Proposed Residential Development – following Consultation meeting (1.11.07)

Mr Mydat raised the point that when he was on the Board of Stuart Tower plans were submitted to Westminster Council  to develop the area to the left of ST looking from Maida Vale, but it had been turned down by Westminster Council as there was concern over populating and parking issues.

Westminster Council is promoting a no car policy, therefore parking is not an issue, and planning consultants do not believe that the development of 10 flats will constitute over population.
Also the Board have been unable to find any evidence of a planning application at the time indicated by Mr Mydat.  However a previous Board did apply for initial planning and the indication was negative from Westminster City Council because of parking and over populating issues. Council policy on these points has since changed.  

Lessee requested details of planned major works as they did not feel they could access full implications of the project without this information.

Lessees were shown details at the meeting and information was later released in hard format with detailed financial information in November. Further financial information will be distributed to lessees prior to the EGM.

Do the potential developments have to go hand in hand or can lessees vote separately on each proposal?

Each project can be looked at on its own merits and the voting forms and proxy forms will reflect this.

Concern was raised over the building of commercial premises on Maida Vale (the Spa)?

There are already several commercial premises on this stretch of Maida Vale, and the board do not think this is a justifiable reason for planning to be turned down and the development will be sympathetic with the existing landscape.

Would the lessees of the proposed development contribute to the main service charge fund of Stuart Tower?

Yes it is proposed they would contribute and it would need to be reflected in the lease structure. Lessees would need to contribute to shared items they would use, such as reception, common parts and porterage.

A Question was raised over the suitability in the market place for a Spa as the restaurant on the corner of Maida Vale and Sutherland Avenue seemed to fail on a regular basis and maybe the market in the area could not sustain such type of businesses?

Nick Cheshire from Rooks Rider Solicitors advised that if the building were fitted out it would be easier to let. He advised it was a case of minimising the risk. NC advised that it would be necessary to ensure well structured paperwork, leases tightly structured and ensuring that guarantors were in place in respect of the Wellbeing Centre.

Questions raised at the AGM – held on the 4th December 2007

Can the proposed EGM be postponed until March?

The Board have now agreed to postpone the EGM until April to allow lessees to fully consult and digest the proposed plans – also the Board have instructed DTZ a firm of surveyors to carry out a valuation report to obtain advice regarding the value of the scheme when completed.

If 10% of the vote objects to the proposal then can the motion be carried

Mark Davies has advised that this is incorrect 75% of the vote on the night, i.e. all those attending or proxies, is required to carry the motion.

Can the Board release details of lessees to shareholders for canvassing purposes?

Legal advice is that names and address’ can be given if asked for – some lessees strongly objected to the idea that such information may be released. However, such information is available from either the voters register or the Land Registry.

Has consideration been given to the development of the roof – to create an additional floor of flats?

Architects and planners advise they could carry out a feasibility study. However, Vodafone have just renewed their lease of the roof area and where there is a break clause to allow for re-development.  Stuart Tower must serve Vodafone with one year’s notice and this cannot be served before 2011.

If cost of new windows is to be met from the reserve fund , which in turn will be topped up once the funds come in from the development project, how will lessees who have sold their flats, during this period be treated in respect of being refunded reserve fund monies? 

Lessees do not withdraw their contribution to the reserve fund when they sell their property. The value of the flats at Stuart Tower is enhanced by a healthy reserve fund. 

What will happen from a tax point of view – will the reserve fund or lessees be subject to3 0% Corporation Tax?

The Board are looking at options with our advisors to try to ameliorate the tax liability.

Will the ambiance of the block change with the residential development as flats currently restricted to two people – such a restriction cannot be made with two bedroom flats?

No. The units will be built as two bedroom flats and not subject to the occupancy clause that currently occurs with the one bedroom units.

Will the residential development mean that current parking spaces will be lost and what provision for parking is being made for the new units

Current parking spaces will be protected and there will be no loss of spaces and at it is proposed that two additional spaces will be created.

Questions From Lessees

Access to the flats will be via the reception through the hall way of the south wing, it will not be across the NCP roof.

How will the buildings works impinge on the residents of Stuart Tower?

All building works will be strictly regulated, the site will be cordoned off and all building works will be strictly regulated.

What structural alteration to the existing NCP garage will be required to support the additional building.  How can this be achieved without interfering with the functioning of the car park?

The structural scheme has not yet been determined, but design will be required to minimise disruption to the residents of Stuart Tower. 

How will Stuart Tower receive the proceeds from the development. Does the developer pay Stuart Tower for the site and then make what profit he can from the construction / sale or will there be another arrangement?

As we have not been to the market place with the project we cannot reply in depth on this point but Stuart Tower cannot be open to any financial risk, and we must ensure that the most risk proof option is achieved for Stuart Tower.

To what extent could the current downturn in the property market affect the financial viability of the operation, and the interests of developers?

It is a question of supply and demand and Stuart Tower is in a prime central location so there will always be a substantial amount of interest for properties in the area.  However, this can be discussed further when we are in a position to take the project to the market place.

Has consideration been given to increasing the available number of car parking spaces and putting these up for purchase by owners?  Who owns the freehold of the NCP car park? Will that be affected and could some or all of that parking be re-claimed?

As part of the residential development proposals, there is scope to provide two or more additional car parking spaces. The freehold of the NCP is owned by Stuart Tower but has been sold off on a long lease to NCP; we therefore cannot reclaim this parking area. Furthermore the return on the residential development will generate more income than developing parking spaces. 

   
How high is the proposed new building? It looks as if the view from or light into the lower floors of Stuart Tower on that side will be affected. Also, these lessees will have to put up with residents in the garden right outside their window with resultant loss of privacy. If so how will those lessees be compensated? Also, how high will the archway into the current back ‘yard’ of Stuart Tower be? It looks as if the building may obstruct access for taller vehicles, such as removal vans?

The proposed new building is situated above the NCP car park and forms two storeys. Lessees will have a dedicated garden buffer zone to ensure privacy. Sunlight and daylight issues have been investigated by a specialist and it has been determined that the proposed new development will not have an adverse affect upon existing flats so far as rights of light are concerned. The proposed archway to the service yard will not obstruct access for taller delivery / service vehicles.