Tag Archives: REO

Battersea Power Station chimney and Pump Station demolition meeting

Posted on by
Reply

Wandsworth Council’s Planning Applications Committee will (almost certainly) decide to give the go-ahead for the demolition of the chimneys at Battersea Power Station and the listed  grade II Victorian Water Pumping Station despite widespread and expert objection. The meeting is at the

Wandsworth Town Hall Thursday 11th November 7pm

(Please note the earlier than usual start time)

The Town Hall
Wandsworth High Street
London
SW18 2PU

Go to Details and reports for more info and to download the reports online the application number 1 is 2009/3575, No 4, 2009/3676 demolition of chimneys etc, no 3, 2009/3577, no 4, 2009/3578 Demolition of Water Pumping station.

Brian Barnes MBE, Chair of Battersea Power Station Community Group,  has issued a press release on behalf of the BPSCG:

If it were ever built, the Power station would be obscured by massive blocks of luxury flats and hotels. The Power Station will be altered with changes that will spoil the Grade 2* listed building with windows in the side walls, 1950s control room dismantled, new false ceilings in the main turbine hall, pods for penthouses covering the roofs and chimneys demolished and replaced by replicas (as if). Out of 3700 flats, only about 500 to be part buy/part let (so called “affordable”). The Grade 2 listed Battersea Water Pumping Station will be destroyed completely “in the public’s interest”. Any gain of public open space is unusable as it will be lakes and moats to reflect views of Power Station, as if there isn’t enough water with the Thames flowing past…

You can read the full press release here www.batterseapowerstation.org.uk

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs

See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

See more of Spectacle’s Photos of Battersea Power Station

Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society Pump House demolition objection letter

Posted on by
Reply

Profiting from demolishing our heritage

Malcolm Tucker of the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society has written a letter objecting to the demolition of the grade II listed Victorian Pump House situated next to the Battersea Power Station.

The letter is both a detailed inventory of the archaeological and cultural value of the site that “developer” REO/Treasury Holdings want to raze to the ground in the name of making more money, and a demolition of the arguments for demolition in the recently circulated Planning Policy Statement 5 Assessment, prepared by Donald Insall Associates Ltd and dated September 2010.

Matthew Tucker observes that:

….their arguments for demolition of the building centre on PPS5 Policy HE9.2, and on the wording of listing description and the stated conclusion of the CgMs report that the building has ‘limited architectural, artistic or archaeological significance’. We believe that the building does have architectural and archaeological significance and that its demolition would deny future generations an appreciation of the transition of the Cornish engine from mine pump to waterworks engine. Further, we point out below that it should be possible to incorporate the conserved building within the scheme.

We may add that since CgMs prepared their Historic Building Record in 2005, the original drawings and other records of the building have been studied in detail by Colin Thom of English Heritage Survey of London, corroborating and expanding upon this society’s own researches.

The letter outlines 5 main points:

1) Function and fabric as contributors to the significance of the building.
2) Assessment of architectural significance
3) Significance of artefacts
4) Structural condition
5) Accommodating the building within the development

If you would like to read the  letter in full you can download it here:

If you would like to add your voice to the objections write to: Bob Leuty BLeuty@wandsworth.gov.uk

Please also send spectacle a copy info@spectacle.co.uk so we can be sure your objection is circulated.

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Battersea Power Station Company’s Objection to demolition of the Victorian Pumping Station

Posted on by
1

The Battersea Power Station Company, the charitable organisation seeking to protect the Battersea Power Station, have submitted their objection to Treasury Holding’s application to demolish the nearby Grade II listed Victorian Pumping Station. The pumping station is widely recognised as of historic and architectural interest by a wide range of authorities including: the Victorian Society; Save Britain’s Heritage; the Newcomen Society; the Council for British Archaeology;  the River Thames Society; the West London River Group; the Battersea Society; the Kew Bridge Engines Trust, and the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society.

The only justification offered by REO (Treasury Holdings) is a spurious notion of “public benefit” where the developer is attempting to wrap up their desire to build a few extra offices or flats on the site as a “public benefit”. The only other, even weaker, argument seems to be the idea that the pumping station must be sacrificed in order to save the Battersea Power Station.  As the letter below makes clear there is no real connection. The owner has a duty of care for both Grade II listed buildings. Besides many critics would claim their plans to “save” the power station by turning it into a Westfield style shopping centre and knocking windows all along both side exterior walls is actually a mindless act of vandalism that destroys the building’s architectural integrity. Put together with REO’s application to demolish the chimneys and replace with plastic ones this is “development” 1960’s style. Is it also “conservation” 2010 style? Is there any imagination out there??

If you would like to register your objection it is never too late!

Write to : planningapplications@wandsworth.gov.uk

10th September 2010

Borough Planner
Wandsworth Borough Council
Town Hall
London SW18 2PU

For the attention of Mr Tony McDonald

Dear Sirs,

BATTERSEA WATER PUMPING STATION (REF 2009/3578)

I am writing on behalf of the Directors to confirm our objection to this application to demolish the pumping station.

We wrote previously on 29th January 2010 to object, pointing out that one of our objectives as a company is the preservation of Battersea Water Pumping Station.

Many other organisations, with an interest in conservation, science and the river Thames have since written to you to object to this application.  The list is impressive:  including: the Victorian Society; Save Britain’s Heritage; the Newcomen Society; the Council for British Archaeology;  the River Thames Society; the West London River Group; the Battersea Society; the Kew Bridge Engines Trust, and the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society

Given the near unanimity of opposition to the proposed demolition and support for retention and alternative use, we wrote to Treasury Holdings on 8th June to offer to buy the pumping station for a sum of £1.  The offer took account of the parlous state into which Parkview International, and now Treasury Holdings, have allowed the listed building to decline.  You have a copy of that letter and we would ask that you make special reference to it in your report.

Treasury replied to us on 17th June to refuse our offer, taking refuge in clause HE 9.2 (i) of the new government guidance on the historic environment PPS 5 which talks about the need to demonstrate “substantial public benefits” that would outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the heritage asset, ie the demolition of the pumping station.

Treasury have since produced a revised assessment report of the pumping station (September 2009) taking account of the recently revised and updated PPS5.

This report is essentially a detailed architectural and archaeological description of the building.  This merely serves to emphasise its significance of the building and the importance of keeping it.

The report goes on to extol the “substantial public benefits” of their proposals.  These are listed as: the retention of Battersea Power Station (with the implication that in some way the pumping station should be sacrificed in order for the Power Station to be saved) ; a “contribution” to the proposed Northern Line extension; and other “substantial” – but unspecified – benefits arising from the regeneration of the site.

The report goes on to argue that the demolition of the pumping station is necessary in order to “deliver” the public benefits of the proposals listed above.

There are various flaws in Treasury’s justification for the demolition.

Firstly of course, the retention of the pumping station and opening it to visitors is a substantial public benefit in itself.   It is moreover a practical and achievable goal with a tangible outcome.

Secondly, Treasury does not make it clear why they can’t provide both the public benefit of keeping the listed building and other public benefits as well.   It is not credible that this small building cannot be retained in such a large scheme on a 38 acre site.  Indeed Treasury’s total scheme, for instance as shown on the model in their offices, makes proposals for additional sites beyond the Battersea Power Station site itself.

Thirdly, it is misleading to suggest that all the public benefits accruing from the redevelopment of a 38 acre site will be jeopardised by the retention of the pumping station.  A more realistic comparison would be the public benefits that could be had in place of the pumping station itself.  Given the small size of the building this might be no more than a small office or 8-10 flats  (The higher figures Treasury quotes for loss of residential units are dubious, related to a notional  “30m exclusion zone to create a suitable setting for the retained listed building”.)

A further point, which you will no doubt tell us is “not a planning matter” – is that Treasury does not have the ability to provide the “substantial public benefits” that they claim, given that they are £1billion in debt.

This application is without justification or merit and should be thrown out.

Please will you now take steps to compulsorily purchase the pumping station and have it transferred to us.  We are the rightful owner of this building if Treasury no longer requires it.

We would also reiterate our previous request that you use your legal powers to require Treasury to secure the building from further physical deterioration and other threats.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Garner   Director

cc    Mr Nick Collins  English Heritage
Ms Alex Baldwin   Victorian Society
Mr Marcus Binney Save Britain’s Heritage
Miss Juila Elton  Newcomen Society
Ms Vicki Fox  Council for British Archaeology
Mr Peter Finch  River Thames Society
Mr Peter Makower West London River Group
Ms Monica Tross  Battersea Society
Mr Oliver Pearcey Kew Bridge Engines Trust
Mr Tim R Smith  Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society
Mr Frank Daly  NAMA

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Chimneys standing firm

Posted on by
Reply

REO continue to shoot themselves in the – what by now must be, given their perilously brittle financial circumstances, bare – feet. Their persistent corporate prostitution of the inner sanctuary of the Battersea Power Station (for yous philistines who don’t know is now renamed THE BOILER ROOM) rips away any last layer of credibility from the assertion that the iconic chimneys of Battersea Power Station should be demolished for safety reasons.

Photo taken from beyond the danger zone

This declaration is a major part of REO’s planning application, stating that the chimneys are monstrously dangerous actually, given that they could fall down imminently. This is the reason, according to Planning Director of REO and Treasury Holdings Jeremy Castle, that there is a strict thirty metre exclusion zone around each of the chimneys at each event. Quite how they maintain this INSIDE the structure of the power station is a mystery.

What undermines these claims is that there have been a slew of conferences, dinners and even large scale events in and around the power station throughout the year; from the recent Red Bull X-Fighter Motorcross event to the upcoming SHINE benefit dinner in November (where a canopy and walkway to access The Boiler Room will be constructed for guests). These events, inclusive of the Paul McCartney gig inside the station back in July, would not be permitted to take place if there was any truth to these safety concerns, so this fallacy of collapsing chimneys is but a clever marketing shoehorn to strengthen the application process. Which ironically of course, will be slowed down to increase the value of the land if the application is accepted.

This flagrant contradiction only adds to the  controversy surrounding REO, given that they are over a billion in debt, unable to pay interest to creditors, heavily criticised by heritage institutions such as the Victorian Society, Kew Bridge Engine Trust and the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society, and planning an unwanted underground line extension. The current plans for the station, which you can read more about on our Spectacle Battersea Blog, also include planning requests for an office and leisure complex, riverside access, a hotel, and 3,700 luxury flats.

To send in a written objection to the plans to demolish the station and its neighbouring Grade II* listed sister pumping house, address it to Bob Leuty at Wandsworth Council, planning applications@wandsworth.gov.uk . The deadline for written objections is 5pm tomorrow (30th September), and you can also contact your Wandsworth Councillor and ask them what their view is on this before deciding how to vote.

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Power Station owners REO stops paying interest due to creditors

Posted on by
1

The poor house

REO stops paying interest due to creditors

TREASURY Holdings-backed property group Real Estate Opportunities (REO) owners of Battersea Power Station did not pay interest due to a group of its creditors at the end of the August.

REO is apparently in “ongoing restructuring negotiations” with the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), Lloyds Bank and others about its loans. The company announced yesterday: “taking into account the status of the negotiations, the company has determined that the interest payment due … will not be made”, a statement that seems to imply that REO could pay the interest if it wanted to.

It owes its banks around €2 billion and in June said it would not be in a position to repay a €450 million debt due in May 2011. It hired advisers to help it tackle this issue.

Perhaps they could cut back on luxuries and use their tea bags twice.

The future of one of UKs best loved buildings is in the hands of mega debtors who claim they will use “their own money” to build the “essential” Battersea tube extension.

Read more in the Irish Times and Property Week.

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

What’s happening at Nine Elms?

Posted on by
1

Battersea Power Station view from south

Two chances to hear about Nine Elms redevelopment, including Battersea Power Station and the US Embassy. Nine Elms is central London’s biggest regeneration opportunity. The area covers more than 450 acres of land along the south bank of The Thames – the vast majority of which is gearing up for major redevelopment.

Tues 27/7/2010 @ 7.30pm
ROSE Clubroom, Ascalon St SW8
Ascalon St is between
Thessaly Rd and Stewarts Road on Savona Estate access by car is from Wandsworth Road

link to a MAP and you can register your attendance for this meeting

Weds 28th July 2010 @ 7.30
All Saints Church, Prince of Wales Drive SW11.

Link to register attendance for this meeting and Map

Map All Saints Church is near Queenstown Roundabout

Wandsworth Economic Development Office have arranged these meetings chaired by Cllr Govindia and Cllr Lister.

Storms brewing over REO personnel?

Posted on by
Reply

You’d think that with debts up to their eyeballs, and Wandsworth Borough Council’s decision on planning permission still in the balance, the owners of Battersea Power Station would have enough to worry about.

But now new allegations have arisen in the Irish media about certain figures involved in REO, the property firm that owns the site.

The Irish Independent has reported that Willie McAteer, formerly finance director of Anglo Irish Bank, which loaned money to REO, also owns a stake in the company.

McAteer was also arrested and questioned by the Irish fraud squad in March 2010 following his resignation from the board of bailed out bank Anglo Irish in 2009.

Meanwhile accusations of irresponsible behaviour are in the air directed at Johnny Ronan, one of the owners of Treasury Holdings, REO’s largest stakeholder, with an opinion piece in the same newspaper accusing him of reckless spending. Mr Ronan’s children’s ‘lavish birthday parties…costing hundreds of thousands of euro’ come under fire.

This only adds to speculation on the propriety of his behaviour – in March the Irish Times reported that he was ‘standing down’ from his position for a few months, following embarrassing revelations about his love life.

It seems Mr Ronan had been embroiled with arguments with a former girlfriend after being found taking extended lunches and private jet trips to Morocco with a former Miss World.

Not responsible behaviour, some might say, for a man whose company has debts funded by the Irish taxpayer to the tune of more than a billion euro.

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

How much is Battersea Power Station worth?

Posted on by
1

Detail of a slide from REO's presentation to the Battersea Power Station Community Group

Even if you take the question in its strict financial sense, it’s not as simple as you might think.

Property consultants King Sturge valued the site at £388m in February of this year. But read the small print and you see that this value depends on some factors which are still in flux: the obtaining of planning permission, the extension of the Northern line to Battersea, and the availability of funding for REO’s huge debts.

To take the first issue of planning permission, that’s a decision that’s going to be made by Wandsworth Borough Council later this summer.

And it might not be as cut and dried at the developers hope: several groups are opposing the plans, including the Kew Bridge Engines Trust, 20th Century Society, Battersea Society, SAVE, and the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society. The Victorian Society have also made a formal written objection and recorded an interview with Spectacle on their attitude towards the developers’ plans.

Even supposing the planning proposal is given the go-ahead, it’s unclear how valuable the site will be, given REO’s reluctance to say what proportion of the site will be made up of affordable housing.

Even now, when the site has none of the “essential” planning permission in place, the valuation of £388m suggests a value-per-acre of £10m. A little high, perhaps, given that Capital & Counties exhibition centre in Earls Court, which already generates income and has ready transport links, is valued at £6m per acre.

This second point of transport links, and the extension of the Northern line to Battersea, is also up for discussion.

No public money is being put towards it from either the mayor’s office or the Department of Transport, so it looks like it would have to be privately funded. The REO’s estimated cost at the moment is £200m – seen by some as a hopelessly optimistic figure.

And even if the price of building the tube link remained on target, it’s uncertain where REO would find £200m, given the company’s unfortunate financial position and hefty debts.

It’s hard to see how a valuation of the Battersea Power Station site, and of its worth to the developers, can be at all conclusive. £388m is an attractive figure for a company mired in debt, but to anyone else it looks optimistic at best, and at worst completely unrealistic. It is also £12m less than REO paid for the site.

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Battersea Power Station owners deep in debt

Posted on by
1

REO co-owner Rob Tincknell

Property firm REO, whose portfolio includes Battersea Power Station, owes millions of euro to its banks, and to the Irish taxpayer.

The company owes a total of €2bn to its banks. This includes nearly €1bn owed to Nama, Ireland’s National Asset Management Agency – set up by the Irish government to take on the debts of banks bailed out in the financial crisis.

With a property portfolio valued at €1.3bn (including the Battersea site, whose valuation is problematic in itself), the company’s debts now far outstrip its assets.

That’s not the end of REO’s problems: it recorded a pre-tax loss of £900m for the 14 months to February 2010. The announcement of those accounts, in June this year, caused a 50% fall in the company’s share price, taking it down to just 8 pence per share, and a market value below £40m. The company is not in good financial health.

So it’s perhaps not surprising that REO are looking to separate the potentially lucrative Battersea Power Station site from the company as a whole. They hope to draw off the property into a separate company, and list it on the stock market before the end of the year.

Investment partners are being sought to help fund the project, with international property groups and Middle Eastern wealth funds thought to be expressing interest.

But these grand plans could be brought to a halt if Wandsworth Borough Council decide not to grant planning permission. Elsewhere on the Spectacle Blog you can find out more about the historical preservation groups who are opposing the developer’s plans for the site.

You can also watch our interview with Alex Baldwin of the Victorian Society and other clips about the power station in the Spectacle video archive.

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Bulldozing Battersea Water Pumping station for profit

Posted on by
1

Listed but not protected

Battersea Water Pumping Station is Grade II listed but not protected.

The usual safeguards against demolition of a heritage building are under scrutiny as REO, “developers” of Battersea Power Station, seek to bypass the criteria for demolishing a listed building and bulldoze the Victorian Battersea Water Pumping Station. Under new policy guidelines, REO will no longer need to administer the test criteria before destruction of a heritage site. REO state they “are not seeking to justify demolition on the basis of Policy HE9.2(ii)” Conveniently, REO is not in violation of policy and in effect giving them the right to proceed without obstacle.

A summary of the criteria for demolition under Policy HE9.2(ii) of PPS5 are to prove they are unable to:

  1. find a “new use” for the building
  2. maintain existing building  use
  3. find a charity group interested in the building
  4. get a local group willing to take on the building
  5. market the building – someone could use it for alternative means

The community group Battersea Power Station Company has in fact offered to purchase the building for a nominal sum for a community centre, the building is described as “fairly robust and would be restorable if somebody wanted to.” However, under Policy HE9.2(i), REO claim they will not need to go through the test criteria listed. REO claim they can reject applications for the building arguing “the requirement to market the property is not engaged, since that only relates to Policy HE9.2(ii) and not to Policy HE9.2(i).”

Furthermore, under the new policy, REO “justifies the demolition of the water pumping station by reference to Policy HE9.2(i) of PPS5. Our position is that the demolition of the pumping station is justified by the delivery of the substantial public benefits inherent to the regeneration scheme [REO] are promoting, that outweigh the building’s loss, and that retention of the building would compromise the delivery of the comprehensive scheme.”

REO’s superfluous argument that the water pump station must be demolish or it will jeopardize the entire regeneration project for this area remains unfounded.

In fact, there are approximately 20 hectares of land for redevelopment.  It is perplexing that the developers are not willing to revise their plans for redevelopment to include the heritage site. Alex Baldwin of the Victorian society confirms that the demolition of the site would be a “considerable loss and unnecessary waste of a valuable historic building.” She goes on to say that the Battersea Water Pumping station is “integral to the redevelopment and regeneration of the area.  Demolition would degrade the area of the site and call into question the listing process as a whole.  The developers have not fulfilled the testing criteria for demolition, nor have they gone through re-qualifying their scheme for regeneration.”

Examples of successful redevelopment of historical sites can be found in Nottingham, Crossness in East London, Abbey Mills, and Dean Clough Mills in Halifax. The rejuvenated historical sites have revitalized the community and the same could be done for Battersea. Governments should include historic sites in the redevelopment schemes and not deem them mutually exclusive to the social and economical regeneration linked to a community.

By proceeding with the redevelopment proposed by REO, a precedent is set forth in how to undergo regeneration schemes in London. It is not good practice to use this as a blank slate for developers to demolish historical sites for the profit of a selected few. It is imperative to uphold government policy regarding the demolition of these irreplaceable iconic symbols. Once they are gone, we will never be able to get them back.

Quit putting a goddamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet – Bill Hicks

Click Battersea Power Station for more blogs
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.
See our Battersea Power Station project pages for more information and videos.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter