Earl's Court and West Kensington Design Review Panel Final Report to RBKC and LBHF 20 August 2012 Introduction A Panel was formed by invitation from the London Borough Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) to review development proposals for a site at Earl's Court and Seagrave Road. The Earl's Court site is subject to. two separate Planning Applications: full to RBKC (ref PP/11/01937); and outline to LBHF ( ref 2011/02001/OUT), upon which this report is based. The proposals at Seagrave Road (LBHF ref 2011/02000/FULL) are not the subject of this report. Panel Members, Panel support members, officers of RBKC and LBHF officers, English Heritage (EH) and Greater London Authority (GLA), and representatives of the Applicant together with its advisors were variously present during the review meetings that took place, and their attendance is recorded in the notes issued of those meetings. This report follows the final meeting of the Panel (DRP) held at the Applicant's exhibition in the Earl's Court Exhibition Centre on 30 May 2012 and supersedes the comments of all previous reports of the Panel. This report has been compiled by the Joint Chairs of the Panel in consultation with panel members and represents the Panel's views. The Panel has also compiled a separate report on the design review procedure, which records dates of meetings, topics discussed and the Panel's views on the review process itself. The DRP's comments on the applications Masterplan Concept The concept for the masterplan as presented to the Panel is the creation of four urban ‘villages’ separated by two principal streets: The Broadway, a North-South road, The High Sireet, an East-West road. The massing strategy proposed envisages higher buildings towards the centre, at the intersection of these streets, with significantly tall buildings clustered around the Empress State Building. At the edges the height of buildings is reduced towards existing properties. The proposed uses comprise large elements of high density residential development, retail development, office uses, amenity spaces and cultural uses. The overall plan involves large areas of decking over live railways and the creation of a raised ground level above existing grade. A linear park is proposed along the eastern side of the development, largely sited over the existing London Overground railway lines. ‘The Applicant described the key drivers to the masterplan as follows: * Planning Policy/Opportunity Area/Homes/Estate Regeneration * A comprehensive framework for change ‘+ Responding to constraints/economic viability © Proximity of 3 stations: PTAL rating ‘+ Massing strategy: Lower at edges, higher towards centre, and «Permeability.The Panel appreciates these points, and its comments focus on how they manifest themselves in both the wider and more detailed vision and then how that vision might be ‘secured through the Town Planning process via the parameters plans and design guidelines together with the supporting illustrative or non-mandatory guideline information submitted The Panel remains concerned that the good intentions implicit in the overall concept of the masterplan are seriously compromised by the inappropriate scale of development proposed, in order to create a development that entirely covers the existing railway infrastructure. The idea of “four villages” is considered by the Panel to be a justifiable masterplanning idea that would cleverly break up the large 72 acre site and provide an appropriate scale of development that avoided the “Westfield” effect. However, whilst the concept has clarity in plan, when viewed in section the proposals have the character of a high density; and intense ‘town centre’ type, and are @ considerable leap in scale and height from the predominantly low-tise residential surroundings. Consequently the Panel is very concerned with the impact of development on this scale, fully implemented, on the identity of this part of London, and urges the Planning Authorities to consider this. The Panel supports the principle of improved East-West permeability/connectivity through the site that the concept envisages and promotes, but questions the potential congestion that may be caused by the proposed introduction of the North-South Broadway route linking Lillie Road with Cromwell Road, while at the same time offering no meaningful respite to existing congestion problems and public realm blight associated with the Earl's Court one- way system. Similarly, the major East-West link feeds into Star Road, which is a narrow, primarily residential street The Panel supports the provision of a significant park within the development, but in its view the concept of a linear park is undermined by its lack of connectivity beyond the site and lack of destination at both ends. Infrastructure / Site Constraints ‘The Applicant intends to retain existing decking over railway lines for roads and landscaping elements. It also proposes extensive new decking for these purposes. The Panel draws attention to the difficulties of building over live railway lines and recommends to the Planning Authorities that they obtain detailed method statements that have the approval of TfL/ Network Rail, and are satisfied as part of the assessment of the planning applications. The reasoning for the siting of buildings to avoid them being located directly over the rail lines is understood as it would involve heavier long span structures and consequent high site formation costs. However the Panel's concems relate to the viability of providing adequate soil depth for the park's planting to flourish. There are also issues relating to the ‘undergrounding’ of some of the existing lines. The level changes across the site (particularly East-West) were illustrated. The strategy for elevating a new ground level to the West of the Phase 1 Ear!’s Court site is not challenged by the Panel providing that soil depth is sufficient to sustain fully mature trees in the long term, A further concern is the viability of the later stages of development where large areas of ‘building over’ are required. The Panel sees a risk that problems of viability may mean that the northern part of the masterplan ultimately does not proceed, and that this would adversely affect any coherence that is achieved in the scheme. Accordingly the Panel 2believes that the Applicant should demonstrate how the development can function in a ‘manner that is resolved architecturally and in urban design terms between every phase of construction on the basis that a subsequent phase may not proceed. The Local Authorities should satisfy themselves that any such dysfunctionality cannot occur. 4 Villages ‘The Panel is of the view that the '4 Village’ concept that underpins the conceptual thinking behind the masterplan is not apparent in the Applications and is therefore not secured and will not be realised without a fundamental rethink. There is insufficient differentiation between these masterplan areas in order to generate discernible ‘village’ identities. evidence should be provided that assures the Planning Authorities that the development will recognisably vary in character. The Panel urges the Planning Authorities to seek measures to ensure this is secured in a beneficial way, as it was not apparent in presentations to the Panel. The Panel is also concerned that a sense of ‘place’ or places is lacking. The mass and scale of the proposals are alien to Kensington and Hammersmith and contradict the notion of ‘village’ High Street As presented to the Panel the retail offer proposed for the East-West High Street would comprise smaller units and would not seek to compete with major Centres (eg Westfield at White City) or have a detrimental effect on retail provision in the wider neighbourhood. The Applicants ownership and management at Covent Garden has been highlighted as a successful model, The Panel strongly recommends that the Planning Authorities impose conditions which limit the size of individual retail units ‘The Panel has a wider concem regarding an apparent lack of purpose at the heart of the masterplan where the Broadway and High Street intersect. The ambiguous identity of this area which breaks the High Street is seen as a potential weakness in establishing a single identifiable ‘High Street’ as such. The Panel is also concerned that at street level the scale and height of the surrounding buildings will not create the attractive public space that the masterplan envisages. The proposed clustering of tall buildings around the Empress State building further compounds this concern. The Broadway Like the High Street this avenue acquires a significance in the overall layout as an organising element giving orientation and hierarchy within the scheme. In the Panel's view it will attract traffic from the Earl's Court gyratory system and simply lead to lines of stationary oF congested traffic queuing from one traffic engineer's junction to another. The urban quality of the traffic-light controlled junction with the High Street is unclear and the impact of the junction with Cromwell Road on the environmental quality of bordering accommodation in the Broadway is likely to be detrimental. Given the likely intensity of use by vehicular traffic the Planning and Highway Authorities should verify the traffic implications through an independent traffic impact study and ensure that satisfactory environmental conditions in relation to noise and air quality for pedestrians and the residential accommodation facing the Broadway can be met.Cromwell Road Frontage This frontage forms both part of the gateway to Central London from the West as well as @ primary gateway for visitors to the proposed development. The Panel's view is that the architecture of this frontage needs to be of high quality, to be confident and interesting. The Panel is disappointed that the basic massing and illustrative material shown by the Applicant takes a ‘design by mitigation’ approach which, if followed is unlikely to lead to a successful outcome. Exhibition Square The Panel is underwhelmed by the illustrative material showing the eastern entrance to the scheme, viewed from in front of Earl's Court Station (Warwick Road entrance). The identity of Earl's Court is captured by the frontage of the existing exhibition building. With the proposed removal of this building the Panel feels that the architecture of the replacement buildings facing the station assumes great significance and needs to be of outstanding quality along with the public space in front of them. The Panel urges the Applicant to develop the thinking in this area further at the application stage as itis critical to Earls Court's sense of place. North End Road Ilustrative material presented to the Panel has alleviated many concerns about the impact of the scheme on the character of North End Road. The Panel welcomes the idea of introducing further smaller retailers and a strengthening of the varied retail offer in general The main concern relates to the potential for intensification of traffic and a possible adverse impact on Star Road. Again, a convincing traffic impact study is needed to demonstrate the merits of this proposal. The Panel is also concerned about the economic effect that the many additional small retailers would have on existing retailers in the surrounding area. Lillie Road Architecturally the Panel can see that the Applicant's proposals can benefit the street scene. in Lillie Road, particularly if a more comprehensive development can also improve the ‘southern side and create more meaningful connectivity to the proposed linear park running southwards. Again, its main concern centres on the impact of increased traffic relating to the ‘overall size of the wider scheme and the linking by the proposed North-South Broadway through to Cromwell Road Cultural Content The Panel believes that a significant cultural use on the site is important and that this can best be established with an anchor use. The Panel recognises the difficulties of tying ina major user at this stage, but is of the view that the masterplan is insufficiently flexible to take advantage of possible opportunities. Tall Buildings In relation to the CABE/English Heritage definition of tall buildings it should be recognised by the Planning Authorities that the majority of buildings proposed for the site can be considered as ‘Tall Buildings’ relative to existing neighbouring development. As such the 4grouping of so many tall blocks of 12 or so storeys causes the Panel a concern about the environmental qualities achievable at street level in terms of excessive overshadowing, ‘canyoning’ effects of wind and eir, and the sense of an over-dominating feeling of enclosure. In addition to the wide use of tall buildings within the Applicant's proposals the significantly taller buildings clustered around the existing Empress State Building cause concern to the Panel. Close up and distant views of these proposed tall buildings are not yet convincing and need further study. The Panel's opinion is that this zone in the Masterplan has been singled out for tall buildings as an expedient place to put them where there is least perceived harm to the surrounding townscape, rather than as part of a coherent urban design strategy demanding intensification around a busy piece of public transport infrastructure. The Empress State Building is seen as an anomaly by the Panel, rather than a desirable point in the Boroughs to locate further tall buildings. The Panel considers that if tall buildings are to be located in this area then they should vary in height. If they are more or less uniform in height in long views they will tend to coalesce into a single amorphous ‘wall’ of built form. In the Panel's opinion the Empress State Building being both wide and tall is not an appropriate form to comprise the centrepiece of a tall building cluster. Even a more slender but taller ‘centrepiece’ with other towers of varying but lower height would be less damaging in townscape terms than the Applicant's proposals. In any event itis the Panel's view that the detailed design of tall buildings (towers) needs to be established at the earliest possible stage due to their long term impact on the wider environment and the London Skyline. The Panel believes it is important to consider the impact from beyond the boundaries of the Boroughs, for example it is central to the view from higher ground on the A40 when approaching to central London. As proposed the cluster of towers will have the appearance of Canary Wharf rather than “Four Villages” Residential Blocks The architecture of each residential block has been shown illustratively and is referred to in the Design Guidelines. The Panel has generally deferred detailed architectural comment on residential blocks pending receipt of more detailed proposals, which can be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage. Its principal comments highlighted the need for the Planning Authorities to closely interrogate and apply sunlight and daylighting standards to the proposals as many streets appear canyon-like, with instances of north-facing ‘accommodation within streets with high buildings opposite each other. The overall impression of the illustrative material is that there is insufficient diversity apparent to provide distinct ‘village’ identities and anxiety remains as to how the Planning Authorities can secure good quality architectural design in the future. The Panel is concerned that each 3-d ‘box’ that is defined within the Parameter Plans is insufficiently flexible at outline stage to allow positive design development later. While the rigidity that results may allow the guidelines to be more readily defined this may not work to the advantage of the scheme in the design development of each block, even in the hands of able architects and committed developers. Affordable Housing The Panel is concerned that the impact on the existing communities of Gibbs Green and West Kensington Estates of the Applicant's proposals for such comprehensive redevelopment is perceived as a threat. The Panel's particular concem is that if theapproved Seagrave Road scheme is seen as a detailed design precedent, there is litle integration of affordable homes with the adjoining private development. The Panel believes it is important that good quality affordable housing is provided and that this is located and treated in a manner which properly integrates it with the new development, properly sharing in the open spaces and not manifestly ‘second-class Amenit Spaces and Lost River Park The overall vision for the landscaping and open space development is clearly illustrated and is welcomed in principle, subject to a number of comments. The Panel's main points are that: * Serious doubt remains as to whether mature/tall trees could flourish with limited soil depth over decked construction * Subsequent ‘mini-masterplans' for each phase should provide a closer grain of soft landscaping on the edges of the blocks (for instance ‘punctuation’ of the longer streets; and terraces with trees). * Arrangements for economically sustainable maintenance are assured and that the Planning Authorities and Developer agree a regime for adopted routes, rights of way {including within plots where appropriate)/24 hour access or restricted access/permissive routes only etc that safeguard permeability and ease of use for pedestrians in the future, ‘The Planning Authorities satisfy themselves that the open space concept with its rich landscaping shown in the vision can and will be delivered with each phase. * ‘Open Space’ calculations should exclude highways. Visionary images can be misleading. The Panel suggests that an independent appraisal of the deck-based Lost River Park and terra firma planting is carried out; hard and soft landscaping details are required at the detailed application stage and a robust maintenance regime needs to be in place. ‘The proposal for the Lost River Park as a linear element running down the easter side of the site can provide an amenity that is welcome. However, the Panel would like to see better North and South connectivity to adjoining development so that it can form part of a meaningful journey or route, given its linear form. A further concern is that the diversity of potential uses for the park is restricted by its narrow form. This may limit opportunities for young people to play ball games for example. Car Parking The Applicant seeks to justify the high density of the proposed development based on a high PTAL rating yet the car parking provision appeers to be maximized. The Panel's view is that 20% Electric Car Charging points and just 20 Car Club spaces taken with an overall provision of over 4300 car spaces across the site appears at odds with the sustainability strategy notwithstanding the Applicant's statement that itis in compliance with the London Plan, ‘The Panel is very disappointed that in order to maximise parking the basement car park is continuous across the site. It urges allowing the ground to meet the subsoil in places where trees and substantial planting are planned. Another issue with so much parking is that it will 6create numerous ramps and vents that will have a detrimental effect on the public realm and draw traffic into all areas of the site unnecessarily. The Panel urges the Planning and Highway Authorities to impose controls over the allocation of car parking spaces within block undercroffs in order that future re-allocation or re-use is not prevented by subdivision within by the granting of long term rights or ownerships of particular spaces to particular residential units. The Panel points out that while the transport strategy has been presented as being based on projections to the year 2031, itis inconsistent on a scheme of this magnitude and duration that the parking provision is based on today's standards. The Panel's view is that the authorities should agree parking levels as-and- when each detailed application is considered rather than allow a site-wide overall provision at present without appropriate conditions. Sustainability The Sustainability Strategy presented to the Panel proposes a ‘total carbon footprint! approach looking at fulure inhabitants’ overall carbon emissions associated with transport, food production, waste, consumables, as well as heat and power in buildings. The strategy defines the scheme as 'Very Low Carbon’ as opposed to Zero Carbon which is a much debated but potentially misleading term. District heating is proposed from a variety of energy sources, from 2 energy centres that are designed to be adaptable for a variety of future energy sources. The Applicant claims that the provision of a district heating network would always mean the most efficient distribution of energy, but the Panel does not necessarily share this view. A Combined Heat and Power plant may be installed, but the Panel understands that there is no commitment to this provision in the current applications. The Panel welcomes the Applicant's aspirations and overall approach to a low carbon future but recommends that detailed proposals are included in every detailed planning application to ensure that these aspirations are delivered, The residential development will be to Code Level 4 and commercial development will be to BREEAM ‘excellent’. Documentation provided to the Panel in June 2011 by the Applicant makes varying pledges of BREEAM ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ with enough ‘seek to/ where appropriate’ caveats to introduce uncertainty. The Panel strongly urges the Planning Authorities to require by reserved matters/ conditions firm commitments that are then met. It was stated that the carbon performance of the homes would not be better than Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and that improvement beyond this (ie. code level 5 or 6) was inappropriate given the small proportion that ‘regulated energy’ emission contributed to the overall carbon footprint. Investment was being made elsewhere in the development to achieve greater carbon reductions, but the Panel was not shown evidence of any quantitative assessment of the carbon-saving value of these initiatives. Ifrenewable energy provision only goes as far as some photovoltaic solar panels on the roofs, this only amounts to supplying about 1% of the energy demand ‘The Panel is pleased that the proposals recognise that the most significant and economic carbon reductions that can be made on a scheme of this size is achieved by managing the transport needs of the residents. The urban form is conducive to walking, as mixed uses are prevalent; vacuum waste collection is proposed; there is a commitment to theprovision of ‘food gardens’ and local food supply, and a verbal commitment was made to ‘educate the residents into a greener lifestyle, which the Panel supports. ‘Aplea is made by the Panel to future-proof buildings, taking account of future requirements such as increased storage space, changing lifestyles and so on, and suggests examining how typical units can be altered and adapted over time, The Panel is concerned that whilst initial phases of development would have district heating and other state-of-the-art proposals for a sustainable infrastructure, later phases might embrace different technologies. The proposals submitted for outline planning consent should be sufficiently robust to enable advantage to be taken of new technology at detailed planning stage. Community Facilities A scheme this size and ambition will not be able to rely on the community facilities of the ‘surrounding area. The applicant's proposed provision of open space, recreational, educational, health and community facilities are generally well received. However, the Planning authorities are strongly advised to consider how and when these are secured within the overall development programme. There are a number of other issues: * The scheme does not really allow for a place where youngsters can play football, for example © Itis unclear whether the sports club is open to all or membership based © The provision of outdoor space for schools should be better than minimal Transport The arrangements of the junctions at Cromwell Road, Warwick Road, Lillie Road and Earls Court Road were presented to the Panel, showing traffic control and priorities. It was explained that the new North South Broadway is intended to provide relief to the existing congested road system. It was stated by the Applicant that traffic modelling, subject to signalling and junction improvement in the vicinity, would be acceptable up to 2031. This is despite the additional cars and journeys generated by the development itself. ‘The Panel comments that the Planning and Highways Authorities should interrogate the traffic modelling assumptions and predictions thoroughly. Areas highlighted by the Panel that need checking are the potential for congestion associated with the un-signalled junction of the Broadway with Lillie Road and an assessment of traffic volumes and extent of potential standing traffic waiting to get onto Warwick Road at peak times. A further point is, to check for adverse impacts on Star Road. While the desirability or otherwise of commuter traffic being encouraged into the development is debatable, the Panel raises the important point that if residential uses front onto the Broadway the width of pavements must be generous and that the appropriate environmental conditions in terms of noise and air quality can be met in order that the quality of life for residents is not compromised. Integration with the wider cycle network wes illustrated. The Panel's observation is that the continuity of the new East-West route created by the development up to and beyond the North-East of Earl's Court station should be examined to identify the optimum route for ease: 8of use. The possibility of linking cycle/pedestrian routes to Brompton Cemetery and to the north, under the Cromwell Road, should be reviewed. No concrete evidence was given to the Panel that underground and overground stations will be able to cope with increased demand, nor was any direct endorsement given to the Panel by TIL. The Panel's view is that the North-South Broadway route and connection to Cromwell Road is not sustainable, will Increase congestion and pollution, and will encourage rat-running. The Panel supports the East-West route but is concerned that Star Road will be unable to cope with increased treffic. The junction between Broadway and The High Street needs more detail, particularly given that his is at the heart of the scheme. The Applicant stated that modelling had shown that the existing three stations (subject to station improvements and signalling upgrades to increase frequency of trains planned by TfL Up to 2031) could accommodate the additional people movements generated by the development. The Panel remains unconvinced and suggests that appropriate substantiation be sought by the Planning Authorities. This point (which relates to density) is considered important by the Panel in that ease of use of public transport is vital if car use is to be reduced. The Panel is disappointed that notwithstanding policy compliance a scheme that looks so far into the future does not seek to reduce car use more extensively. The Panel urges the Planning and Highway Authorities to consider zoning and/or restricting of residents’ parking permits to help discourage car journeys. Phasing During consultations the Applicant provided a clear illustrated explanation of the phasing logic for the overall development, The logic is not challenged by the Panel, other than how an East-West route right across the site (whether on a temporary alignment or otherwise) could be provided earlier than year § and it is suggested that is secured at the outset of the development. ‘The Applicant has stated to the Panel that the availability of the East-West route (in ‘temporary condition avoiding the Empress demise) is determined by the regime for decanting the existing housing, and that there may be some flexibility in this by bringing forward decanting required for the road. It was agreed by both the Applicant and the Boroughs that itis desirable to establish this link as early as possible. Itis the strong view of the Panel that a firm commitment needs to be made to provide this route, particularly in the event (however, unlikely) that the development stops on completion of the Phase 1 site. Density, Building over Railways and Viability The Panel questions the desirability of such intense high density development in this location given the predominance of lower rise existing development in its surroundings. It is clear that, in order to build over so much of the existing rail infrastructure, a dense development will be required to make the scheme viable. In the Pane''s view it is vital that the ‘communities of the two Boroughs understand the sheer scale of what is proposed for the site. The Panel has yet to be convinced that a more modest development which builds over less of the existing infrastructure can nevertheless meet the objectives for regeneration and improved connectivity. Parameters Plans and Design Guidelines‘The Panel agrees that both parameter plans and design guidelines are necessary under current Planning law, but is concerned that these will not in themselves secure good quality development. Itis clear to the Panel that, if the massing of the development is to closely resemble that of the parameter pians, it would lack architectural quality, mitigated only by the ability of the architects to provide attractive elevations and use of materials. The design guidelines have been presented to the Panel by reference to examples contained within them. However while these have not been examined by the Panel in detail, it urges the Planning Authorities to establish those guidelines which are important and require them to be mandatory. The Panel nevertheless is concerned that guidelines, while providing a safety nel, are a double-edged sword and may restrict opportunities to produce good architecture and urban design. Consequently the Panel urges the Planning Authorities to establish an effective framework for considering future applications for reserved matters or detailed planning applications for various parts of the development. Such a framework may include a design review panel, whether locally formed or an established London Panel, operating within a process that requires applicants to present their proposals as part of both pre- application and application consultations. Conclusion The proposal to develop the Ear'’s Court Exhibition Centre and the adjoining railway lands, together with the existing Gibbs Green and West Kensington residential estates is one of the largest redevelopment proposals in London. Its impact on its surroundings in terms of the built environment, resources and communities will be significant to the extent that this area of London will be fundamentally altered by the concentration and nature of the proposed development, particularly if itis implemented in full. The Panel applauds the ambition of the Applicant in tackling such a comprehensive scheme and recognises the challenges in relocating existing communities, achieving viability with so many physical constraints arising from the railways, and managing the associated risks. With the Applicant's objective of obtaining Outline Planning Consents with a duration of 20 years or more it is important that the masterplan is both robust enough to accept change and at the same time enables the Planning Authorities to retain enough control to prevent inappropriate development for so far into the future that may otherwise appear appropriate now. Itis worth noting that virtually none of the Panel's requests for further information, drawings etc. have been answered and the Panel has not been kept abreast of changes made to the outline applications, if any, either before or after the applications were made. The Panel is disappointed that after meetings dating back to April 2011, following a briefing by the Boroughs in March 2011, so few of its comments and concems appear to have been addressed. The benchmark scheme for Seagrave Road, for instance, has been approved despite the Panel's reservations, undermining confidence that the collective knowledge and experience is at risk of being disregarded for the main planning application sites. The price of developing this site, which includes some very expensive infrastructure, is a very high density of development, resulting in questionable urban quality. The Panel urges the planning authorities involved to take note of the Panel's concerns and resist pressure to approve the current applications in their present form. 10In any event, for future detailed applications or applications for the approval of reserved ‘matters the Panel's view is that proposals will benefit from a formal design review process and it is recommended that the Boroughs insist on implementing such reviews in good time prior to such applications being formally submitted. This is seen as critical because with an Outline Consent for such a large development, where ownership is likely to change over the years to come, the potential to downgrade quality is seen by the Panel as too high. To conclude the Panel does not support the application in its current form and remains to be convinced that the Applicant's proposals are an acceptable scale and desirable form of development for this strategically important London site, Hie (yr Tanptico Panel Chairs: Jim Eyre and Tom Jestico = Panel Members: Julia Barfield, Alan Baxter, Kelvin Campbell, Jim Eyre, Ivan Harbour, Tom Jestico, Greg Penoyre, Adam Ritchie, Max de Rosee, Paul Sandilands, Mike Stiff, Mark Whitby In attendance at the final meeting on 30” May 2012: Panelists: Alan Baxter, Kelvin Campbell, Jim Eyre, Ivan Harbour, Tom Jestico, Greg Penoyre, Max de Roses, Paul Sandilands, Mike Stiff Panel Coordinators: Richard Craig (RBKC), Paul Goodacre (LBHF), and Officers: leuan Bellis (LBHF) Allison Flight (RBKC), Paida Hlambello (LBHF/RBKC), John Sanchez (LBHF), David Watkinson (GLA) "