Local resident Paul Giles recently wrote to the Planning Inspector for the Stag Brewery Planning Applications about the process of the Inquiry. Mr Giles has kindly agreed to publication of his letter and the reply which are posted below.

Mr. Giles raises two important points. What was the justification for the Inspector deciding not to accept the appellant’s offer of 12% Affordable Housing? Why would an experienced KC have made the offer if it was not consistent with planning considerations? And secondly (not explicitly set out below) given this was based on a method of valuation of the Brewery site apparently known to and agreed by all the parties, why were so many hours wasted on this aspect of the appeal? We leave it to the reader to reach their own conclusions.

23rd May 2025
Dear Mr Rollings
Appeal A Ref: APP/L5810/W/24/3339060 – Former Stag Brewery

Thank you for inviting me to speak on Tuesday the 3rd December at the Enquiry which preceded the above decision. As indicated to Helen Skinner I write as a private individual and Council Tax payer in relation to the above appeal decision.

This letter relates purely to the Inquiry process; it offers no comment on the overall decision made.
As we know, the Inquiry lasted for four weeks not including preparation and report-writing time. If I
understand page 2 of the above Appeal Report correctly, all aspects of the development have been
allowed without change from the pre-Inquiry development plans. Given this, one can empathise perhaps with a detached Observer questioning the value in holding the Inquiry at all.

To pursue its worthwhileness, I can only refer back to the Affordable Housing aspect of the Inquiry, on
which I spoke. This one topic proceeded to occupy the Inquiry for most of the rest of that week, the key
question being the developer’s proposed level of AH being set as 7.5% of built units.

Particularly pertinent was the cross examination by one Mr Russell Harris KC for the appellant of the GLA Principal Strategic Planner Ms Emily Leslie on the morning of Friday 6th December. Over three hours of tortuous questioning apparently were required to establish that the GLA’s 50% AH Target was in fact just that, an unenforceable target, ‘an aspiration’ as Mr Harris put it. But we knew that before we started.

So, might ask our Observer, why waste so much time establishing something already known to be
unenforceable? Put it another way, what do you think Ms Leslie or any of the witnesses who subsequently spoke could possibly have said to have influenced the 7.5% level of AH?

Separately to this, just before lunch on the 3rd December, Mr Douglas Edwards KC, for the GLA, announced that he and Mr Harris had reached a ‘without prejudice’ agreement that the AH level should become 12%. This was mumbled, forcing me to stop the meeting for clarification. Our Observer might consider this agreement positive, the near seven-fold 7.5%/50% disparity, in all fairness, worth reducing.

So, the Observer might be surprised to see paragraph 174 of the report as it firstly credits the appellant
with this agreement, secondly dismisses same as apparently ‘not appropriate’. How can such an offer by
the appellant of all participants not be appropriate? Could I ask you to write to me to explain this? Also
please state whether you feel the time spent on the AH topic was a worthwhile use of time and money?
I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely
Paul Giles Performance, Attribution and Risk Specialist

The reply on behalf of the Inspector can be read on the EastSheenMatters site.

Dear Paul Giles
Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate.

We received your letter dated 23 May 2025 about the appeal decision on appeal Ref:
APP/L5810/W/24/3339060.

Planning law requires that each case must be determined on its individual planning merits, in
accordance with the local development plan (unless material considerations indicate
otherwise). The courts have long established that the weight accorded to any material
consideration and all matters of planning judgement are within the exclusive authority of the
decision-maker.

The Secretary of State has the right to view any recommendations we have made and then make
an informed decision.

The reference to the offer being “not appropriate” reflects the Inspector’s assessment that,
while the gesture was noted, it did not meet the necessary planning or policy thresholds to be
determinative in the appeal outcome. This does not diminish the importance of the discussion,
nor the value of the contributions made by all parties, including yourself.

The Inquiry serves not only to inform the decision but also to provide a forum for public
accountability and transparency. The depth of examination into the AH issue helped clarify the
positions of the parties and ensured that the Inspector’s conclusions were based on a full
understanding of the evidence and arguments presented.

The Inspector concludes that the development would have a positive effect on the local supply
of affordable housing, and that it would not conflict with Local Plan Policy LP36, ELP Policy 11
and London Plan Policies H4 and H5, for the reasons stated.

We do not wish to comment further on the merits of decisions made by the Secretary of State.

The Planning Inspectorate and the Inspector who made the decision are not required to discuss
any further than has been explained in the decision, so we have nothing further to add.

Once an appeal decision has been made, it is the role of the Council’s Planning Department to
ensure that the decision is adhered to, so [you] can discuss the implementation of the decision with
your Council directly.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours Sincerely,
David Waring
Customer Team
Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN