The Planning Committee met on Thursday 19th December. The application was approved subject to conditions, which will be published by the Council in due course. For further information please see a statement from DNA's chair.
The Richmond Council website now shows that the application has been assessed, and that the case officer has recommended that permission to proceed with the development should be granted.
The final decision will be taken at the next Planning Committee meeting, to be held at York House at 7pm on Thursday 19th December. Essentially, the Council are taking the view that traffic is the only issue, and that the application does not ask directly for any increase from current numbers. DNA dispute this point of view for many reasons described in detail on this site. DNA and supportive local Councillors will be speaking at the meeting, and we hope that as many supporters as possible will also be there. The Case Officer's report is on the Council website here. DNA believes that Council officials have nearly completed their report on the application. It may be on the Agenda of a Planning Committee meeting as soon as 19 December 2013
On 22 November DNA Sent the council a document containing further evidence gathered since the original submissions in June. The document can be viewed here or on the council website
The topics covered are:
DNA today lodged a comprehensive Statement of Objection to the recent planning application. The document sets out the case summarised elsewhere on this site. It concentrates on issues relating to the new application, including new evidence, but also includes relevant points from the previous Statement of Objection. This is because the new application does not remotely address these issues to the satisfaction of neighbours.
DNA trust that this submission will be a valuable addition to the large number of individual objections which have been submitted, or hopefully are about to be submitted, online or by letter. The Council, and Councillors need to be aware of local opinion. On 13 June Denmead School lodged a new planning application - reference 13/2102/FUL. The proposal is essentially as before except that, for this application, pupil and staff numbers will not increase. However a 'Supporting Planning Statement' prepared for the School (Appendix K) indicates that numbers may increase if travel plans succeed in reducing travel problems.
The case file is at: http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PlanData2/ShowCaseFile.aspx?appNumber=13/2102/FUL&DocTypeID=7#divShowDocuments Neighbours have until 11 July to register objections. More news from DNA will follow soon! Local residents recently noticed that traffic measuring strips have been placed in Wensleydale Road, near the entrance to Carlisle Park, and on Gloucester Road, near the entrance to Denmead School. An engineer doing the installation said that they would be in place until 24 April.
Enquiries indicate that the work has been initiated by SKM Colin Buchanan. Hampton/Denmead School have used this company as traffic consultants to support the expansion proposals in their planning application. This suggests that the school is conducting a new survey, covering a period before and after the start of the new term on 18 April. Presumably this forms part of preparation for an appeal against the rejection of their planning application, or submission of a new one. The School would have to lodge an appeal by 20th June. At the 20 December meeting of the Planning Meeting Council Officials mentioned that the School was applying for a ‘Section 191 Certificate of Existing Lawful Use’ in respect of their Gloucester Road Site.
What this means is that the School is trying to remove restrictions on out of hours use of the facilities, restrictions which were placed in 1985 to protect surrounding neighbours from noise and disturbance. Their argument essentially is that they have broken these conditions continuously since 1985, no-one has complained until recently, so they can be ignored in future! The application is dated 12 December 2012 but has only recently come up on the Council web site. You can view the case papers at: http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/plandata2/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=12/3957/ES191 Immediate neighbours of the site may well be extremely concerned about this development, and more generally it illustrates the contrast between the School’s professed wish to be a good neighbour, and their actual actions. A DNA member is taking professional advice on the validity of the School's application, which we hope will be put before the planning officer. The process for handling a Section 191 Application is not entirely clear, but it does not seem to include a full consultation phase. However the Planning Officer, Anita Vedi, will consider evidence and argument. If you have concerns about this application, or have evidence of use out-of-hours please contact us at [email protected]. Richmond and Twickenham Times have published an article on the outcome of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 20 December. Several neighbours who attended the meeting, or have watched the webcast, were amazed at the misleading nature of this report, dated 12 January.
It is natural for papers to have editorial policies which are reflected in the coverage they provide. However as far as we know RTT have not declared themselves as a supporter or an opponent of Hampton/Denmead’s expansion plans at Gloucester Road. Neighbours therefore expect to see balanced coverage of events. These are some concerns about the article:
DNA hope that RTT will note these points, correct the impression given by this article, and produce more balanced coverage in future. On 20th December the Planning Committee accepted the Planning Officer's recommendation and refused this application on traffic grounds. It was close vote, with 5 in favour and 4 against. The meeting room was full, with excellent attendance from neighbours opposed to the application.
The Planning Officer summarised the reasons for recommending refusal of the scheme. Two speakers from DNA and a neighbour from Gloucester Road stated neighbours’ reasons for objection, on traffic and several other grounds. The School’s architect re-described the scheme, and the School’s headmaster gave reasons for having to redevelop the site. It then took nearly 90 minutes for the Committee to reach their conclusion. There was disagreement about the strength of evidence supporting the Planning Officer’s conclusions on traffic, and the validity of traffic forecasts. DNA members present were very concerned that some councillors did not seem to think that the existence of traffic problems was established, and also did not seem aware of the evidence set out in our objections. A key point which emerged was that the Council had suggested that the School might re-submit with numbers fixed at the current 144, then postpone expansion in numbers until such time as their traffic plan was properly validated. The School had declined this opportunity. A further key point was that the Traffic Officer, in response to repeated questioning, confirmed that any condition limiting future numbers, attached to a decision to accept the application, would not be legally binding. DNA members were very disappointed that the committee did not accept our case that permission should be refused for non-traffic reasons, including harm to open land, size of building, and noise and disturbance. DNA will endeavour to continue to promote neighbours opinion on these issues. The next move is with the school, which may appeal or re-apply. When we have more news, we will let you know. The issue may not be settled yet but on Thursday we got the right result, in no small way thanks to the combined strength of neighbours’ support! |