Please note: plans and visuals for the new hall are now available from here.

 
PUBLIC MEETING

To discuss the redevelopment of Wimbledon Park Hall

Location & time: St Austin’s Hall, Church of Christ the King in the Crescent, off Arthur Road at 8.00pm

Next meeting:  Wednesday October 25th  (AGM)

An application for the redevelopment of Wimbledon Park Hall has now been submitted to the Council’s Planning department

As most residents will know, from the regular updates in the newsletter, the redevelopment of Wimbledon Park Hall has had a rather slow and tortuous journey – which seems to be the nature of these things.  However we can now tell you that this exciting new project is entering an important new stage. This is the ideal opportunity for all residents in the community to see the plans for the redevelopment, hear from all those involved, ask questions and express their views.

October 25th

This is the date of the WPRA AGM.  The formalities of the AGM will be kept to a minimum and a presentation will follow similar to that on the 27th September and with most of the same people involved.

The plans for the proposed redevelopment and a model will be available for viewing at the new offices of estate agents ‘The Home Office’, at 130, Arthur road, - after 21st September.       

You can also download the official notice.

Easter 2006

Wimbledon Park Hall - progress at last!

At long last we can see a small light at the end of the tunnel.  The outlook is now much more positive than that reported in the last newsletter.  A number of the developers who bid for the site have fallen by the wayside and discussions have now come to rest with Shaukat Hussein (Shaw Associates) who were the original developers with whom we worked out the original business plan back in 2003.  Initial discussions have taken place between Shaw Associates and the Council and a draft contract is in discussion.

The WPRA committee together with Councillors held a meeting with Mr Hussein and his architect Nigel Husband last week to see at first hand what sort of building was proposed and more particularly discuss the proposed community facility on the ground floor. 

Just to remind you - the planning brief sets out the Council’s requirement for the redevelopment.  It requires provision of a Community facility and a café on the ground floor with upper storeys of residential accommodation.  The community facility itself comprises a hall similar in size to the existing hall, meeting rooms conference facilities with IT and Internet facilities and the usual toilet facilities.

The outline proposal shown at the meeting showed a building with a ground floor dedicated to the community facility and four floors of flats, 14 in total.  Three on each of the first three floors (above the ground floor) and two on the top floor.  In line with the planning brief the design showed stepping back on each floor at the rear to avoid encroachment on the residential properties in the Crescent and Crescent Gardens. 

All of this is, of course, subject to obtaining planning consent and satisfactory arrangements between the Council and developers.  At present the developers are intending to put in a planning application by June.  Should they manage to do that I imagine it will take at least two months to obtain planning permission assuming their proposal complies with the planning brief and satisfies the Council.    

In the meantime, as agreed with the Council, the WPRA will be working with the developers on finalising the detail of the layout and design of the community facility on the ground floor.  As soon as this is accomplished and there are proper drawings of all the development available we will engage with the whole community in various ways to present the plans and invite your comments, suggestions and support.

Christmas 2005

If it seems to you, a long time has passed since any visible progress was made on this project, you would be right. The choice of preferred bidder was made earlier this year – in fact in Feb/March (I was not advised of the actual date). The Council seemed to be confident that they would reach agreement with the developer within a reasonably short space of time. This has not unfortunately turned out to be the case. It transpires that the developer had been negotiating to reduce the amount he was prepared to offer from his original bid (surprise!) and wanted to make some changes to the design that would have impacted substantively on the original design. This was confirmed by Cllr Tariq Ahmad at the AGM in October and is now further confirmed by Stephen Hammond.

I received a note from the Council at the beginning of November, advising me that discussions with the original choice of developer had not progressed as hoped and the Council was now in discussions with another developer. It would not be unreasonable to ask yourself, as has your committee many times in the last few months, why the Council has persisted in continued negotiations with this developer for so long, when it was evident that they were not prepared to contract to anything close to the original terms off his bid.

I have written to the Council asking them to clarify how long they intend to allow for negotiations with the new developer. I have also stressed that the Hall has been unavailable for use since in April 2003 – approximately two and a half years – which represents a significant loss of amenity to the community and parallel loss of income to the Council, which I surmise they can ill afford. I think it is safe to assume that were the Council operating in the world of private commerce on such a timetable, they would be unlikely to still be in business.

Easter 2005

Although there has not been much apparent progress since my last report on the subject, I can tell you that everything is still on track. I understand that, in the interim, the short-listed bidders have been asked for further information in support of their bids and that a final decision is expected fairly soon.

Christmas 2004

As mentioned in our last newsletter, the deadline for submitting tenders was the 29th October. Those of you who attended the AGM on the 19th October will have heard Andrew Judge, Leader of the Council and our guest speaker, say that there had been, at that date, 76 six expressions of interest in the property. Since then we have learned that there was considerable interest in the site and close to twenty bids were received.

We understand the process of sifting through the bids and arriving at a shortlist of potential developers, should have been completed by now. That is all we know about this at the moment. In the future, until the publication of the next newsletter (Easter), we will update the website with any further information we receive.

Autumn 2004

Good progress has been made since the last newsletter. The Planning Brief for the Hall was circulated by the Council, as is the usual practice, to those in the near vicinity of the Hall, in the latter part of April. We are pleased to report that the content of the brief clearly indicated a commitment by the Council to the principle of providing a community facility within the redevelopment of the site. In particular, the brief contained the proposal that the redevelopment should provide a community facility with a café on the ground floor and four floors of flats above. This was very much in accordance with the outline plans that had been developed by the WPRA in consultation with local developer Shaukat Hussein and had been displayed and discussed at the Association’s AGM in October 2003.

Residents in Crescent Gardens, immediately behind the Hall, and the Crescent were not happy with the proposals and sent a petition and letter of objection to the Council. In summary their objections related to the ‘height and density’ of the proposed development and the ‘car free’ nature of the development. They were also unhappy about what they viewed as a lack of consultation by the Council.

A public meeting was held in June in the Wimbledon Park Bowls Pavilion, organised by local Councillors, to discuss the brief and address the complaints raised by the petitioners. The meeting was attended by Steve Clark, Head of Planning and Protection for the Borough and Ian Bremner, a senior planning officer.

Subsequent to that, the brief was then discussed at a meeting of the Borough Development Plan Overview and Scrutiny Panel in early July. Local residents were given a generous amount of time by the Chairman to make their objections known and your Chairman (WPRA) also spoke on behalf of the Association. The brief was subsequently passed by the committee with two minor amendments.

In July the brief was discussed at a Council Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet agreed the comments by the Scrutiny Panel and adopted the Planning Brief as amended. They also agreed that:

• The site should be disposed of by tender, subject to the requirements set out in the Planning Brief.
• A Community Trust should be established between the Council, the developer of the site, the Wimbledon Park Residents’ Association and others to manage and operate the ommunity facility on the site.
• To use the process adopted for this site as a model for redevelopment of other community facilities in the Borough.

The Council is now accepting tenders from interested parties and the official tender period closes on the 29th October. Nothing further will be known after that, until the Council has considered all the tenders and decided whose is the preferred tender.

Easter 2004

In the latest newsletter there was extensive coverage of our efforts to negotiate a new community facility from the proposed sale and redevelopment of Wimbledon Park Hall.

As agreed with the Council, we (WPRA) submitted a business plan at the end of October for consideration. The business plan included outline plans and costs for a community facility courtesy of Shaukat Hussein, developer, and his architect Nigel Husband of Husband & Carpenter architects. In January a meeting of all interested parties took place at the Civic Centre. Those present were representatives of the WPRA, the developer and architect who compiled the business plan, and the Leader of the Council and senior officers from various departments I think it is reasonable to say that our business plan was well received and that overall the Council was impressed with the quality of the work we had done and the presentation.

Our discussions since the early part of last year have been conducted through the good offices of the Leader of the Council Andrew Judge, who has taken a personal interest in our project. We have been impressed by his willingness to listen to us and his support, in principle, of what we are trying to achieve. It is clear that there is an increasing desire and willingness on the part of the Council, to engage more proactively with the various representative groups in the community and work in partnership towards improving the quality of life and amenities in the borough. The result of the meeting in January was support for the principle of a mixed use development on the Wimbledon Park Hall site and the inclusion of a community element. They also agreed that the WPRA was well placed to run such a facility.

We had hoped that we might have been able to proceed on the basis of our proposal in the business plan. However it was quite clear from the meeting that in order for the council to comply with the requirements of probity and transparency the redevelopment will have to go out to tender in the normal way.

A project team has been set up by the Council and a timetable drawn up. In the first instance the planning brief must be agreed before the tender process can begin. Discussions on the planning brief are now under way and the timetable suggests that the completion of the planning brief process might be achieved by the end of April followed by a tendering process lasting approximately three months. It has been agreed that the planning brief will, as far as possible, incorporate our aspirations as expressed in our business plan and we are pleased that we will be involved in the discussions leading up to its completion.

Some key factors affecting the outcome of the tendering process are: (not exclusive)

• The market value of the site
• Size and quality of the community facility
• Type and quality of the residential accommodation
• Planning gains and related issues
• Design of the building and planning approval
• The capital receipt considered adequate by the Council
• Profit margin considered adequate by the developer

Shaukat Hussein, the developer with whom we have been working, has indicated a willingness to provide residents with a generous provision for a community facility. We are extremely grateful for his interest in our community and his willingness to make a personal contribution to its future growth and well-being. We obviously hope that his tender will be the successful one.

Christmas 2003

Since the Council’s decision earlier this year to close Wimbledon Park Hall and sell the site for redevelopment, several meetings have taken place between the Leader and other Council representatives and the Wimbledon Park Residents’ Association (WPRA). As a result the WPRA was asked to submit a business plan (by the end of October 2003) for a new community facility to be included within the redevelopment of the site. The Council agreed that they would use their best endeavours to include the business plan in the planning brief for the site.

In the interim, a local businessman, Mr Shaukat Hussein, has come forward who has both a strong interest and the capability of acquiring and redeveloping the site. More importantly, he has agreed to work with the WPRA to include a suitable Community facility within the redevelopment. To that end, Mr Hussein has indicated that he will enter into a long-term lease arrangement with the WPRA (or substitute vehicle), certainly for 25 years and possibly much longer. Mr Hussein and the WPRA have agreed that they will work together on this project exclusive of any other party until such time as it might become apparent that either party will be unable to achieve its aims.

After a number of meetings and considerable work on the part of everyone involved the WPRA has submitted a detailed Business Plan to the Council in conjunction with Mr Hussein and his architects, Husband & Carpenter. We are looking for support from the Council and see it as a great opportunity to create a working partnership with them to make this new vision for Wimbledon Park Hall a reality for the community.

The business objective – a Social Enterprise
The business objective is to design and build a community facility that will serve, as far as possible, the wide-ranging needs of the community and be capable of sustaining itself as a self-contained and profitable business not requiring any major initial or continuous external funding requirements. In the WPRA’s view, this is an essential requirement of any project like this when faced with the realities of the economy of the borough and the diminishing resources available to meet the revenue requirements of many of the borough’s public facilities.

The proposed facility
The new facility proposed will contain a Hall similar in size to the existing one, a café, which will serve as a permanent social focal point for the community and some small meeting rooms. The design will be such that integration of these facilities will be possible thereby providing maximum flexibility and potential for rental income. It is anticipated that, in addition to attracting large social functions, the facility will also be of sufficient standard to provide conference and training facilities.

Funding

It is possible to obtain funding for certain types of community projects from sources external to the Council and developer, and the WPRA intends to explore all possibilities in order to be able to assist with this project. However, success in obtaining funding is not something that can be depended upon, therefore the plan anticipates that there will not be any external help in funding the project.

However, we hope that the Council will be able to advise us on potential sources of funding and also make a contribution towards our administrative costs in the early years of development.

Demand

In 1996, when the WPRA carried out a survey of the community, it was clear that the community wanted a modern central community facility. At that time a building was designed by local architect, Stephen Saul and a bid for Millennium lottery funding was launched. Unfortunately the bid was unsuccessful and the project set aside.

In the last twenty years the profile of the community has changed significantly and now includes a diversified mix of nationalities and religions. It is a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-faith neighbourhood embracing a wide variety of socio-economic and age groups.

Therefore, there is a significant demand for a central non-denominational community facility that is capable of embracing a wide variety of needs that exist within a spectrum from the elderly to the youth in the community.

Market research

Since the discussions with the Leader of the Council started earlier this year, the WPRA has carried out an extensive survey of the residents and the business community in the local area. This included:

• a questionnaire sent out to over 2000 Households
• public meetings
• a redesigned website to enable online response
• The Wimbledon Civic Forum and the Merton Chamber of Commerce have e-mailed their membership asking them to respond to the survey on the website.
• Door-to-door survey of residents
• The capital receipt considered adequate by the Council
• the building up of anecdotal information from likely users.

The results of this survey activity are set out on pages 27-29 in descriptive and chart form showing, the various preferences together with other pertinent supporting information. In general they show strong support for a new modern facility, which will provide a focal point for the community and can meet a wide variety of demands.

Competition

There are several other ‘Halls’ available within a one-mile radius and these have been considered in detail, and we are extremely grateful to James Williams-Ellis for the excellent research he produced on this aspect for us. The most modern is the new ‘Garden Hall’ at St Mary’s Church. This new Hall facility is clearly not only very attractive and an architectural success but its high rate of bookings reflects the existing demand for such a facility. Our proposed facility differs in that it will be an integrated group of facilities offering greater flexibility of use and earning potential.

Usage and Cash flow forecasts

The Business Plan contained our estimates of income, expenditure and profit over a 5-year period. The figures used for income were conservative, particularly in the early years. The expenses have been estimated using, as far as possible, costs on similar existing facilities and estimated quotes from professional firms.

Conclusion

Until a project like this is up and running and potential users realise it will actually happen, it is extremely difficult to know how good the initial response will be to the facility. However, from the surveys we have carried out and the conversations held with various individuals and groups it is clear to us that significant untapped demand exists, not only within the community of Wimbledon Park but also in a much wider radius.

The WPRA believes that, working in partnership with Mr Hussein and the Council, we are capable of making this project succeed by obtaining the right advice and finding the right people to administer the project to ensure it is run professionally and will sustain itself over the long term.