Poppies at Waitrose

Two Nicks on early shift at Waitrose this morning.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Money, Money, Money 2

Thank you to two eagle-eyed readers of my previous post, who spotted that Reselton did not actually pick up a bargain when it bought the Brewery. Not by a million fold. It illustrates the risks of early hours drafting. But it has the benefit of emphasising the point!

Some subscribers, now near to 200, are noting that some emails generated by some postings, are finding their way into the spam box. It can be erratic. Please ensure that your settings are on Safe Sender to ensure continuing service!

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Money, Money, Money

Some of this entry was posted on 23 May 2024. The number of subscribers has more than doubled since then. Given the significance of the content, it seems timely to repeat it, albeit with updates. It will be interesting to see how much of it is addressed in the forthcoming inquiry about the plans for the Stag Brewery site. Are the issues political or planning?

A development of this nature requires the developer to pay to the local authority a charge known as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). In the financial estimates provided to the Planning Committee in July 2023, when the Council first gave permission, it was said that the CIL generated would be £48 to £66 million. The amended scheme presented to the Planning Committee in January 2024 had increased to between £52.59 – £71.55 million. More recently figures of between £40 to £50 have been quoted. Naturally the Council claims that as a benefit of the scheme.

BUT there is no commitment for any of the CIL to be spent in Mortlake or East Sheen, though those wards will be the ones to suffer the maximum adverse transport effects. The CIL could be spent in those wards represented by Planning Committee members, none of whom are in Mortlake or East Sheen.

A second big financial issue is the profit to be made by the developers, Reselton Properties Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital Developments Ltd, a Singapore listed company. They bought the Brewery site in December 2015 for £160 milllion. The Council approach to that company is that they are entitled to make a profit. And that is the basis for the calculation of the 7% of affordable housing to be provided. But did they pay too much? The Council seems to think that is irrelevant.

Reselton also bought the site for the development at Teddington Riverside, shortly before the purchase of the Stag Brewery site. That is now a 217 unit residential site with properties ranging from £600,000 to £1.5 million. There are fifteen units for affordable housing, giving a figure of 7%, remarkably similar to the number at the Brewery.

The Teddington site was completed in two stages in 2018 and 2021. Clearly the planning problems were not as great in Teddington. The problem there is that in the region of fifty of those properties remain unsold. Even at the cheaper end that leaves a hole of some £30 million. Plus a loss of Council tax.

Few doubt that the Brewery site needs development but do we really need 1048 residential units at Mortlake or does that simply assist with perceived financial viability? Surely not if they remain vacant?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Stag Planning Inquiry Hearings

There is now an update on livestreaming in this weeks Richmond Council Community News. Blink and you might miss it so here is the site where you can register to be sent the link.

richmond.public-i.tv Stay alert!

The programme has been published with approximate timings. https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/stag-brewery/inquiry-programme/

And just to encourage attendance at the hearings you find this guidance.

“Seating is limited for public attendance and will be allocated first come, first served each day.”

At least rain is not forecast for Tuesday.

Given our civic society it hardly needs saying but you are also told: “No banners, posters or tannoys will be permitted in the inquiry room.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Sanctuary Seeker Grants

Richmond Council is making a significant investment in community support for sanctuary seekers with a new Borough of Sanctuary Grant Scheme. This scheme will provide funds of up to £10,000 to support local not-for-profit organisations in creating a welcoming environment for those building new lives in the borough.

The Scheme will provide funds of up to £10,000 for local community groups and organisations to undertake activities for six to twelve months. Larger grants and multi-year projects may be considered where a clear need and sustainable proposal can be demonstrated.

Applicants may decide to create bespoke projects or use the funds to expand existing projects or services. These initiatives must support refugees and asylum seekers by equipping them with skills for education and employment, by promoting their wellbeing, by providing guidance to navigate UK systems or by celebrating their contributions to community integration.

There are Meet the Funder sessions on Wednesday 6 November and Thursday 14 November 2024 for interested organisations to hear about the grant scheme. But you need to register for a session.

For further information see https://www.richmond.gov.uk/news/news_october_2024/grants_to_support_sanctuary_seeker_initiatives

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Richmond Park: A Talk by the Park Manager Paul Richards

Organised by the Mortlake with East Sheen Society (mess.org.uk)

28 October 2024

Paul was brought up in Shrewsbury Avenue, yards from the venue for the talk at Tower House School. He went to East Sheen Primary School and Orleans Park. He took over as Park Manager shortly after the decision to close Sheen Gate. At school he became interested in horticulture and worked at Squires Garden Centre in Twickenham, RHS Wisley, Kew Gardens and Wakehurst Place. He described working at Richmond Park, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, as a privilege. He went on to talk about recent and forthcoming work being undertaken.

Many will be aware of events at Pen Ponds. The Upper Pond is a national reservoir. During a six monthly inspection in July 2024 a structural issue was found which needed emergency action. A culvert (a tunnel carrying a stream under a road) near the causeway between the Ponds had collapsed. This was built in C 19th, probably made of elm, and causing water loss.

The Upper Pond had to be emptied. It was last drained during World War 2 to prevent it being used as a navigational aid by German aircraft. Fish and fresh water mussels were transferred to the Lower Pond. There were side effects. Avocets visited. There were litter picks organised and some strange objects removed. The work should be completed by mid November in good time for Christmas walks across the causeway.

There has been replanting at Sheen Cross. There has been too much bramble, which though good for wild life needed some removal. When Paul took over the job he walked in Sheen Woods and was shocked at the level of fallen timber. Much of this has been caused by Acute Oak Decline. Research is being undertaken into causes and treatment. They were not for the time being planting more English Oaks. They might be able to source other European strains which were resistant to AOD. They have been planting larger and smaller trees. Dead trees were good for woodpeckers, owls and bats but the number had been excessive. Let sleeping logs lie was the usual principle but not always. Dens and wigwams in the Park were not a good idea because of risk of collapse and fire.

They were engaged on Wetland Enhancement Projects 2024. Formerly they allowed water to drain away but they are now holding it in the Park and keeping a high water level, while avoiding flooding. There were 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 were working with Barnes and Wimbledon Commons.

They were managing the reed beds at the south end of Pen Ponds. Water from there was pumped up to Isabella Plantation and had to be managed. He noted that Isabella was free, whereas Kew, Wisley and Wakefield all had to be paid for. The education aspects were important, as with the azalea collection. They had most of the country’s 50 species but were still seeking a complete set. There would be changes in the Bog Garden.

Paul used to visit Adam’s Pond as a small boy and it was one of his favourite areas. Without the deer there (excluded to protect the banks) the vegetation has grown quickly and damage caused by the Alder trees growing near the concrete block at the east end of the Pond needs work.

They are desilting areas near Pembroke Lodge to create a new wildlife pond using water from its roof. The area is rich in butterflies. Work is being done on King Henry’s Mound, which is now a historic monument. It was thought that badgers could be undermining the mound. The protected area had produced a source of conflict between protection of the historic monument and protection of the badgers. They are resolving it but they need to understand the underground effects.

There has been too much ragwort . It is difficult to control. It is thought the weather had caused high germination two years ago. It is toxic to horses so have they had to eradicate it where cutting for hay. Again there was a conflict of views between eradication and maintaining. No chemicals were used in the Park except with Japanese Knotweed,

When Sheen Gate closed there were complaints that elders and the less mobile were unable to drive round the Park to see the changing views. They had introduced a minibus service three days a week. It needed better publicity.

Cycling in the Park presented several problems. There were abandoned Lime bikes. They were working with the company. If you parked a Lime bike in the Park you could be fined. Electric bikes were still dumped if they ran out of battery. They would send a van to collect.

Paul had inherited the Movement Strategy and the closure of Sheen Gate. The interaction of cars, bikes and pedestrians depended on courtesy. There were difficulties for pedestrians crossing roads. It was tricky to exit on foot out of Richmond Gate. People needed to use the right side but this was not easy from the west side of the road. They have priority on shared spaces but this was not always respected.

The speed limit on Park roads is 20 mph but this did not apply to bikes. Paul recognised how infuriating it was for car drivers to have cyclists racing past them. They 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. There had been no response as yet. It was said to be like a race track every weekend. They had stopped time trials which had upset a lot of cyclists but it was not what the Park was intended for. They had stopped the Duathlon. Last year when the Park was closed for it, it was used as a race track. A new company had taken over the event this year but they had presented no adequate plan.

There is a current planning application in respect of the cafe at Roehampton Gate. It has a new design with acid grassland on its roof and connected toilets.

They are working on police huts and gatehouses which are dotted around the Park to improve them for volunteer rangers.

There is a lot of new signage, intended to be informative, friendly and chatty, like the Quentin Blake cartoons, and some enforcement. The Park Map is inaccurate as the orientation is wrong – and is being redone.

Richmond Park is a charity. It receives NO funds from the London Borough of Richmond. An important benefit comes from the People’s Postcode Lottery. They receive a small amount from DCMS and some other grants but are otherwise dependent on fundraising.

A question was asked about the Parakeets and whether they had a negative impact on other birds. They did take nesting space but their impact was not considered to be excessive. Paul noted that the birds of prey like them! A question was asked about Skylarks and whether it was necessary for closure of some areas and the requirement for dogs to be on a lead when they had not been seen since August. Paul replied that the number of skylarks is dangerously low. The protected area is only 4% of the Park. They might not be nesting but they are resident 12 months a year and needed to feel safe throughout or they would not return. The safest way was to keep dogs on a lead and not have them zigzagging around vegetation. The numbers were up slightly but this needed to be watched. There were other winter visitors which needed protection as well.

100 local residents attended the event and appreciated the openness and expertise shown by Paul Richards.

See also http://www.royalparks.org.uk/visit/parks/richmond-park and http://www.frp.org.uk

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Poppy Selling at Waitrose

Remembrance Sunday is fast approaching. So you need your poppy. Look out for local sellers at Waitrose this Saturday and Sunday. Over £2,500 was raised last Saturday.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Richmond Park

The Park Manager will be speaking about the Park at Tower House School 730pm this evening.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stag Public Inquiry : Major Development on the proposed secondary school

The DfE wrote to Achieving for Children on 22 October 2024 about the project to build the new secondary school at the Stag Brewery site. The Council has published the letter today.

The letter below raises major questions about the conduct of the Planning Inquiry which is currently due to go ahead on 5 November 2024.

It appears that DfE funding for Livingstone Academy will be reconsidered. If the funding was withdrawn, that would require a major rethink about the use of the site. Many of the problems highlighted here in previous postings and by parties opposed to using the site for a secondary school would be substantially diminished.

Can the Public Inquiry realistically proceed with such an important question to be decided by central government hanging over the whole hearing?

Which comes first, a decision on planning or policy?

The letter refers to discussions with the Council and that is of course necessary and proper. But will the Council make any reference to the substantial and well-founded reservations voiced by the community. They have never paid any heed to the local community to date: how do we make the Minister and the DfE aware of the position? Should we be pressing our local MP, who has to date remained entirely silent on the issue, to acquaint the Minister with the full position?

Review of planned new mainstream free school projects

As you may know, the Secretary of State has announced a review of planned
mainstream free schools, to ensure that they continue to meet a need for places in the
local area and offer value for money. I am writing to provide more information on this
process.


Context

Education is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to
opportunity and give every young person the best start in life, no matter their
background. The Government is determined to drive high and rising education
standards for children across the country. To achieve this, we need to ensure
government funding is targeted where it is most needed.

Significant money has been spent to create surplus capacity through the free schools
programme. For example, the National Audit Office set out in 2017 that of the 113,500
new places in mainstream free schools due by 2021, an estimated 57,500 amounted
to spare capacity in the new schools’ local area. Meanwhile, in the fourteen years since
the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, some of this
funding could have been put to better use improving the deteriorating condition of our
existing schools and colleges.


Review of mainstream free schools

The Secretary of State has therefore asked the Department to review mainstream free
schools planned by the last government, and that have not yet opened, to ensure that
they continue to meet a need for places in the local area and offer value for taxpayers’
money. As part of this, we will also take into account the nature of the provision that is
proposed and any impact on existing local providers.

This process will allow us to work closely and openly with you as we progress with the
review and we will engage with local authorities and trusts with more details about
what this means for individual projects shortly.

The Government’s priority is to ensure children thrive in whichever type of school they
are in – including free schools. Because capacity varies from place to place, the
Department will continue to open planned new schools where they are needed and
represent value for money. We also value the role of academy trusts within the school
system. Strong trusts use their collaboration and leadership to deliver exceptional
results for children and young people, including those in disadvantaged areas.
Academy trusts will continue to have a crucial role in our mission to break down the
barriers to opportunity.


As part of this work, we will be in contact with you very shortly to discuss the following
projects and explain more about next steps:

  • FS0524, Livingstone Academy West London
  • Our review does not include new school projects being delivered locally via the
    ‘presumption’ free school route. For clarity, where relevant, these projects will be listed
    above as not needing any further information for this process and will continue to
    progress as planned. [The presumption free school route requires the Council to be responsible for capital costs. The whole point of the current application is that the DfE was to be responsible under a pre-existing scheme.]

  • We recognise the significant planning and effort that trusts and local authorities have
    invested in their projects, and we understand that this review may raise questions and
    concerns. As we progress the review, we will aim to prioritise decision-making based
    on the urgency of delivery issues wherever possible.
  • ———————————————–
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Stag Brewery Public Inquiry

We are just nine days away from the start of the Public Inquiry on the Stag Brewery Development. Now that the Council has, belatedly, conceded that it will livestream the proceedings ‘at a basic level’ it is important that good use is made of the facility. Updating of relevant information will be posted here.

Attendance at the hearings at York House starting at 10am each morning is also important for the ‘biggest project in Mortlake in 40 years’.

Regular reports from the hearings will be posted here. To see those you need to be a subscriber to this blog. To join the site google EastSheenMatters.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment