Your MP voted against the Assisted Dying Bill. How would her constituents have voted?
Paul Richards during his talk about Richmond Park (https://wordpress.com/post/childlawobserver10.com/1006) to the Mortlake with East Sheen Society (www.mess.org.uk) on 28 October said:
“The speed limit on Park roads is 20 mph but this does not apply to bikes. ,,,,,The Park had asked the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to change the byelaws to stop speeding bikes. They had asked Strava and other similar apps to remove Richmond Park from their apps, given that they encouraged competitive racing and recording personal best times.”
The Department for Culture Media and Sport, which has Government responsibility for the parks, has now said: “We have received a proposal to improve safety for park users from the Royal Parks and are considering it.”
A Royal Parks spokesman said although cycling has a “deep-rooted history” in the city’s parklands, “the speeds that can now be achieved when cycling in such populated spaces bring new challenges that we are committed to addressing”.
The charity had said: “The parks are shared spaces where pedestrians, cyclists and wildlife coexist, and we have a responsibility to all park users to ensure we are acting in a way that protects and promotes their safety. We continue to work closely with cycling groups, community groups and the Met Police to do all we can to ensure the parks can be enjoyed safely by everyone, now and in the future.”
Richmond Park is having discussions with Strava, and with Richmond Park Cyclists and Regents Park Cyclists with a view to drafting a new Cycling Policy for the Royal Parks.
If you are an American Express cardholder then consider supporting your favourite local small shop by voting for them in the Champion Small 2024 event.
Go to https://www.americanexpress.com/en-gb/life-with-amex/shop-small/
Community BlueScapes is a partnership between London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Barnes Common Limited, and WWT. They are coming together to create healthier neighbourhoods in the Beverley Brook catchment in Richmond and ensure communities are flood and weather resilient in the near future.
Community BlueScapes https://www.richmond.gov.uk/community_bluescapes has been awarded £6million by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs as part of the £200 million Flood and Coastal Innovation Programmes managed by the Environment Agency. The programme will drive innovation in flood and coastal resilience and help residents adapt to a changing climate. One of the underlying approaches to the work is to contain more in existing water sites along the length of Beverley Brook to its exit into the Thames near the Barnes Wetlands Centre. A new pond is being developed in Vine Road.
See also https://richmondclimatestrategy.commonplace.is/en-GB/proposals/community-bluescapes/start
Readers will recall that Richmond Park Manager Paul Richards spoke about water management at his talk to the Mortlake with East Sheen Society (www.mess.org.uk) on 28 October 2024 (see below). They are engaged on Wetland Enhancement Projects 2024. Formerly they allowed water to drain away. They are now keeping a high water level in the Park, while avoiding flooding. There are new drainage schemes controlling flows into Beverley Brook. It was necessary to control entry to the Thames, so that it did not flood at Barnes and Mortlake. They are working with Barnes and Wimbledon Commons.
There is a puzzle in all this. The work all relates to the areas east of Priests Bridge, Castelnau and Rocks Lane and then up to Richmond Park. The area to the west of White Hart Lane is perhaps the most vulnerable for the river bank and towpath and the residents in the low-lying parts of Mortlake. The Beverley Brook water system is adjacent to that part of the Thames. As described in Bert Flood below it is vulnerable to upstream and downstream flooding. But Richmond Council seems to be leaving that to the tender mercies of the Stag Brewery developers, a far cry from Community Bluescapes and its work to involve the local communities.
The All England Lawn Tennis Club announces that its January Coaching sessions at Roehampton are now available to book via their website. https://roehampton.communitysport.aeltc.com/
The Classes will run at the below times:
Tuesday Beginners – 19:30-21:00 for players new to tennis.
Tuesday Intermediates – 19:30-21:00 for players who play regularly and are comfortable with playing singles and doubles.
Friday Beginners – 9:30-11:00 for players new to tennis.
Friday Improvers – 9:30-11:00 for players who have achieved a level of consistency and knowledge of the game.
On Friday 8 November 2024 Richard White gave evidence to the Stag Brewery Public Inquiry about the false letters of support for the planning applications posted on the Richmond Council Planning Portal. The letters could be seen by councillors at the Planning Committee Meeting on 19 July 2023 and were still on the Portal at the time of the second Planning Committee Meeting on 31 January 2024, when revised plans were approved.
Related emails and letters are now posted on the Inspectorate website at INQ-18 within Documents Submitted During Inquiry – Gateley Although the oral brief provided in writing to the Inspector and Counsel for all the Parties has not been uploaded to the website, the recorded livestream of the session is at Stag Brewery Inquiry: Transport – Friday 8 November 2024, 10:00am – Richmond upon Thames Webcasting
The livestream has now been transcribed in so far as it contains the responses from Counsel for the local authority, Matthew Reed KC, and Counsel for the developers, Russell Harris KC, both of Landmark Chambers, and observations from the Inspector.
Mr Reed “ I am not going to ask questions of Mr White. The position was that we wrote to the Inspector on 22 March 2024 which letter went to the Inspector’s administrative department. No doubt it was then forwarded on as part of the case file. We stated that Lucy Thatcher, the case officer, was concerned with regard to the letters of support not being genuine and as a result indicated that they should not be considered.
“ Please be advised, she says, that these letters were not submitted by individual residents, so we indicated to the inspector and we did so direct to you because by that point there had been an appeal in place, so obviously we heard what Mr. White said.”
So in spite of requests to the Council by Mr White and by three other persons to investigate how it came about that false letters were placed on the Council Planning Portal, no explanation has been given.
Russell Harris KC “ For the purposes of your determination we are clear as to our position on those documents. Sir you will be more aware than anybody else, being an experienced inspector appointed to determine afresh this application as if it were a new application, that is the effect of section 78, and you do so on the land use planning evidence before you.
“As counsel has pointed out, in this case the council has as a precaution removed all of that evidence whether it’s challenged or not and has indicated to the inspector that it is not relying on it and it’s not to be relied upon. We placed no reliance on it now and never have.
“ It is not in evidence before you in the land planning because it’s all been withdrawn and that it’s not before you in those circumstances, it’s not something that is much less at the top of your considerations is not on your list of considerations at all [sic]. Circular advice on costs and the PINS [Planning Inspectorate] guidance and procedure makes it clear that inspectors are not expected [Inaudible, microphone malfunctioned], so that should be the end of it.
“ I will say, however, given some of the terms used in a public arena in the document that the Law Society, the Bar and its Bar Code of Conduct and PINS in its guidance to inspectors indicates that deliberate allegations of deliberate fraud are not to be made in enquiries such as this, without the clearest possible evidence identifying the fraud and the persons responsible. You will know that Mr White and reading his document where he in public in a document that I think is probably on the website indicates that the malfeasance was ‘perpetrated by the agents’ was watered down to ‘probably perpetrated’ I think correctly and appropriately and sensibly. There is no evidence of such perpetration and it’s a shame really that these proceedings have been rather sullied by such suggestions. So summing up the evidence which is complained about isn’t before you and that should be the end of the matter. “
Richard White’s response to Counsels’ submissions. “ It’s regrettable and it’s brazening it out. [It is a… ] determination not to give any explanation of what has happened. I don’t think I need to say any more sir.”
Inspector “ I have not seen those letters. I was aware of the allegations prior to the original date of the appeal so I had seen the correspondence that occurred before then. I have not seen the letters themselves so they have no part in my decision making. I will continue to decide these appeals as they have been lodged and validated and I am required to do that.”
Richard White “ Nothing I have said should be taken to gainsay that. Some local people have said should we not report this to the police? Should we go to the Local Government Ombudsman? In my view that would be inappropriate. I raise it with you as the only judicial figure before whom this matter comes. I hear what Counsel say that you have to decide this on the evidence relating to planning. I entirely accept that but I have no other forum to make these points. I am saddened I have to say that both Counsel have chosen effectively to brazen this out. I don’t think that will go down well with the people that I am having regular discussions with in my local community. “
Inspector. May I ask that Mr White’s letter to us is taken in as an enquiry document ….. and attachments.
Observations
“ There is no evidence of such perpetration….” What clearer evidence could there have been than the exhibits on the Inspectorate website? Readers can judge for themselves.
“ Mr. White’s letter to us is taken in as an enquiry document … and attachments.” So whatever Counsel might like to think, the false letters included in the attachments, are enquiry documents.
“ …. it’s a shame really that these proceedings have been rather sullied…. “ Was the sullying putting the false letters on the Council Planning Portal or drawing the Inspector’s attention to them?
“ … some of the terms used in a public arena in the document that the Law Society, the Bar and its Bar Code of Conduct and PINS in its guidance to inspectors indicates that deliberate allegations of deliberate fraud are not to be made in enquiries such as this …..”
This feels like a threat or Counsel seeking to put a mere (former) solicitor in his place.
The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct states: Solicitors must act:
Readers might think that bringing the false letters of support to public attention was exactly in line with these principles.
Evidence was given to the Stag Brewery Public Inquiry on Thursday 7 November 2024 about flooding and drainage issues in the proposed development. John Ancock produced maps (see Documents Produced during Inquiry at INQ-21: https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/stag-brewery/inquiry-documents/documents-during/ ) and expressed concern about whether the existing Thames Barrier (opened in 1982) would be adequate in the future. In his opinion there could currently be problems if the water level rose by 95 cm.
One has to note that Storm Bert produced a huge amount of rain, especially over the hills of southwest England and south Wales, 193mm of rain in Dartmoor, and 174mm near Bridgend. Tenbury Wells on the River Teme was flooded, with risk to life.
The developers are of course very confident that they have taken all necessary steps to ensure that their new site will not experience similar problems. They quoted the Environment Agency as confirming in two letters that they were satisfied with plans. Let us hope that complacency which appears to have been apparent in other parts of the country, does not visit itself on Mortlake.
The problem is not simply what might happen if there is a North Sea surge. In the current climate there is the possibility of excessive rainfall at the same time. The developers say that attenuation tanks, large underground containers that store excess water from storms and heavy rain, will provide protection. Their basement will not be threatened; the small amount of standing water among the tower blocks should run off.
What is less clear is how the river bank to the east and west of the development will be affected if there is simultaneous upstream and downstream high water. We have recently seen Mortlake High Street under water at times of high rainfall and the towpath flooded to the steps of the Ship.
The Inspector has been told that plans will be further discussed in the course of consideration of the s106 agreement, which provides for future work to be done to meet these needs. This area is currently scheduled for the end of next week.
Which part you might ask as this notice was on the Upper Richmond Road. From Shrewsbury Avenue to the bottom. It fits with the Council control campaign, but this one was started by an anonymous petitioner, which did not go down well with some!
Festive Florals for Christmas; lunch, demonstrations and a wreath or table decoration to make to take home. Run by All Saints Flower Team at All Saints – Friday, 29th November – 11.30am to 2.30pm. Cost £60. email; Ruth Mann – ruthmannuk@yahoo.co.uk
Calling cartoonists – do you have illustration skills or know of a cartoonist willing to help the parish on a small project. If this is something that stirs the interest please let Revd Jonathan Haynes know vicar.cces@gmail.com
When the Planning Inquiry starts again on 3rd December it will be considering two of the most important issues to be decided. They are affordable housing and viability. It may be where the planning applications are most vulnerable.
Councillor Niki Crookdake has already given some evidence on this. This post relies to a degree on her factual evidence. She has been the only elected member to stand up to the pressures exerted by the Richmond Council leaders to achieve their objectives.
To keep our communities diverse and provide adequate services we need more decent, affordable, social rent homes in Mortlake, not a further 1,000 unaffordable flats. The need for affordable housing and the lack of it in Richmond and in this development is obvious. Given the extremely low level of affordable housing on the biggest site in the borough by some margin, you would have thought it would be a priority to maximise the affordable housing contribution, by all means possible.
From 2021 to 2024 housing completions fell substantially short of the targets. An action plan was approved in June 2024 to increase delivery. The recommended actions to improve delivery included investing additional funds from the Housing Capital Grant, applying for more GLA grants directly and reviewing sites to address specific challenges to increase not just housing, but particularly social rent home delivery.
If the council had followed its own recommended actions and the London Plan, it could have increased affordable housing on the Stag site. It could have invested some of the Community Infrastructure Levy receipts, used some of the £44m unallocated capital Richmond has available, or applied directly for GLA grants. None of these were considered, despite being used in other borough sites, such as in Cllr Frost’s ward in Ham.
The money generated from the Stag Brewery site will fund community projects elsewhere in the borough – £7m for a new community and youth centre in Ham and £4.5m for a new community centre in Teddington. But there are inadequate community benefits for Mortlake. Local priorities are ignored whilst the rest of the borough benefits from eight years of construction in Mortlake.
Viability is a complicated area. In order for non-expert planning committee members to challenge complex developer reports there is a need for independent guidance, particularly when considering a £1bn project over 10 years. Was this lacking? In the planning committee meeting in January 2024 members placed trust in the Review Mechanism to deliver more affordable homes if market conditions improved. One has to ask whether this was misplaced.
The price of the land is not a relevant justification for failing to comply with policy. It is worth noting that the site was purchased for £158m in 2015. In this case the level of affordable housing has been based on a profit margin for the developer. But what you can afford to pay for a site in the first place, especially depends on what you are allowed to build, i.e. the detailed planning consent and taking into account revenue from sales and leases, which are then set against costs and profit margin. No-one can be certain about any of that at an early stage. Regrettably the developer’s assumptions were not properly challenged in the Planning Committee meetings in July 2023 or January 2024.
There are other scenarios under which the project could generate a substantial monetary return for the developer. These could be different types of housing, including later living or build to rent; incorporating a neighbouring social housing estate; replacing the secondary school with a primary school and an additional 57 affordable homes.
At its simplest viability is when a project’s revenue exceeds costs but it is notoriously subjective. Development schemes can be profitable or unprofitable. Reselton was perhaps overly optimistic at an early stage about what it would actually be permitted to build. If so it could have overpaid significantly for the site, resulting in viability being unsurprisingly weak or even negative.
The planning inspector should rule on what can be built to meet the needs of the environment and community. That should determine actual viability, not the project as currently proposed.
 | jovialf267cf1bbc on Comedy Night |
 | Charles Miller on Stag Brewery : What is the Fut… |
 | Richard AH White on East Sheen Football Club — Who… |
 | devotedlyteenage2349… on East Sheen Football Club — Who… |
| Richard AH White on Clifford Avenue Mystery |
