At the press briefing on the Planning Inspector's report into modifications set out by Richmond Council for the borough's Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Cllr David Marlow, cabinet member for the Environment, and Cllr Tony Arbour, leader of Richmond Council, made a joint presentation and answered questions.

Cllr Marlow opened: "I am pleased to say that the Inspector looking at all the objectives and all the issues involved agrees with the council's overall strategy to improve the environment in the borough and in part he agrees with our high priority given to education sites making provision for our schools - an issue which was largely ignored by previous administration.

"In part he agrees with us in respect of our proposals at Teddington, Grey Court, Collis, Waldegrave and Heathfield Schools. And also, slightly outside our control, one of the proposals for Richmond upon Thames college.

"He also accepts that there could be more usage at the Harlequins site and he agreed to lift MOL at the depot so there are possibilities we can improve the situation there.

"Implicit in our proposals was to save the borough's parks and he has accepted that, which again reverses the policy of the previous administration which was to sell parts of the parks.

"The area where the inspector has differed with us or has given a different weight to our own consultants - and of course when you get these people round the table they will all disagree with each other - he has given less weight to our proposals on the Crane Valley. We knew that was a controversial area. We felt that our proposals were original and visionary but he has not taken such a consideration.

"He has given less weight to the safety aspects in the area, personal security, or that the area is unloved and generally abandoned by the general population, and we feel our proposals would have addressed that safety issue.

"He has also given less weight to the value we would attach to development there and raising money for improving our open spaces and parks, and that in turn would also have improved the housing stock and provided new housing stock for residents of the borough. It will be more difficult to deal with the overall dilapidation of this area which goes back many years again, inherited from the previous administration.

"However, as we have said, we will abide by the inspector's report and we will be considering his proposals, and a report will be put to the April meeting of the Cabinet. But I think that time will tell the outcome of the weight we gave to these proposals from our own consultants, and he has made his own judgment on that."

Cllr Tony Arbour voiced his disappointment about proportions of affordable housing in new development. He commented: "We had proposed there would be 40% affordable housing on new development sites and of that 40% we said that 25% should be low cost housing for sale, the remainder for rent. The inspector has over ruled this and said we must conform to the London mayor's plan, just published. That shows there should be 50% affordable housing. The Inspector indicates that 40% of that should be for rent and 10% should be affordable for key workers but not whether it should be for sale or to rent, that balance.

"We know from surveys that people want to be given the opportunity to buy rather than rent but we are rather disappointed by that. The inspector is going to limit the amount of affordable housing because we were proposing that development sites of more than ten units should 40% affordable housing. Inspector believes we should set the figure at 15 units for affordable housing.

"There are many more sites that come on to the market for ten rather than 15 units of housing so we rather think they have shot themselves in the foot on that one and we think there will be less affordable housing rather than more, and the wrong kind of affordable housing.

"We think it is wrong for the Inspector to impose the London wide policy on Richmond. We think Richmond is different. We thought that Richmond's decision was proper for the borough and there was no objection to this policy from residents."

Moving to the Gothic site on the riverside along Petersham Road in Richmonnd, Cllr Arbour said: "The Inspector referred to the Gothic site as a "pocket park" which was worth preserving. We were inclined to use a part of it for housing adjacent to the road. Inspector differed with us on this and felt we should preserve the whole of the pocket park though it is rather debatable it was used as a park."

Friars Lane car park in Richmond town centre has been accepted for residential use, but on North Lane East, the Inspector's verdict was different. "He has not agreed with us to identify this for housing but said it should be kept under review given the significant changes in the shopping pattern in Teddington, following the opening of Marks & Spencer," said Cllr Arbour.

"Both of us are in effect Teddington residents and the Marks & Spencer store is at the other end of the town but he felt we should take a wait-and-see view on that site. It raises the issue of the depot building. It has been empty for many years. The idea was to sell the site as a whole and generate more money for the borough, so we will have to look at that again."

In response to a question, Cllr Arbour confirmed the status of the North Lane East car park site. "It is not sold yet. The proposal was for an unconditional contract to sell the site irrespective of what the inspector said. That contract has not been signed so it is still currently in the ownership of the council."

On the old sorting office site opposite the station, the Inspector accepts the council's modification for education or mixed uses. On Heathfield recreation ground, the councillors explained that a small part could be taken into the school site but left open land.

Cllr Marlow added: "In his letter the Inspector said he would only address objections. He makes it clear that many of the objections were repeated hundreds, thousands-fold, and some were pre-format objections."

Cllr Arbour, supported by officers, promised the full document plus the Inspector's covering letter on the council website at the end of this week (Friday 2 April 2004).

The Inspector also picked up on the old railway that formerly served the water works, transporting coal from the river wharf at Platt's Eyot on the lower Sunbury Road. The track bed still largely exists across the green belt land of the waterworks at Hampton. Any redevelopment on the waterworks land should not impede any reinstatement of this light railway for leisure use.

On transport policies, said Cllr Arbour, the Inspector agreed with Richmond Council's change of emphasis. "It should be a matter of choice for alternative modes of movement and we were encouraging extension of public transport facilities."

Cllr Arbour continued: "But on our cornerstone policy to preserve built environment and character of the area - and we are not keen on back-land development with imposed higher density - the inspector has come down on the side of the London plan which says that there should be higher density. We are going to find it rather more difficult to reject planning applications on sites of large houses with large gardens. We will find it hard to defend that environment. We think our own UDP should relate to the character of our own borough. We don't really want the interests of London as a whole to over-ride what is being done by us. Last week the mayor made a statement that if any borough didn't accept this he would crush them, and the Kate Barker report says regional authorities should be determining what should be housing policy.

"The principal message to go back with is that over 90% of the proposals have been accepted and agreed, and controversial ones we lost out. There were differences of opinion over the Crane Valley, which was very controversial.

"In terms of protest, there is no definitive decision on the North Lane car park, but not to go ahead with it now. We will abide by his recommendations."

Cllr Marlow added: " A lot of work went into it the Crane Valley and I think we were looking for a major improvement, and that will not come about now."

Cllr Arbour continued: "It will be more difficult to bring about major improvements because there won't be the funds. There is an active group there who are pledged to make their own efforts and the Inspector does comment in his letter.

"We will be working with them as we have done. We will work with them to bring about what improvements we can. But naturalisation of river banks which are made of concrete requires substantial sums of money and the letter shows we should be going for outside funding for that. If we had achieved the improvements that we were proposing it would have been in our gift because it would have been council money to make those improvements, so it will be more difficult. We will be looking at the whole issue in detail between now and the cabinet meeting in April.

"We are disappointed on these issues. We knew they were controversial. They were the only ones where we were in disagreement with the residents. We will work with them in partnership and with other members of the community to bring about as much improvement in that area as we can."

The lead officer on the UDP, Phillip Wealthy, agreed: "If one is to make great changes in that area and establish a link to Twickenham and the station it requires very large amounts of funding."

Commented Cllr Marlow: "I suppose areas like that tend not to be used at night but it is quite spooky. If we look at the depot we may be able to do something, but not to move the depot. The college site are likely to build on the south of the A316. There will be additional housing on their site to raise money towards rebuilding the college. The college site and the Harlequins will be able to have building.

"MOL is lifted on their sports field to build the college on that, releasing the present buildings for development as housing. They will improve the Craneford Way playing field for two pitches."

Under the regulations, Richmond Council is permitted eight weeks to consider the report and publish it. They will be making it available to the public online in little more than a week of receiving it from the Planning Inspectorate. It will also be possible to obtain the 120pp report on paper, and copies will be available in borough libraries.

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

If you wish to comment on this or other stories in the Journal please email: ed@oncom.org.uk

The Journal is produced as a service to the Community by Online Communities Ltd
an independent, non-profit, community group making the community websites for Richmond upon Thames.


www.oncom.org.uk

© 2004 Online Communities Ltd