We have the Stag Brewery Planning Inquiry. The second week has ended. There is now a break of two weeks before further hearings starting on 3rd December 2024. The break will provide an opportunity for updating blog entries and taking an overview from different perspectives of where we are at.
What has become apparent is that a decision about the Stag Brewery site is about motives, philosophy and lifestyle, dressed up as planning law. You can report the main topics but it is difficult to be entirely impartial about the case, because one’s own views are subjective.
Having heard and seen the evidence to date you might think that the dominant motive is money. This produces certain effects. You seek to squeeze as much as you can onto the site, to gain maximum profit. This applies to the developers of course who have their business to run; their raison d’etre is profit. But it applies equally to Richmond Council.
The authority is concerned about making as much money as it can through two main sources: the community infrastructure levy and a free school funded by central government. One has to accept that the borough needs funding but at what cost in non-financial terms and to whom? The politicians and the officers will not admit that motivation nor the fact that Mortlake provides a convenient empty site on to which they can seek to squeeze as much as possible. The heritage of an area that appeared in the Domesday Book, the infrastructure for such a large development and the impact on local transport are all secondary concerns to be resolved once they have achieved their central objective.
The Planning Brief for the site in 2011 was acceptable to most, as achieving a reasonable balance of those factors. Somewhere along the line the LibDem Cabinet in late 2015 decided they needed to get more out of the site. So new motivations entered the equation and a new Planning Brief was introduced. Since then there has been a constant battle for the soul of the Riverside.
Discover more from EastSheenMatters
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In 2015 the Conservatives controlled Richmond Council under the leadership of Nicholas True (from 2010 to 2017).
LikeLike
My error. So does that make both parties complicit?
LikeLike
I assume that some form of the Community Infrastructure Levy would also apply if a modified proposal was put forward that was more acceptable to the local community. Why would the Council object to this option ?
LikeLike
Correct but that would create delay that the Council does not want. And perhaps a 50% shortfall. And they are still insistent they need the DfE funded school.
LikeLike
I think the inspector needs to understand fully that the Council are the main problem here. They have not taken any input at all from the community and that is unreasonable in the extreme. Even if the DfE were to provide funding adding the school to an already congested site would have a negative impact to the local community and the money would be wasted.
LikeLike
How many of the decision-makers in the Council live in the Mortlake/East Sheen area? Residents of other parts of the Borough are unlikely to have any concept of the levels of congestion along the Lower Richmond Road. Have air pollution levels been discussed?
LikeLike
Air pollution has been discussed. There are local surveys that record that levels are currently down. I have regarded flooding and sewage as more significant issues.
LikeLike
https://richmond.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/924942 see this for a statement from Philip Whyte on behalf of the West London Riverside Group heard in the afternoon session on Friday 15th November.
LikeLike
An excellent assessment! It makes depressing reading, but is an obvious truth.
LikeLike