Sheen Lane Road Works: Update

Sheen Lane, East Sheen multi-way temporary traffic signals 78 for Thames Water utility works. Estimated completion date 13/05/2025. Contact: Thames Water 0800 316 9800. Thast’s the Council notice but the hole in the road is outside 135, which is having work done at the replacement shop for lacyclista.

A fairly substantial inconvenience. Will TW be working at the weekend?

That was first posted yesterday. As feared no work has been done Saturday morning. The lorry parked at the site has turned round! And at 11am the driver was asleep at the wheel!

Notice also that work on the shop has revealed an old shop front. Anyone know anything about Dunkley?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Michel the Big Cheese is back

Michel has sorted entry for his cheese, so you can find him again in the Pig and Whistle car park.

This Saturday the gorgonzola should be snatched up before it runs away; and try the Pere Joseph.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Road Works

Sheen Lane, East Sheen multi-way temporary traffic signals 78 for Thames Water utility works. Estimated completion date 13/05/2025. Contact: Thames Water 0800 316 9800. Thast’s the Council notice but the work appears to be outside 135, which is having work done at the replacement shop for lacyclista.

A fairly substantial inconvenience. Will TW be working at the weekend?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Events for Saturday 17 May 2025

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

VE TODAY

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Barnes Home Guard Club Events



May Music Festival on Saturday 10 May 2025

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE DAY
⏰ Doors open 1:00 PM
📍 The Home Guard Club 76A Richmond Park Road
🎟️ £4 advance adult tickets (members + guests) | Kids FREE
🎟️ On the day: £5 adults / £1 kids 


Fantastic bands starting 1:30pm 
House of Mojo Live Jam All Stars Café Racers Stiff Joints Joe Card Band 

🍔 BBQ & Ice Cream Van ☕ Tea, coffee & cakes
🎨 Face painting & colouring tables🎈 Balloons & candles
🏓 Ping pong & prize games 🎁 Tombolas for adults & kids

Bring a picnic blanket or camping chair and get ready for an afternoon of sunshine, music, and family vibes!

🎤 BONUS!Want a sneak peek?
Join us for Sheen Live Jam on Thursday 8 May at the Club — a casual preview night featuring some of the incredible talent performing at the festival!
76A Richmond Park Road. London SW14 8LA
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stag Brewery Appeals: A Personal Opinion

Given that the Government moved the goalposts on the last hearing day of the appeals to strengthen the probability of success for local authority plans for development, it was perhaps inevitable that the Inspector would uphold the appeals.

As a former Tribunal Judge myself I am always hesitant to criticise judicial decisions. I know from experience how difficult they are. However…..

As can be seen from the previous postings the Inspector has clearly taken the view that this development should go ahead, not least no doubt in view of recent changes in central government guidance. Any judge will inevitably draft reasons with that conclusion in mind, albeit having views on individual aspects of the case.

A picture presents itself that wherever he could the Inspector has found in favour of arguments put forward by the Council and / or the developers. That is not to say those arguments are without force. Where he has had to recognise harm, he has done so on the basis that it is not significant, and thus below the newly imposed standards. Where the cases have been at their weakest, that is is on educational provision, traffic and transport, local public safety, affordable housing and public opinion, he has diminished or ignored opposing arguments.

But… the bottom line is that one can take three views of judicial decisions: agree, disagree but accept the outcome, disagree on grounds which make an appeal or application for judicial review possible.

My current view on a first reading of the decision is that it is unlikely to be the subject of a successful appeal or judicial review. To that view one has to add a number of other factors: the further delay in finalising plans for the area, the costs involved and the continuing division of thinking in the neighbourhood. But if anyone has deep enough poclets…………….

We should not of course forget that the Minister still has to take a decision about whether to fund the building of the 1200 pupil secondary school. If the Government does not provide the funding, that part of the development will not go ahead, as the Council made it clear they could not fund it. And will Reselton wish to proceed given the boardroom arguments reported and, on their own account the high risks involved for limited profit.

Now is probably the time to seek assurances from the Council that they will consult the neighbourhood more effectively than they have done over the last several years, and that they and the developers are more open about difficulties as well as the benefits they always seek to promote.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fraud in the Stag Inquiry Process

The Inspector stated at Para 193 of his decision: “Early in the appeal process the existence of fraudulent representations, in the form of letters of support for the proposals, was brought to my attention. I have excluded these from my considerations, and they have had no influence on my decisions.”

It is interesting that the Inspector saw fit to mention this and accepted that there had been fraudulent misrepresentation. Neither the Council nor the developers have seen fit to investigate or offer an explanation as to how these letters found their way onto the Council Planning Portal. Regrettably as a consequence we do not actually know whether anyone who gave evidence was involved in the fraud.

This was full explored in a previous posting on 26 November 2024: see

The only defence was an attack on the whistleblower.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stag Brewery Appeal Decision : Conclusions on the Main Issue

  1. In respect of Appeal A, there would be harm to the setting and significance of the Thames Bank buildings and harm to the two BTMs, through their partial loss. There would also be harm to other NDHAs resulting from their partial removal or relocation. The harm to the historic environment would conflict with Local Plan Policies LP 3 and LP 4, ELP Policies 29 and 40, and London Plan Policies D9 and HC1, which together seek to protect heritage assets, amongst other considerations. There would be no harm in respect of Appeal B.

And yet…….

The Inspector’s overall opinion is “in considering the wider design implications throughout the site, I am satisfied that the development meets the requirements of the Local Plan and ELP site allocations. Although the proposed building heights exceed the suggestions of the site allocations and relevant guidance, no harm to character and appearance would result. Overall, the design of the development would be beneficial to the area, and as is befitting of a large development the altered character of the site would provide distinctiveness, while not detracting from that of the existing surrounding areas”.

A highly subjective opinion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Stag Brewery Planning Applications Appeal: Inspector’s Decision on Appeal A : Affordable Housing

affordable housing

At para 198 the Inspector finds: “The provision of affordable housing is a benefit. The viability assessments prepared and reviewed by the appellant and Council indicate that the viable position is zero provision, and I agree that this is reasonably accurate, considering my concerns set out in the relevant main issue above. That affordable housing has been provided, in a tenure split that is supported by
the Council, and both this and the provision in favour of larger units for family accommodation would target the greatest areas of need within the borough and would help to address a current supply shortfall. The proposed approach would contribute to the Framework’s objective of creating mixed and balanced
communities. Additionally, a higher future provision of affordable housing might be possible given the comprehensive review mechanisms set within the planning agreement. I allocate substantial beneficial weighting to affordable housing considerations.”

Herein are perhaps the most extraordinary findings. To find that 7.5% of the residential units can be a substantial benefit, that is approximately 65 units in a development of 1200, will not find favour with the local community. To assert that a higher future provision might be possible is highly debatable. You will search long and hard to find a development where affordable housing has been increased AFTER the initial permission.

What is far more likely, but wholly unrecognised, is that units will be sold to foreign investors or remain empty, as have the development at Teddington Riverside.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment