Special Christmas services include:
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.
Day 14: Wednesday 11 December 2024
930am start Section 106 Agreement and Conditions
Round table discussions
Venue Clarendon Hall
Day 15: Thursday 12 December 2024
Closing Statements on behalf of (in order)
West London River Group
Mortlake Brewery Community Group
Greater London Authority
Richmond Borough Council
Reselton Properties Ltd
Venue Clarendon Hall
Inspector Closing
It is interesting to set out the developer’s summary of the planning benefits of the scheme, elaborated on today by Neil Henderson, Senior Planning Partner at Gerald Eve LLP, Chartered Surveyors and Property Consultants, instructed by Reselton Properties Ltd. Bold added.
1. Up to 1,075 new homes across the Site on brownfield land (Substantial Weight); At a cost: tall buildings, density. What will the Inspector find?
2. Provision of 65 affordable housing units (Substantial Weight);
Cllr Crookdake notes that there are 5000 people on the waiting list.
Mr Henderson notes that it needs to be set against four years delivery worth of such units. It does seem an extraordinary comparison to make against a wholly inadequate provision over the last four years.
3. Provision of land for the delivery of a new 6 form secondary school including community sporting facilities (Great Weight);
That is put in a context of (contentious) need and choice. Where else do parents have a choice of three schools within such a close area: RPA (0.9m), Chiswick School (1.1m) and Christ’s School (1.7m).
4. Retention and refurbishment of Buildings of Townscape Merit on Site that will improve their contribution to and enhance the significance of the Mortlake Conservation Area (Great Weight)
Questions were asked about whether this could properly be regarded as a benefit, given demolition is an inherent part of the scheme. A matter for the Inspector.
5. Significant place-making, new heart for Mortlake and architectural benefits including the creation of a new active high street and river front uses, opening up of the Site through creation of new publicly accessible open and green spaces, and high quality architecture which includes incorporation of the existing historic buildings and features (Significant Weight);
And conversion to an urban area, the subject of previous discussions.
6. Economic benefits arising from the provision of a range of new commercial uses including new commercial Class E office floorspace, which would include an element of affordable workspace, benefits arising from employee spend and local construction jobs (Significant Weight);
But where will they be able to afford to live?
7. Retention and refurbishment of the Maltings building and other heritage assets on site (Moderate Weight);
Neutral
8. Improvement to setting of heritage assets through the demolition of modern utilitarian buildings (Moderate Weight);
Contentious because some of the new buildings could adversely affect view.
9. Enhancement and enlivenment to streetscape and riverside and enhanced views (Moderate Weight); A matter of contentious urbanity.
10. Sporting benefits that far exceed the existing site (Moderate Weight);
Highly contentious in view of the s106 conditions about community access. Especially for Thomson House School. IT VERY MUCH LOOKS AS IF A DELIBERATE POLICY HAS BEEN ADOPTED TO SEEK TO PUSH THOMSON HOUSE SCHOOL OUT. The developer's Counsel argued that there was no loss because it had been freely provided.
11. Creation of new community spaces, including a new water sports centre (boathouse), alongside new public squares and plazas to encourage community engagement; (Moderate Weight);
Overlooked by high buildings; water sports centre not yet agreed.
12. Creation of new pedestrian and cycle routes through the Site to add to existing local connections, including enhancing the existing towpath and creating a new expansive link from Mortlake Green through to the river (Moderate Weight);
A link to and through Mortlake Green and causing severe detriment to the Green as a green area.
13. Improvements to the city’s green infrastructure, providing over 400 new trees (Moderate Weight); Neutral
14. Contribution to towpath improvement works (£44,265) (Moderate Weight); Enhancement to the flood defence, which meets and in places exceeds the aspirations of the TE2100 (Moderate Weight); Adequacy?
15. The Toucan crossing along the A316 (Moderate Weight) Minimal and potentially causing more traffic.
PS One of the issues which has become clear is that, surprising as it may be to the lay observer, viability of the scheme should bear no relationship to the price paid by the purchaser for the site. No account should apparently be taken of a difference of approximately £120m between purchase price and estimated current value. Indeed Mr. Henderson and Counsel for the developers said they did not know how much had been paid. Extraordinary given it is public knowledge that they paid £158m.
PPS Mr. Henderson gave evidence that the Inspector should give substantial weight to what the position would be if he refused the appeals, on the basis that further delay would be detrimental to Richmond’s housing plans.
Local residents who are registered as patients at the two GP Practices in Sheen Lane
Health Centre will no doubt be interested to read what is provided for by the Council and developers proposals for medical services in the area.
The S106 agreement disclosed to the public on Friday on the Planning Inspectorate website states that the practices ‘do not have the capacity to absorb the additional demand generated by the proposed development’.
It goes on; ‘Consideration will need to be given to the configuration of the current building and
digital solutions to manage access for an increased number of patients, which will require capital investment’.
An amount of £625,055 is provided to the local Integrated Care Board, (an NHS organisation that plans health services for a local population) which it is calculated could be used to increase the necessary capacity and mitigate the impact of the development. A number of questions arise. Is it anything like adequate? Can mere money have a real impact? Would money be ring-fenced? Who will take decisions about the use of the funds, given that the ICB representation is not local?
Or is this yet another area of major impact on the local community where it is accepted adequate capacity is not available, where little or no consideration has been or will be given to the consequences for residents or to their views now or in the future.
Should a witness be compelled to answer questions in cross-examination with a simple yes or no because the advocate demands it?
Draft CIL Compliance Statement dated 6 December 24 extracts
Mortlake Green
Contribution of £196,316.13 payable on the earlier of
commencement of above ground works on main site or
commencement of School development.
Total figure calculated as follows:
Appeal A is likely to place additional
pressure on Mortlake Green, which has
facilities for all ages, is on the route
between the Site, station and shopping
area in Sheen Lane, and it is likely to
serve as a designation for ball sports and
play. The Council’s Park Team have
advised that Mortlake Green is largely at
capacity and as such, a contribution
towards improvement to Mortlake Green
is sought to offset additional impact.
Furthermore, there is likely to be an
increase in pedestrian and cycle use of
Mortlake Green and the towpath result
from journeys between the site, nearby
railway stations and local shops.
Have we heard before that the Park Team advise that Mortlake Green is largely at capacity or an admission that pedestrian and cycle use will increase? How exactly will the proposals improve that capacity?
Transport – Financial Contributions
a. Contribution of £628,878 for TfL bus infrastructure
and highway improvements:
Restarts tomorrow at Clarendon Hall. Last day for closing statements Thursday,
Meanwhile most important documents
https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/stag-brewery/inquiry-documents/core-documents/cdk/
The Christmas Carol Service will be at 6.30pm on Sunday 22nd December, and the Crib Service at 4.00pm on Christmas Eve – all very welcome!
Dates for your Diary:
22nd December: Carol Service by Candlelight 6.30 p.m.
24th December: Crib service 4.00 p.m. – outside church (unless wet)
24th December: Midnight Mass at 11.00 p.m.
The Christingle Service will be on Sunday 8th December at 4.00pm at All Saints. This half hour service is for everyone but children especially welcome. Christingles provided.
Christmas Angels 2024: This year we would like to give vouchers to adults/young people supported by Crossroads for Young Carers, Richmond Home-Start and Cocoon Care after Care. We are very grateful for whatever we can raise. You can contribute by bank transfer to: Mortlake PCC Christ Church Churchwardens – Sort Code 60 07 20 – A/c – 03557413 – reference Christmas Angels. Cheques – payable to Mortlake PCC Christ Church Churchwardens. Cash to be given to Patricia Croft. All donations needed by 8th December please.
The Parish Advent Course. Explore the meaning of Advent through carols and poetry. To be held on the following Mondays in December at 7.30pm: 9th Dec at All Saints, 16th Dec at Christ Church. Open to all the churches and community. The sessions include refreshments – please let a warden or member of the clergy know if you are planning to go and do send in any favourite carols or festive poetry.
Temple Sheen Housegroup meets tomorrow – Monday 9th December 11.00am – 12.30pm continuing our look at poems and discussion on the theme of: Coming and Becoming: ‘Your kingdom come’. Message Judith – email: russenbergerjudith@gmail.com for notes and zoom link
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
Sheen Gate Choir Autumn Concert – 15th December 6.00pm – 7.00pm. at Christ Church with Vivaldi’s Gloria; Seeing the Star – Ben Ponniah; Ecce Novum & Across the Vast Eternal Sky – Ola Gjeilo. Tickets, £12 available on the door. Conducted by Penny Homer. Dedicated to the memory of Ben Thapa.
 | Richard AH White on Stop Cutting Down The Woods in… |
 | Andrew Wilson on Stop Cutting Down The Woods in… |
 | Charles Miller on Basil Alter at Christ Church,… |
 | David Pugh on Sarah Olney MP reports in her… |
| David Pugh on Proportional Representation? |
Planning laws reform: an attack on local democracy
Simon Jenkins writes in today’s Guardian
“Denying local people a meaningful say in their surroundings is undemocratic. Rayner’s beneficiaries are not to be homeless or poor people. In a bid to hit Labour’s target of building 1.5m homes, Rayner’s department is to rely on the “volume housing” developers of executive homes. She is not renewing towns by ending stamp duty on downsizing or ending VAT on refurbishment. She wants to press ahead with carbon-rich new buildings rather than reusing old ones.”
The oddity in Mortlake is that it is a Lib Dem Council which has denied local people a say in their surroundings. The Stag Brewery and the Teddington Riverside developments both rely on the extensive building of executive homes. To be bought by whom one might ask? Foreign investors?
And if the Inspector and Angela Rayner feel it necessary to approve Council plans, that assault on local democracy will continue throughout implementation.