The All Saints Christmas carol service is this evening at 6.30pm, with mulled wine and mince pies following.
You will be familiar with this block near the crossroads of Sheen Lane and the Upper Richmond Road. It appears it has now been sold with completion expected early in the New Year. The vendor company has given notice to current occupiers; licences for parking spaces in the basement have been terminated.
Questions arise as to the future use of the property. The purchaser is a company called Little House Developments. It is understood that their plans do not include a change of use requiring a planning application and that they intend to refurbish the property with a view to running it as a ”family club”. Whatever that means! Watch this space.
Did you know that Jungle music’s greatest ever MC is buried in Mortlake?
A month or so ago, I attended a screening of music documentary Hyper: The Stevie Hyper D Story at the Odeon in Kingston.
Most of this blog’s readership will probably be scratching their heads and asking who or what Stevie Hyper D is; the creator of EastSheenMatters certainly was when I mentioned him. Unless you went raving in the 90s or, like me, got into jungle and drum and bass music around the millenium, you’ll likely never have heard of Stevie Hyper D, aka Stephen Austin.
Born to a Gibraltarian mother and Barbadian father, Stevie broke into the underground dance music scene as an MC (master of ceremonies or mic controller) in the late 80s.
With lyrics drawing on inspiration from an eclectic range of sources, trailblazing double-time delivery and infectious enthusiasm for the craft, he went on to revolutionise the UK rap game in the 1990s. As a champion of peace, love and unity with an unmatched lyrical flow, he inspired those around him and countless budding lyricists such as myself.
Some idolise Lennon or McCartney, others Springsteen, Jagger, Hendrix or Marley, but for me, it’s always been Stevie. As a 16-year-old, cassettes with him on were like gold dust. Twenty five years on, I regularly listen to recordings of the raves he performed at via the magic of YouTube and SoundCloud.
But sadly, I never got to see him perform in the flesh. Stevie died following a heart attack shortly after an event in 1998. He was just 31.
Hyper: The Stevie Hyper D Story – written and directed by his nephew Darrell Austin – charts his rise from bedroom MC at his family home in Fulham to the preeminent figure in a burgeoning industry. It’s a fascinating insight into an immensely talented and complex man and a moving account of premature loss. The Guardian awarded it a four-star review, electronic and dance music magazine Mixmag covered it very favourably, and I consider it a must-watch for those interested in a seminal chapter of UK underground music history.
As one of his biggest fans, I knew a lot about Stevie’s life before watching the film, including the fact that he was a die-hard south west Londoner. But one nugget of information that had somehow eluded me was that he’s buried in Mortlake Cemetery. It’s a place I’m only too familiar with having been there to say goodbye to loved ones over the years. Knowing that he’s there has got me reconsidering having my ashes scattered in Richmond Park when my time is up.
Hopefully that’s some way off yet, and hopefully many more people get to watch Hyper: The Stevie Hyper D Story in the meantime. Its limited cinematic release means there are no more showings in London this year and the only future listing I’ve found is at Komedia in Brighton on Thursday, 15 January.
Fingers crossed it gets picked up by a streaming platform at some point in 2025; more people should have the opportunity to learn about one of south west London’s most legendary – and unrecognised – musical exports.
If you’re interested, you can watch the official trailer to Hyper: The Stevie Hyper D Story here.
Guest Post by Andy White
Shrewsbury Avenue Street Party Shrewsbury Avenue, East Sheen will be closed from 12pm-6pm on Sunday 22 December.
In accordance with the procedure discussed by the Inspector and the main parties during the Inquiry, the following post-Inquiry documents and dates were agreed. The participation by the Rule 6 parties is optional, but all documents must be submitted in accordance with the timetable:
| Document | Final date of submission to the Inspector |
| Update to INQ-37 (Council) | As soon as possible |
| Responses to INQ-37 update, new NPPF, new PPG and new HDT data (main parties) | 10 January 2024* |
| Final lists of conditions, completed s106 agreement, signed s100ZA pre-commencement conditions letter (appellant) | 17 January 2024 |
INQ-37 concerns the Richmond Housing Land Supply. Technical stuff and there appears to be more to come, so it is probably not ideal Christmas reading. BUT no doubt the Council will use it to add to its case for the planning applications. So it warrants careful reading in due course. No doubt MBCG will have something to say.
It is not thought that these documents will delay publication of the Inspector’s decision.
On 28 November 2024 AELTC representatives told representatives of the Bank of England Sports Centre Members Group that they would need to cross all bridges before they could start work on the Wimbledon Expansion. They were granted planning permission by the Mayor of London on 27 September 2024.
On 11 December 2024 the club revealed that it wanted to resolve lingering questions over the plan’s legality, which opponents of the project had been looking at as a potential avenue to block it. It is now intending to make an application to the High Court for a judicial declaration.
At the heart of the matter is the issue of whether the relevant land is held subject to a statutory recreation trust. Campaigners against the scheme have long argued that it is. The Mayor decided it was not.
AELTC appear to have themselves constructed a legal bridge. A previous case has been to the Supreme Court, which could take time. But the worry in the alternative would be that progress might have been held up by late legal intervention on the part of the Save Wimbledon Park Group.
Somehow this post did not get from the email to the website, so I am editing to include the whole script.
| [Unless something unexpected happens! The Parties are able to make further submissions by 17 January 2025 on the revised National Planning Policy Framework (published on 12 December 20240 and on the Richmond Housing Land Supply Report which will be uploaded to the Inquiry website. It is not thought that this should delay the Inspector’s Judgment being published in March 2025.] The Stag Brewery Public Inquiry finished some time after 8pm on Thursday 12th December 2024 on the fifteenth day. Plaudits go to the Inspector Glen Rollings, who seemed to be announcing his retirement as an Inspector. His demeanour throughout was exceptional, even at the end of some long sessions, and ensured a well managed hearing. His Programme Manager Joanna Vincent showed equal equanimity. As Peter Eaton said: “I also endorse several thanks to Mrs Vincent for incredibly efficient and speedy organisation of all the information on the core documentation which has been really amazing since the April CDC six months ago.” The two stars of the show from a local viewpoint were Peter Eaton, Chair of the Mortlake Brewery Community Group, ably assisted by Nick Grant of Counsel, and Cllr Niki Crookdake, Green Party Member for Mortlake and Barnes Common. Niki’s contribution was immense, and of course informed by having access to Council documents. She combined an ability to master the voluminous varied and detailed documentation, responding to demanding questions and with skill in asking her own questions, not easy for a non-lawyer in a judicial jurisdiction. I have to add a personal note having attended most of fourteen days of the fifteen it lasted. One can recognise the Council’s position; they need money; and a glossy new school paid for by central government would be nice. There is a political compulsion for the full time employees as witnesses doing their best to achieve the objectives set by their political masters. One might have less sympathy for the hired hands, on whom large amounts of our council tax have no doubt been spent to create an urban environment, while at the same time ignoring all the attendant problems. And as noted previously concern about the apparent lack of local political interest in the hearing is rife. Perhaps they did not feel they could challenge the Leaders. Political solidarity should only go so far. Far less sympathy can be accorded to the developers. To their credit their representatives also assiduously attended almost the whole hearing, though even they gave up towards the end of their Counsel’s five hour closing submission. But bar one brief exception they avoided any attempt to engage with the local community, whom they seem to regard solely as Twickenham. They gave short shrift to the many problems highlighted by MBCG witnesses. Belittling any opposition is a technique. Maybe that is what happens when profit is the main motive. This was reflected in the personal attack by Counsel implying a breach of Professional Code of Conduct in respect of disclosure of the false letters of support for the planning applications. That allegation does not of course stand up, as shown by the false letters on the Inspectorate’s website. No explanation of the letters nor apology for that unjustified and unjustifiable attack have been forthcoming. But the last word has to go to Peter Eaton, who neatly positioned himself to have the last word. He said:”From myself and from local residents I would like to say something if I may. At the Case Management Conference it appeared that it was likely that we wouldn’t be streamed. I know that local authorities are strapped for cash so this is just a thank you to the council leadership for streaming this inquiry. It’s been very much welcomed and there’s lots of things have been sent through to me and [resulting] requests to clarify. So I actually thank the council for doing so. I think it’s a very important situation seeing democracy and transparency. It’s got great value.” [This was a brilliant piece of diplomacy from Peter. Whatever the outcome of the Inquiry in March, MBCG needs to encourage the Council not to ignore the local community, but to continue to work with it, as it was compelled to do during the hearing. The fact that the Council had to be coerced by public pressure to provide the live-streaming can be left to the likes of this blog. And it is certainly true that once the decision to livestream had been taken it was provided with enthusiasm and subject to the occasional glitsch with efficiency.] “I’ve never been to an inquiry before; it’s something that you mentioned about members of the public who came along. It’s quite a daunting aura actually for the likes of myself and residents. I think it’s a great skill in the way that you’ve organised this inquiry and the way you’ve operated it in an opening collaborative spirit . I think that has been around the room generally and certainly the way you’ve invited public members to contribute has been received really wholeheartedly.” “I did a quick calculation over the last eight years, calculating the three minutes slots you get at planning committee meetings and the GLA meetings and subsequent meetings. I reckon there have about 66 minutes of a chance to actually say anything about these schemes that have come forward. So to get to day 15 is pretty amazing.” [Another brilliant point to make as the last word which cannot have been lost on the Council or the Inspector.] The Inspector concluded:”This is my last workday. This is my last workday where I will be communicating with people in real life so I’ve worn my Christmas outfit staying in the bounds of respectability. Thank you very much everybody. It was lovely to work with you over the past few weeks Merry Christmas Happy New Year.” And then the immortal words: ‘The Inquiry is closed’. |
Counsel’s Submissions run to 81 pages, although it is worth adding that there are a substantial number of pictures. There will be no attempt to provide a synopsis here. It contains no closing summary. To give you a taste:
“the interventions of GLA in this case have been rootless, partial, opportunistic and political. It seeks reductions in height (where previously it sought increases) but with no consideration as to whether such schemes would be remotely deliverable, and it seeks to increase affordable housing when its suggested reductions in volume however disposed would necessarily reduce any reasonable maximum provision of affordable housing. …. [It] studiously avoided any real reference to this history, wiping it from the page in the way that embarrassing former colleagues were removed from photographs by Soviet
propaganda agents.”
There are no doubt some important points to be put in the balance but given the context of this approach they might be lost along the way.
Readers will also wish to note that the Government has today published a new National Planning Policy Framework. The Inspector will direct, provisionally, that further submissions in the the light of that Guidance should be served as soon as possible and in any event by 10 January 2025.
In conclusion on the need for the school it was argued
There is an unconditional development plan imperative for the delivery of a
secondary school at the site. Imperative is a matter for the Inspector
There is support from government at local, regional and national levels.
And substantial local opposition
All of the current indicators of need point to a suppressed and sizeable level of
latent pent up and unmet need.
If there is the evidence is not obvious. More to the point is that the proposed school could not possibly be available over the next four years, and then only on the basis of one form a year.
The statistical year 7 predictions undertaken by both the Council and objectors
show a shortfall in provision over the next 4 years.
The objector’s only expert assessment, read with due regard to potential yields, is
agreed to show a need for a secondary school within the period to 2040.
No alternative site for a secondary school is suggested to exist.
This ignores the argument that Thomson House School could move to the site and would not need to be of the same size as proposed in the current scheme.
There is no established capacity for expansion of existing schools.
There is no evidence that any overprovision of education facilities will harm any
existing school.
Res ipsa loquitur?
There is clear evidence that the under-provision of facilities within the borough
will have the potential to harm the education of pupils.
It would have the potential if it were true.
The development of a school will be in accordance with the development plan.
In his overall conclusion Counsel for Richmond argued:
The benefits of this scheme are myriad, as the Appellant has highlighted. Ultimately, the
Council has taken into account the effects of the scheme and the benefits it delivers. It
recognises the contribution that the scheme will make to market housing, affordable
housing, employment opportunities, townscape, education, heritage and design and
transportation, all on brownfield land. The Council has concluded that the scheme is in
accordance with the development plan and that there are no material considerations which
would warrant dismissing either appeal; no party has suggested that the Council was not able
to rationally conclude that the development is in accordance with the development plan, nor
was Ms. Thatcher criticised …. for that conclusion. Therefore, it is respectfully requested
that the appeals are allowed subject to conditions and s. 106 provisions.
 | Richard AH White on Get your red flags out |
 | inspiring641c639631 on Get your red flags out |
| Richard AH White on Get your red flags out |
| inspiring641c639631 on Get your red flags out |
 | butteryluckye3eac174… on Sheen Rocks! |
