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.
Here is the final submission on behalf of the GLA, which is now being delivered. The Inquiry is aware that Government plans for the National Planning Policy Framework may be published in the course of the day. If that occurs before conclusion of the hearing time will be given for the parties to consider whether the new Plans have implications for their submissions.
a. A number of [the alleged] benefits are premised on accepting the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses on matters such as townscape and heritage, or the Council’s case on the provision of the school. If you do not, those fall away.
b. Second … a number of [the alleged benefits] are intrinsic to any redevelopment of the site, and tell you nothing about the acceptability of this scheme.
c. Third, we say, a number of the benefits could also be delivered by a different, policy compliant scheme. The weight can therefore be moderated.
d. Fourth, the weight to be given to affordable housing should be reduced, as there remains a significant shortfall below the policy expectation.
The Appellant has, somewhat belatedly …. suggested there is some real urgency about this appeal which means that this permission should be granted. Notwithstanding Mr Henderson suggesting that there has always been an urgency, the phrase “urgent” does not appear in the Town Planning Statement, in the Appellant’s Statement of Case, in his Proof or Rebuttal, and the only reference to it in his Supplementary Proof is quoting speeches from others. Similarly, it does not feature in any of Ms Thatcher’s proofs or the OR. We are not entirely clear what the source of this urgency is, other than (i) a generalised housing need and (ii) the fact the site has not yet been granted permission. Neither goes anywhere. Fundamentally as Mr Henderson accepted, if this permission is refused realistically a re-worked design will come forward for this site, which has a lot of policy support. The fact that this site has not been developed yet is spurious in the extreme: it cannot possibly be a material consideration in the grant of planning permission that the Appellant has spent time trying, and failing, to obtain planning permission for other, unacceptable schemes. MBCG urges you therefore to put aside the hyperbole and focus on whether this scheme should be granted permission.
Fundamentally, it should not. This scheme is not the right one to stand on the bank of the Thames for decades, if not centuries, to come. The Design does not work in this area, it is too harmful to too many heritage assets, it imposes the creation of a school for which there is no need, and – to the extent one can draw any conclusions from the Appellant’s transport work – looks likely to result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. There are some benefits, but when properly moderated those carry far less weight than that attributed by Mr Henderson. The cons outweigh the pros, and by a substantial margin. Refuse this scheme, and let a better, more realistic scheme come forward in its place.
In summary the importance of the specific issues of the site in terms of access, environmental, public transport, design and construction viewpoints to say nothing of the historic nature of the area, the listed buildings and those of town scape interest and the views of and to the site, all have to be weighed which will inevitably lead to, in some cases significantly different conclusions.
