Yuku free message boards

...from their website.

We specialise in helping developers and businesses manage the complexities of local authority politics, stakeholder management and liaison - especially given the onus on pre-application community consultation by government legislation.

We have a unique approach to managing difficult projects in that we are driven by results and objectives and not actions for their own sake; we use a proven methodology, communications is a science like most other disciplines and we work on a project basis agreeing costs in advance so there are no surprises.

Ultimately, we act to deliver political and community support for planning applications.

"By making use of Green Issues' detailed knowledge of the political planning process, understanding of local communities and expertise in consultation, we believe that the chances of a success at planning committee are significantly increased". Regional Chair, Top 10 House Builder

Well, my first reaction to that is that both the public living around and about and the planning committees that will be involved are going to be sweet talked into doing what Green Issues's client, St Congar, want.

Such a blatant example of image manipulation doesn't really get us off on the right foot. I have a distinct feeling of being manipulated. 'Green Issues'? Talk about jumping on the ecology bandwagon! They want to redevelop an existing building, not build a wind farm! I bet the new development is very much larger than the current building's 'footprint' and will be sadly lacking any vestige of 'green'.

St Congar - I know, I had to check too - apparently thrust his staff into the ground in Somerset and up popped a yew tree at which point he founded a monastery on Cadbury Hill at Congresbury. The yew tree is still there...

Perhaps I do them a disservice. Perhaps something really exciting is going to happen. Let's see what they have to say at the exhibition.

The Windsor Express has published an artists impression of the proposed development (7 Nov 2008, page 9) which looks very large indeed.

In the foreground is a man walking along with a mobile phone glued to his ear. Don't they all these days? There is a large triangular sculpture in the centre, but in the background there seem to be at least four, maybe five, glass faced blocks of, presumably, both offices and apartments with a reflection of Trinity Church. Positioned behind the sculpture in the middle distance, probably deliberately, is what seems to be a 9 or 10 storey tower block.

It surprises me not at all that with this multi-million pound development St Congar Properties has enlisted the assistance of Green Issues Communications to 'facilitate effective engagement with key stake holders.' No doubt one of Green Issues bright ideas (bribes) was to offer to create a route through the new development from the town centre to Vansittart Park [sic]. Some offer! What Spin!!! A public footpath already exists from Alma Road to Vansittart Road Recreation Ground and has done for many years. It cannot be closed although it was realigned to the north when Kipling Building was demolished and the current office block constructed. There is no need for vehicular access as that is already provided from Clarence Road. This is a classic example of a PR company trying to make their client look good, 'spinning' an existing planning essential into a generous gift to the borough.

Another blatant example of this cynical 'spin' is the Green Issues / St Congar Properties suggestion that they will 'pledge significant investment' in Vansittart Recreation Ground to create a 'valued open space for the people of Windsor'. What balderdash. Pure hypocrisy. What a con!!! Any development such as this requires a substantial provision for recreational facilities either adjacent, or in the form of cash support for facilities elsewhere in the Borough. Cash provided in this way paid for the upgrading of Imperial Park in Imperial Road just a short while ago.

In short, Windsor is significantly deficient in Public Open Space to the tune of almost 50 hectares. (Source Local Plan 1991.) The standard should be 2.5ha/1000 population for informal open space plus 1.8ha/1000 population for pitches, etc. Imperial Park will have helped to a degree, and it can be claimed that upgrading existing play areas with better equipment can balance this shortfall to an extent, but the Public Open Space shortfall generally within Windsor (it is rather less of a problem in Maidenhead... surprised?) will never be solved while major new housing schemes such as we have seen over recent decades continue to be permitted.

Anyway, the point is that all developers are required to include in their plans some provision for recreational areas and to suggest that this development is going to somehow benefit Vansittart Road Recreation Ground out of the goodness of their hearts when actually benefits must be included in some form or other. And anyway, what can St Congar provide that is not already there? We have a skate park (don't get me started!) and a youngsters' play area, and lots of shrubs and bushes which are maturing nicely, and a large area for ball games in the centre. The only thing I can think of is regular attention to the gates into the 'dog free' area, which isn't, because the gates are always left open so the dogs can run in and foul the children's grassed play areas.

For some strange reason I am becoming more and more distrustful of this project and its promoters.

Try http://www.greenissues.com/community.asp. It contains some interesting admissions about their 'methodology' (their word). They write:

Ensure you know the local community, key issues and personalities before you approach anyone.

Anyone been approached? I would have thought the local forum was worth an approach, specially in view of our visit figures:

964 Avg views per day
611552 Total views

Golly. Almost 1000 views a day. Not to be sniffed at.

Before they spot it and change it (I already have an archive copy by way of proof) St Congar's chosen PR company really is demonstrating a total lack of competence. They refer to the local authority as 'Royal Borough of Maidenhead and Windsor Council.'

Now how many hours of research would it have taken to get the blessed name right? There are other examples of poor grammar so I don't have much faith in their expertise in those areas where it gets a bit more complicated.

For the record the original home page reads:

Welcome to our website displaying the initial proposals to redevelop Imperial House, the former Intercontinental Hotels headquarters, just off Alma Road in Windsor.

This website, along with the exhibitions is being facilitated by Green Issues Communications, a specialist community consultation company working on behalf of St Congar Properties, to ensure that residents and stakeholders are kept informed of the proposals and have the opportunity to participate in the ongoing consultation process. Over 7,000 invitation letters were sent out to households, businesses and other key stakeholders in the area with the intention of maximising attendance at our exhibtions and generating as much feedback as possible.

Please take the time to read through our website displaying the boards and the plans. Please also take a moment to complete a feedback in thank section in order to register your views. The project team will carefully consider the feedback provided and will endeavour to incorporate the views expressed by the local community wherever possible into theevolving proposals.

The feedback given will also be put into a document known as a Statement of Community Engagement and submitted with the planning application. This document will also be available on our website.

The project team will put together its final proposals for the redevelopment of this site and submit a planning application to the Royal Borough of Maidenhead and Windsor Council, which will also conduct its own consultation before its Development Control Panel votes on the application.

Well, I went along this afternoon but if you have already read the website then you won't see much more apart from some landscape ideas in greater detail for the rec. and of course some of the proponents of the development will try and justify their plans to you. And why no model...? In my day a model was essential. All we were given today was a colour A3 sheet, folded A4, with some grainy, low res, images with illegible captions, repeated in bigger print on the display boards. On the back of the printed sheet was a 'feedback' form. I was also given, separately, another feedback form containing the same text and same boxes to fill in. Why this duplication?

WARNING: The forms must be filled in and arrive at Green Issues before December 1st. This is important. It is likely that virtually all forms will be against the plans so the slightest opportunity that the developers might have to ignore forms will be seized upon. Also, keep a copy, ideally several, as every one should be sent direct to the borough too so that your opposition is on record when the planning application is received and published. Writing to the developers at this stage merely reinforces their required step to demonstrate that the required local consultation has been undertaken. There is no onus on their part to act on any suggestions or observations, either for or against.

A number of other items cropped up during my visit.

...'a new entrance on Vansittart Road (for offices and residential)' (Transport and Access page)
This was denied by the architect I was talking to who claims that the vehicular access on the north west side was purely for residents. Two problems here. One is that the carriageway from the junction with Clarence Road is only single width, requiring vehicles to give way to oncoming traffic, and the second is that the resident parking is inevitably going to fill up with office staff who can't be bothered to drive all the way round to the Alma Road entrance. Also, there is a second residential block directly opposite the skate park for which vehicular access means entering from Alma Road, where it would be necessary to drive half way around the site. There is also the retained access to the college parking area on the north side so the traffic movements are extensive. It seems too that vehicles and pedestrians will be in conflict being on the same levels.

Parking and Travel
The shortfall in parking provision for the residential units is obvious for all to see in that one space per unit is far from sufficient these days. Add to that, merely 300 spaces for 1000+ staff and visitors is plainly not enough, despite claims that staff will arrive on foot, and by bike and by public transport. The overflow will try to park in Green Lane, York Road and York Avenue. They will also grab the spaces allocated to the recreation ground. Few staff are going to accept a long walk, especially in the winter, from the Central Station and are even less likely to want to walk from W & E Riverside. The suggestion today was that shuttle buses might be instigated. A weak and impractical option that is more suited to the window dressing file than any serious attempt at getting staff to and from the development. Well, would you strand yourself at some distance from the train stations in the dark, in the cold or the pouring rain waiting for a half-hourly shuttle when the last one went two minutes earlier?

It should be noted that the developers speak of cafés, restaurants and even an auditorium under the residential tower block, but no parking has been allocated for these facilities. I have a horrid feeling that this development is going to become an eerie, silent, litter strewn area of Windsor to which no-one will want to come after the office workers have gone home.

More about the main residential block
This is likely to be 8 stories, a minimum of 25 metres high, probably more. This is over 33' or 10 metres higher than every other neighbouring building and will be very prominent from all around. The developer's objective of course is to create penthouse style apartments at 'top dollar' prices, with views across Windsor to the castle and to the west over the recreation ground, which is why they insist on calling it a park, and why they are offering to spend some money on it.

The height of the tower block really must make it a non-starter, otherwise there certainly is no justice.

Landscape alterations on the Recreation Ground
A little pond and fountains are suggested, a magnet to vandals, plus some canopies adjacent to a two part, two metre high, curved bund, a performance space(?) and a long avenue with seating through from the development area, aka the courtyard. But of course that has nothing to do with the redevelopment of no. 67. Nevertheless I cannot help feeling that the offer to 'enhance' the recreation ground is merely a device to aid sales of the residential units, but in truth I was told that nothing is cast in stone and that it is all up for public consultation.

Well, I thought we had jumped through all those consultation hoops just a few years ago when, having fought off a development of almost 150 flats on the rec back in '89 after which the local community reaffirmed the continued need for a sufficiently large grassed area for groups of youngsters to play ball games. That need remains today, and it could be argued is even more important as an antidote to sedentary computer games.

Back in the days of the 1989 camapign the protestors anthem was Gordon Cullingham's version of Ten Green Bottles, reworded as Ten Green Acres, where we used to kick a ball.... The verses of their battle anthem are reproduced here. The Vansittart Rec Anthem.

But what I want to know is 'what steps will be taken to protect any improvements in the recreation ground from vandalism?'

Pedestrian approaches to the redevelopment
One of the stranger aspects of the redevelopment plans is the insistence that 'a pleasant route' should be created from the town centre. Given that the developers have no control over anything beyond Alma Road this claim has no validity whatsoever and can only be classed as window dressing. I was told that not many people knew about Vansittart Rec, hence its 'limited use', and so they wanted to somehow open up vistas through and around the new development. Nope, still don't get it. How many extra people is that going to attract into the rec, and for what purposes? File under 'window dressing' too.

Four massive office blocks
Office blocks 1 & 2 on the north side of the site will be 4 stories high, that is 15m minimum (50') and the two on the south side will be 19m high (63'). The developers try to justify this grossly extended roofline by comparing them to the roof of Windsor Police Station. Well, yes, that was a major mistake in the middle of a residential area too, and close by a conservation area, but it is not actually office space up there, merely a weatherproof covering for the air-conditioning, aerials and transmission equipment used these days by the police force. Because there is one that high does not mean anyone else should be permitted to pile in another five of similar height plus a double height apartment block too!

And anyway, I was told this afternoon recent buildings are useless and out of date after a few years so have to be pulled down. Perhaps that will happen to the ugly police station in the not too distant future, for such is the fate of Imperial House after only 25 years. They claim it cannot be rented and so is currently empty. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that a certain property consortium bought it last February delighted at the possibility of putting up 185,000 square feet of office space, a four fold+ increase.

I never got around to seeing the bit that was supposed to look like a swan's wing...

Maybe next time.

May I ask everyone who opposes this development to contact me via email including a contact address and phone number so that I can keep in touch. Not everything that we are planning behind the scenes can be included here, so do please get in touch, everyone will be welcome and will play a valuable part, especially if you can offer any specific expertise and/or your time.

We are fortunate to have the web, and email, and other modern facilities as tools in our armoury, so it is important that we make full and effective use of them all as we confidently embark on a major campaign of opposition that will benefit from previous successful campaigns nationwide.

If you are in a position to provide a detailed report on your visit to the exhibition, it will be valuable to collate all the questions and answers that you managed to ellicit. Contradictions are particularly welcome! There are quite a few.

Our email address is editor@thamesweb.co.uk