EastSheenMatters

Introduction

The last day of the hearing takes place at Clarendon Hall this Thursday. Start time is 930am. Closing submissions from Counsel are the order of the day. If you never understood quadratic equations now is the time to learn so you understand the niceties of calculations about viability of the scheme and levels of affordable housing, which will no doubt play a significant part in submissions.

The remainder of this report is based on attendance at thirteen of the fourteen days of hearing. It seeks to convey an impression of the experience of attending in person, as distinct from watching on the livestream. Watching from home however often gave a better experience when the livestream was working: most of the time but it did go down occasionally. Listening in the Inquiry rooms gives you the atmosphere and interaction but it was by no means always an easy experience. Some advocates and many witnesses did not use the microphone to good effect. 

Update today 

In spite of the Inspector’s efforts to involve the local community the feeling of being at a ‘concert party’ at which we were not welcome was heightened today. The section 106 agreement, a document agreed between Council and developers, setting out additional provisions if planning permission is granted, was the subject of a roundtable discussion. The draft provided for discussion was not on the Inspectorate website until Friday. Further amendments were tabled this morning.

One important change was to the funds available if the plan for the secondary school does not go ahead. This was reduced from £3m to £2m overnight. This is convenient to the Council case but better than evidence previously given by Council officers that no funds were available.

The Inspector 

Leading from the top the inspector was always courteous and remarkably patient. He gave no clues about his thinking. His decision should be forthcoming in March 2025. It will be interesting to see how his decision interlinks with that of the Minister in relation to future funding of the secondary school. Joanna Vincent, the Inquiry Manager, has also been invariably helpful.

Party Strategy

One can perhaps understand that the developers and the Council exhibited a determination to win the appeal, given the money involved, if not quite at all costs. Several observers, perhaps not used to the verbosity and cut and thrust of legal proceedings, referred to the developer’s Counsel examining at length and beyond time estimates and bullying witnesses. Was that on instructions or merely an advocacy style or a tactic to wear down a witness?   Richmond’s Counsel had an infuriating habit of interjecting ‘answer yes or no’ at regular intervals. Merely a style or calculated to disrupt the normal pattern of answering a question? 

Nor did they at any time acknowledge the genuine concerns of local residents, for example on the destruction of heritage assets and the Mortlake style in favour of an urban environment, the tower blocks and scheme density, the lack of affordable housing, transport, traffic, road safety, level crossing usage, medical facilities, overloading local secondary school options. They consistently regarded ‘the community’ as the whole borough, unless they were belittling those critical of the scheme.

Perhaps this approach is best illustrated by comments on Thomson House School. The developer’s Counsel said yesterday that the school was entitled to nothing. There was no recognition that there would be 400 children with no recreational facilities. This reflects the Council’s attitude to the school and more broadly to the local community throughout the saga. In spite of the number of objectors, there has been no recognition from any local political entity representing the ward, neither councillors (save Cllr. Crookdake) nor the MP, of the very real difficulties inherent in the scheme.

The GLA Counsel was invariably polite but nonetheless incisive. Counsel for the Mortlake Brewery Community Group played a minor role but was always succinct. Philip Whyte for the West London Riverside Group was always courteous but made his points clearly. 

Attendance

Council representation from its politicians was very limited. Cllr. Crookdake was present throughout. Her patient demeanour was admirable and contrasted well with some of the witnesses. Her attention to detail was remarkable.  Cllr. Frost attended only to give evidence. Cllr. Cambridge and Cllr. McNulty-Howard attended once to observe. No other councillors attended at any time. No senior officers other than Lucy Thatcher, Chief Planning Officer (who was present almost  throughout) attended.  Ms. Thatcher was clearly dedicated to an outcome in favour of the Council. So too was Henry Kilpin on education matters. You have to wonder if many other councillors felt they could not attend so as to avoid any embarrassment about their true feelings about the scheme. Or do they just not regard this as important as so many others at the hearing believe it to be.