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.
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:
- The article mentions the need to replace existing dilapidated buildings. The evidence is that almost all neighbours support refurbishment of these buildings, on a similar footprint and location. Their objection is to the consequences of expansion. Planning Officers recommended turning down the application primarily because they considered the resulting traffic problems would be unacceptable.
- A key point which emerged from the meeting, but is not mentioned in the article, is that the Council had offered the School the opportunity to re-submit using current pupil numbers, with the possibility of increasing numbers if traffic plans, contrary to Planning Officer’s expectations, succeeded in alleviating current traffic problems. The School turned this opportunity down.
- The meeting also brought out the fact that were the Application to be accepted, any conditions limiting increase in pupil numbers would not be legally enforceable. Councillors were keen to establish this point, since it suggests that expansion would be irreversible even if it did bring the expected traffic chaos. This point is not mentioned.
- Mention was made of input at the meeting by Alison Edwards, Chair of DNA, and a neighbour, Mr Poot. No mention is made of Mr Rago’s input which concentrated entirely on the above traffic issues – the main area of discussion throughout the meeting!
- It appears that Denmead’s Headmaster has been interviewed subsequently to the 20 December meeting, or has supplied a briefing. No such opportunity to comment has been given to DNA, whose views reflect the 150+ objections lodged by neighbours.
- The interview with the Headmaster says that Denmead have “...been doing our utmost to work with the neighbours and local community to reach a harmonious result...”. In fact, since the Planning Application was lodged in December 2011 the School have not approached DNA or provided information requested by DNA.
- The accompanying picture, supposedly of the site in question, is in fact of the pre-preparatory school in Wensleydale Road. This style of building bears absolutely no relation to the massive two storey warehouse-style construction proposed for the Gloucester Road site.
DNA hope that RTT will note these points, correct the impression given by this article, and produce more balanced coverage in future.