residents’ Association
  • Hersham Close Residents’ Association
  • Innes Gardens Residents’ Association
  • Kimpton House Residents’ Association
  • Lennox Sheltered Residents’ Association
  • Manresa and Minstead Sheltered Housing Residents’ Association
  • Putney Vale Residents’ Association
  • St Margaret’s Court Sheltered Residents Association
  • Stockhurst Close Residents’ Association
  • Stoughton Close and Greatham Walk Residents’ Association

The Agenda for the evening:

  1. Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

  1. Minutes

(a) To receive the minutes of the Western Area Housing Panel held on 11th September 2017

(b) To deal with any matters arising from the minutes.

  1. Roehampton Regeneration Update

To receive an update from Leigh Johnson, Senior Development Manager, Redrow.

  1. Report back from Borough Residents Forum

a) To receive a report on the Borough Residents Forum meeting held on 8th November 2017

b) To discuss arrangements for communication between BRF/ Area Housing Panel representatives between meetings.

5. Report Back From Roehampton Partnership

Exchange of information between Western Area Housing Panel and Roehampton Partnership.

  1. Performance Monitoring

To consider a report on the performance of the Housing and Regeneration Department in the Western Area for Quarter 2 of 2017-18.

  1. Small Improvements Budget

To consider any new schemes under the small improvement budget programme (to be tabled at the meeting).

  1. Urgent Items

To consider any urgent matters which have occurred since the preparation of the agenda.

  1. Future Meetings

To note the meeting dates for 2018:

  • Monday 12th February 2018
  • Tuesday 17th July 2018
  • Monday 24th September 2018
  • Tuesday 4th December 2018

Section 2 has a mention of water sprinklers which is a current topic of discussion within the ward.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Kimpton House antennas planning application

Just in case you missed it, the blog entry Weekly Council Planning applications and decisions – May13th 2017  highlighted the following planning application;

  • No of Neighbours Consulted: 0
  • Date Registered: 10 May 2017
  • Address: Communication Station, GLN 540, Roof Top, Kimpton House, Fontley Way, SW15
  • TEAM: W
  • Proposal: Notification of the intention to install 3no antennas on freestanding support frames, 3no 300mm transmission dishes and 1no radio equipment cabinet.

The following highlights further detail regarding this planning application;


To: WBC

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:55 PM

Subject: Kimpton House – Planning Application 2017/2559

Thank you for the outline below.


From: WBC

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:50 AM

Subject: RE: Kimpton House – Planning Application 2017/2559

Thank you for your further e-mail dated 24th June 2017.

As I advised you in my previous e-mail dated 22nd June, whilst the Council has deemed it appropriate to agree in principle to granting UK Broadband Ltd permission to erect a telecoms installation, this will be subject amongst other issues, to them submitting relevant technical information and a method statement for the consideration of Housing and Regeneration Department technical officers. If this is approved and should an agreement for lease be subsequently entered into, a technical inspection of the roof will be undertaken both prior to and subsequent to installation to ensure that no damage is caused. However, I am advised by Mono Consultants that the equipment itself is very lightweight and indeed there is usually no penetration of the roof structure itself which could create any possible damage.

I trust that this addresses any concerns you may have but if you have any further queries please contact me.


Sent: 24 June 2017 17:58

To: WBC

Subject: Kimpton House – Planning Application 2017/2559

many thanks for the detailed response below, this is very much appreciated.

I understand the requirement to make good if something has adversely impacted, though how would the Council know whether any damage has occurred, for as I understand there is not a review of the finished works for each and every planning application that has been sanctioned.

In this instance, how would the Council be aware of any damage that may have been caused?

Would a representative of the Council assess the before-work and after-work progress?


From: WBC

Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:10 AM

Subject: Kimpton House – Planning Application 2017/2559

Thank you for your recent e-mails addressed to @@@, dated 12th and 20th June 2017, concerning planning application 2017/2559 relating to Kimpton House. Your enquiries have been referred to me for investigation and reply.

The planning application to which you refer has been submitted by Mono Consultants, acting as agents for an organisation called UK Broadband Ltd, who have approached the Council as landlord with a request to install telecommunications equipment on a number of its residential tower blocks, including Kimpton House, for the purpose of the provision of wireless broadband services to the local community. As Kimpton House already has an existing telecommunications installation on the roof, where the provider is Everything Everywhere Ltd, the Council as landlord has deemed it appropriate to agree in principle to also granting UK Broadband Ltd permission to erect a further installation, subject to them submitting relevant technical information and a method statement  for the consideration of Council technical officers and then entering into a lease agreement and agreeing to make payment of a suitable yearly rental sum in consideration. An initial submission has been sent to the Council and at present heads of terms in relation to a lease are being negotiated by the Council’s appointed property contractor. Certain conditions within any such lease which is negotiated are quite detailed but  essentially ensure that the commercial tenant should make good any damage which they cause at their own expense and that they indemnify the Council for any costs which it itself incurs in making good any damage. Hence affected leaseholders will not incur any service charge costs should such remedial works be required.

As part of the process of seeking Council consent for such an installation, the organisation is also required to submit a planning application under Schedule 2 – Part 16 of the General Permitted Development Order. However, as my colleague, @@@ in the Council’s Planning Team has already advised you, the Council has no discretion during the assessment of an application of this type, furthermore there is no requirement to consult on applications made under the Permitted Development Order and as the proposal complies with the requirements under Schedule 2, it has been approved as permitted development

At the point when any proposed lease agreement is to be entered into, all affected residents will be duly consulted concerning the proposed installation.

In answer to the points you raise in your second e-mail to @@@ dated 20th June 2017, I would comment as follows :

  1. How much does the Council make from this arrangement ? – Whenever the Council enters into such an agreement which is essentially a commercial leasing arrangement, it negotiates a commercial rent with the installer for effectively renting an area of roof space. This rental will vary from site to site but any such rents in relation to Housing blocks where the Council is landlord, are credited to the Housing Revenue Account. Where the term of any such lease is in excess of 7 years, these have to be registered with HM Land Registry and in such circumstances the details of the lease are within the public domain and the information they contain, including the initial rental sum, can be obtained by making the appropriate application for a copy of a lease to HM Land Registry on payment of a fee. The existing lease at Kimpton House currently held with Everything Everywhere Ltd, was granted for a term of 10 years and a copy can be obtained by making an application, although I can advise that the initial annual rent was set at  £14,000 per annum.

With regard to any lease which may be entered into with UK Broadband Ltd, as this has yet to be completed it is not possible to provide you with any details of the proposed rent at this stage and in any case and upon completion details can only be obtained if it falls within the public domain.

  1. How much will the Council make from the amended arrangement under this planning application ? –   Covered in point 1 above.
  2. Are there any blocks on the Alton Estate which are subject to this arrangement ?  – Yes
  3. 4.    If the answer to number 3 is ‘yes’, can you please highlight which buildings ?    – At present Kimpton House and Binley House are the only two blocks on the Alton Estate where telecommunications equipment has been installed on the roofs.

I trust that his addresses the points you have raised, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries in relation to this matter.


From: WBC

Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:13 PM

Subject: RE: Kimpton House planning application 2017/2559

Further to your emails dated 12 and 20 June 2017 addressed to @@@ in relation to the above planning application.

Your queries have been forwarded to the Leasehold and Procurement Manager, @@@, to investigate and respond to you direct in due course.


To: WBC

Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 6:06 PM

Subject: Kimpton House planning application 2017/2559

I have been in contact with the Planning department regarding an application which has taken place for Kimpton House.

Interestingly, the planning application cited that no neighbours were consulted and the Planning team cite that there was no requirement for this consultation to take place. However, it might be reasonable to suggest that residents are notified if the works? Apologies if such notice has been done and I am not aware or have missed it.

Additionally, there does not seem to be any plans in place to review the before work and after work status. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that someone from the Council make sure that no damage is done by this work that could result in a service charge cost in future years?


From: WBC

Date: 12 June 2017 at 16:05:10 BST

Subject: RE: Kimpton House planning application 2017/2559

Yes I can confirm that there is no obligation to inform residents about the application – there may however be a duty from freeholder under the lease arrangement however this would be a civil matter separate from the Council and the assessment of this application.

No, the planning department would not check any before or after work to assess the installation of the proposed equipment.

I trust this assists.


Sent: 12 June 2017 13:29

To: WBC

Subject: Kimpton House planning application 2017/2559

Many thanks for the quick response.

To confirm two points please.

There is no obligation to inform residents of the block that this work is taking place?

Does the Council check the before and after work to assess whether any remedial work by the contractors are required?


From: WBC

Date: 12 June 2017 at 09:30:04 BST

Subject: RE: Kimpton House planning application 2017/2559

Thank you for the below email.

The application was applied for under Schedule 2 – Part 16 of the General Permitted Development Order, the Council has no discretion during the assessment of an application of this type (it either complies or it doesn’t), furthermore there is no requirement to consult on applications made under the Permitted Development Order. The proposal complies with the requirements under Schedule 2 – Part 16, and as such it was approved as permitted development.

With regards to your final question I note that this is a Civil issue that does not fall within the Council’s jurisdiction.

If you have any further questions please let me know.


Sent: 11 June 2017 18:31

To: WBC

Subject: Kimpton House planning application 2017/2559

regarding this application can more information please be provided.

What is the reason for no planning permission being required for this application?

The residents were not consulted and should be made aware of the work to be done on the building. Perhaps they would like to know that additional electromagnetic waves will be bouncing off the top of the building.

Additionally, with any work done how will leaseholders be able to assured that none of the works, current or future will slip into their service charges?


Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

  • Peter Carpenter – pcarpenter@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

  • Justine Greening – greeningj@parliament.uk