It is interesting to set out the developer’s summary of the planning benefits of the scheme, elaborated on today by Neil Henderson, Senior Planning Partner at Gerald Eve LLP, Chartered Surveyors and Property Consultants, instructed by Reselton Properties Ltd. Bold added.

1. Up to 1,075 new homes across the Site on brownfield land (Substantial Weight);    At a cost: tall buildings, density. What will the Inspector find?

2. Provision of 65 affordable housing units (Substantial Weight); 
Cllr Crookdake notes that there are 5000 people on the waiting list. 
Mr Henderson notes that it needs to be set against four years delivery worth of such units. It does seem an extraordinary comparison to make against a wholly inadequate provision over the last four years.

3. Provision of land for the delivery of a new 6 form secondary school including community sporting facilities (Great Weight); 
That is put in a context of (contentious) need and choice. Where else do  parents have a choice of three schools within such a close area: RPA (0.9m), Chiswick School (1.1m) and Christ’s School (1.7m).

4. Retention and refurbishment of Buildings of Townscape Merit on Site that will improve their contribution to and enhance the significance of the Mortlake Conservation Area (Great Weight) 
Questions were asked about whether this could properly be regarded as a benefit, given demolition is an inherent part of the scheme. A matter for the Inspector.

5. Significant place-making, new heart for Mortlake and architectural benefits including the creation of a new active high street and river front uses, opening up of the Site through creation of new publicly accessible open and green spaces, and high quality architecture which includes incorporation of the existing historic buildings and features (Significant Weight); 
And conversion to an urban area, the subject of previous discussions.

6. Economic benefits arising from the provision of a range of new commercial uses including new commercial Class E office floorspace, which would include an element of affordable workspace, benefits arising from employee spend and local construction jobs (Significant Weight); 
But where will they be able to afford to live?

7. Retention and refurbishment of the Maltings building and other heritage assets on site (Moderate Weight); 
Neutral 

8. Improvement to setting of heritage assets through the demolition of modern utilitarian buildings (Moderate Weight); 
Contentious because some of the new buildings could adversely affect view.

9. Enhancement and enlivenment to streetscape and riverside and enhanced views (Moderate Weight);  A matter of contentious urbanity.

10. Sporting benefits that far exceed the existing site (Moderate Weight); 
Highly contentious in view of the s106 conditions about community access. Especially for Thomson House School. IT VERY MUCH LOOKS AS IF A DELIBERATE POLICY HAS BEEN ADOPTED TO SEEK TO PUSH THOMSON HOUSE SCHOOL OUT. The developer's Counsel argued that there was no loss because it had been freely provided. 

11. Creation of new community spaces, including a new water sports centre (boathouse), alongside new public squares and plazas to encourage community engagement; (Moderate Weight); 
Overlooked by high buildings; water sports centre not yet agreed.

12. Creation of new pedestrian and cycle routes through the Site to add to existing local connections, including enhancing the existing towpath and creating a new expansive link from Mortlake Green through to the river (Moderate Weight); 
A link to and through Mortlake Green and causing severe detriment to the Green as a green area.

13. Improvements to the city’s green infrastructure, providing over 400 new trees (Moderate Weight);  Neutral

14. Contribution to towpath improvement works (£44,265) (Moderate Weight); Enhancement to the flood defence, which meets and in places exceeds the aspirations of the TE2100 (Moderate Weight); Adequacy?

15. The Toucan crossing along the A316 (Moderate Weight)  Minimal and potentially causing more traffic.

PS  One of the issues which has become clear is that, surprising as it may be to the lay observer, viability of the scheme should bear no relationship to the price paid by the purchaser for the site. No account should apparently be taken of a difference of approximately £120m between purchase price and estimated current value. Indeed Mr. Henderson and Counsel for the developers said they did not know how much had been paid. Extraordinary given it is public knowledge that they paid £158m.

PPS   Mr. Henderson gave evidence that the Inspector should give substantial weight to what the position would be if he refused the appeals, on the basis that further delay would be detrimental to Richmond’s housing plans.