Category Archives: Planning

Janet Locke

Photograph of Janet Locke at Trumpeters' HouseIt was with great sadness that the Society learnt of the death last weekend of Janet Locke, who made a major contribution to the Society’s key role and work in protecting and enhancing the character and amenity of Richmond between 1986 and 2008.
Janet served on the Executive Committee from 1986 until the end of 2002 – including several years as the Society’s Vice-Chairman – and on the Conservation, Development and Planning Sub-Committee from 1986 to 2008.

Across those years, Janet led the Society’s important work in monitoring and commenting on development proposals located within the Society’s area of interest, involving careful scrutiny and consideration of many hundreds of planning applications affecting Richmond each year and drafting and submitting representations in collaboration with her committee colleagues on those specific proposals raising issues of concern to the Society. In addition and importantly, Janet also contributed significantly to the Society’s own conservation and improvement projects and in the assessment stages of its Annual Awards Scheme.

The Society owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Janet for her dedication, enthusiasm and wise advice across the years.

P.V. 26th May, 2020.

Richmond Society requests urgent holding direction for Manor Road development approval

On 4th February, Stephen Speak on behalf of the Richmond Society wrote to the Planning Casework Unit requesting that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government issue an urgent holding direction to allow a call in of the Mayor of London’s expected consent of the proposed Manor Road development. Here’s his letter.


Richmond Society logo

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write on behalf of The Richmond Society to ask the Secretary of State to place an urgent holding order, with a view to calling in the Mayor of London’s expected consent of a planning application by Avanton Richmond to build 433 residential units at 84 Manor Road, Richmond, TW9 1YB (currently a Homebase and Pets At Home stores).

The Richmond Society is a civic amenity group with over 1,300 members across an area of benefit that incorporates the site.

BACKGROUND

The original proposal for 385 units was refused by London Borough of Richmond (“LBRUT”) in July 2019 under their reference 19/0510 which cited failings under the NPPF, the London Plan and the Local Plan. Subsequently the Mayor of London used his powers to call in that decision and has taken over the duties of the Local Planning Authority.

On 22 November 2019 the developer submitted new proposals directly to the Mayor which are significantly different from, and materially worse than, those previously refused by LBRUT. Despite the 12% uplift in total units, increases in the heights of several blocks, a different community provision and the addition of a new block the Mayor is treating these plans simply as an amendment. There has been no further consultation between the developer and residents regarding the new proposals while administrative errors by the Mayor’s office has meant that previous objectors were informed late about the changes (or in some cases have not been advised at all).

As highlighted below we are concerned that, in the effort, to reach his affordable housing targets for London the Mayor has taken a pre-determined position over this development. His intervention is inhibiting proper scrutiny of these significantly amended proposals, ignoring multiple planning breaches and facilitating the unsustainable overdevelopment of the site. Details of the amended proposals are on the GLA website and can be accessed through this link: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/planning-applications-and-decisions/public-hearings/homebase-manor-road-public-hearing (or as a shortened version here: https://bit.ly/2RVE0qU).

A public hearing is not expected before February 17, but we are aware that the Mayor has given his planning consent very quickly after call-in hearings having previously agreed the s106 contributions with developers. An urgent holding order from the Secretary of State would appear to be the only way of ensuring that the developer’s amended plans are sustainable and can meet the NPPF’s economic and social objectives.

The key economic concerns relate to weaknesses in the transport infrastructure at this location while the social objective failings pertain to the negative local impact of the design’s height and mass. The principle of building homes on this brownfield site is accepted, although the loss of two major retail outlets is regrettable.

The NPPF expects planning decisions to ensure that developments:

  1. add to the overall quality of the area;
  2. are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;
  3. are sympathetic to local character;
  4. establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;
  5. optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and
  6. create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

In refusing the original proposals LBRUT planning officers found failings under all these criteria and the revised proposals are worse.

The Building Better Building Beautiful Commission was appointed under the late Sir Roger Scruton to advise the government. Its report issued on January 30, 2020 recommends interalia:

Stewardship: Quick profits should not be taken at the cost of beauty and community: “Hence places, not units […], not faceless architecture that could be anywhere.”

Neighbourhoods: create places not just houses. “Too much of what we build is […] overly dense ‘small flats in big blocks’ (on brownfield sites)”.

The amended development proposals are exemplars of exactly the failings that the Commission is urging the government to avoid!

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Census data shows that residents of the local area are already heavily reliant on public transport for travel to work (at 47%).

Network Rail objected to the original application due to concerns over the anticipated levels of rail trip generation. They also expressed concerns that the uplift in rail users and pedestrians will significantly impact on the safe and efficient operation of the level crossing on Manor Road immediately next to the southern boundary of the site. We understood that the expected provision of CIL funds did not overcome the harms identified and it remains unclear whether the developer will adjust this through s106 funding for the new proposals.

The Draft London Plan calls for car free parking provision in all areas of PTAL 5-6. The site currently has a Public Transport Accessibility Level rating of 5 (“excellent”). However, this rating is entirely dependent upon bus services to Manor Circus (just north of the site) being maintained. In December 2018 the Mayor, though Transport for London, issued proposals for cutting certain bus services which, if implemented, would result in the site’s PTAL falling one notch. At PTAL 4 the site would no longer meet the car free standard and the proposed housing density is unsustainable. The Mayor should therefore be required to give a formal undertaking to retain a range of frequent bus services sufficient to ensure that the site’s PTAL 5 rating can be maintained in perpetuity.

LBRUT’s Transport Officer raised concerns over the validity and findings of the developer’s parking survey which was not undertaken in accordance with recommended methodology. Local parking stress was therefore understated and, despite the car free and CPZ proposals associated with the development the reasonable parking needs of its visitors, carers, trades people and similar is simply not available in the wider area.

HOUSING MIX

The draft New London Plan, as amended by the inspectors, sets a 10 year housing target for Richmond borough of 4,110 units. This site on its own would therefore be contributing more than a year’s housing requirement for the whole borough. This intense level of development, plus the recently approved proposals for the nearby Stag Brewery development on the other side of the South Circular Road, plus the nearby sites identified in the Local Plan, is adding cumulative pressure onto a community and physical infrastructure already struggling to cope.

The developer’s revisions mean that the plans now provide for 40% affordable housing and qualify for fast track determination by the Mayor without providing viability information. It is unclear to what extent Mayoral grant is supplementing the developer’s profit at the expense of the community.

Of the 40% affordable homes, 50% are intermediate (split between shared ownership and London Living Rent) with 50% social (affordable rent) broken down by units as follows:

Affordable Housing Mix Studio 1 bed
2 person
2 bed
3 person
2 bed
4 person
3 bed
5 person
3 bed
6 person
Total Units
/ Hab Rooms
Affordable Rent 0 12 21 15 19 8 75
Shared Ownership 0 23 12 23 0 0 58
London Living Rent 0 22 10 6 0 0 38
Total 0 57 43 44 19 8 171 / 483

The developer’s statement goes on to state that gross annual income requirements for the Shared Ownership and London Living Rent are as follows:

Unit Type London Living Rent Shared Ownership 2019/2020
One Bedroom £50,614 £62,765
Two Bedroom £56,271 £80,072

Richmond has met its housing targets under the London Plan and, while more genuinely affordable housing is welcome, the majority of the provision from this development requires that occupants earn salaries out of reach for many in local housing need. The plans are not providing enough of the social rent housing that the borough requires. With so many units directed towards high earners they will (of necessity) need to commute to the better paid jobs in central London. This will load incremental demand onto the already over stretched train network that is accessible from the station nearest to the development at North Sheen.

HEIGHT AND MASS

The developer engaged with Richmond’s Design Review Panel which reported in February 8, 2019 “that the development as a whole represents a jump in scale from the surrounding suburban context. The Panel feels that the proposed height of the scheme density is still overly ambitious.”

Against NPPF and local planning expectations the Panel’s comments appear to have been ignored by the developer and by the GLA. The amended plans have increased the height of three blocks which further emphasises the jump in scale to make the development proposals even more incongruous in the context of the surrounding area.

The unrelenting scale and mass is more commonly found in an urban context and is inappropriate for this suburban location. The nearby conservation areas will always restrict the maximum allowable height of surrounding buildings and cause this development to appear in perpetuity as a monolithic mass.

Vies showing the bulk of the proposed development in the context of the landscape overallIn their planning statement the developer asserts that “mature trees within the Royal Botanic Gardens World Heritage Site at Kew will prevent the amended proposals from being seen.” And “the uppermost parts of the development will be visible from the top of the Grade I listed Pagoda in Kew Gardens.” The picture above shows the view towards the site from the top of the Pagoda. The development will be clearly visible in this panorama as a clustered mass behind and to the left of the Towers. Three of the buildings in the development are equivalent in height to the Towers and so it is apparent that significantly more than just the uppermost parts will in fact be visible. Furthermore, many of the mature trees that the developer expects to block the view from Kew Gardens will lose their leaves over winter. We therefore disagree with the developer’s opinion that the visitor experience and significance of the Royal Botanic Gardens would be unaltered.

While not a locally designated view, the vista from Manor Circus to the greenery of Richmond Park is important and incorporates the spire of St. Mathias church on the horizon as a reference. This view will be blocked due to the height of the development.

Many of the objections raised by LBRUT to the original development are unaddressed by the developer’s amended proposals and have been made worse. In particular we highlight the following comments made by professional planning officers relating to height and mass: (paragraph numbers refer to the LBRUT officer’s report provided to the Planning Committee):

107. The site is not located within an area identified for tall or taller buildings and, overall, it is considered that the scheme fails to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the character and built form context of the immediate area, which the site forms a part.

108. The proposed height across the site is significantly taller than the predominant building height in the area. In particular, the 9 storey buildings in the centre of the site are wholly excessive in height, which will be dominant, overwhelming, unrelenting and visually intrusive, and will result in a looming impression, in particular from Manor Grove, Manor Road, Trinity Road and Dee Road. Nor is it deemed the townscape appraisal and visual assessments provide design justification to warrant such height. [The height as amended is increased to 10 storeys with plant on the roof]

115. The site is within close proximity to designated (Sheendale Road Conservation Area) and non-designated (BTMs on Manor Road, Trinity Road) heritage assets and the height, scale, mass and uniform design of the development would result in an imposing presence and a harmful visual impact on these heritage assets, ultimately resulting in harm to their setting in conflict with the NPPF and LP 3, LP 4 of the Local Plan.

158. The applicant’s Planning Statement identifies the need to protect neighbourhood amenity but does not adequately address considerations regarding the visual impact on surrounding properties. These concerns were expressed to the applicant throughout the course of this application and earlier pre-application process. The applicant has elected not to modify the proposal.

The officer’s conclusion in paragraph 158 rather reflects the developer’s disdain for the local planning process and for affected local residents. The developer has instead made clear from an early stage that they have preferred to work with GLA officers knowing that the plans would ultimately be subject to Mayoral approval. The GLA’s written advice to the developer to build taller in contravention of local policies is suggestive of Mayoral pre-determination for a political aim which would be an abuse of process.

DAY LIGHT / SUNLIGHT

The developer dismisses much of the Daylight/Sunlight impact on surrounding buildings (especially those to the north) because they consider the local VSC component to be atypical for an “urban setting” due to the underdeveloped nature of the site. This disregards the actual situation as experienced by residents and also the fact that it is a suburban site and should be treated as such.

Of great concern to existing residents is that the increased heights and addition of Block E will cause even greater harm especially to nearby properties in the area known as the “Trinity Triangle” to the northwest of the site. The developer’s own reports show their amended development proposals would reduce the proportion of windows in surrounding properties that comply with strict BRE Guidelines (VSC loss of under 20%) from 84% to 79%. Furthermore, residents’ analysis of these reports has highlighted that windows in some affected properties have been excluded – which understates the impact.

IN CONCLUSION

The amended proposals remain in conflict with the NPPF, the New London Plan and numerous policies in LBRUT’s Local Plan.

Paper based Mayoral affordable housing targets are being used to justify the site’s overdevelopment with unsustainable repercussions for the community. The affordable housing contribution does not include enough social rent housing and that should not overrule NPPF expectations for sustainable developments that are subject to proper scrutiny and comply with adopted planning rules.

We request that the Secretary of State issue an urgent holding notice to the Mayor concerning these amended proposals while he considers whether, or not, they should be called in for further scrutiny. We will of course provide further assistance and evidence as required.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Speak
Trustee

Homebase, Manor Road, Richmond

Deadline 20 December 2019

In July, Richmond Council, on the recommendation of officers, resolved to refuse a planning application for this site by owners Avanton Richmond Ltd on a number of grounds including: an under-provision of affordable housing; design (siting/layout/height/scale/bulk, etc); visual impact on neighbouring residents; living standards of future residents of the scheme; energy efficiency.

Later that month, the Mayor of London declared that he would become the Local Authority for the purposes of determining the planning application, and has been in “pre-app” discussions with the owners since that time.

This has recently resulted in an amended set of proposals including a higher provision of affordable units, up from 134 (35%) to 171 (40%) through an increase in the total number of units from 385 to 433 including a new block above the bus layover.

The next steps are a public consultation, which runs to Friday 20 December, followed by a public hearing, the date of which has not yet been advised.
In the meantime you can access the details of this revised application through:

You can also view them by going along to City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA from 9 am to 5 pm weekdays.

If you intend to make representations to support or object to the revisions these should be submitted by email or in writing to the following addresses by 20 December 2019:

  • Email: ManorRoad@London.gov.uk
  • Post: Homebase Manor Road Public Hearing, The Planning Team, Greater London Authority, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA.

The Richmond Society will be considering the proposals too and will be commenting in due course.

Annual Awards 2019

Annual Awards 2019 logo. The Richmond Society’s Annual Awards for 2019 were presented on Thursday 17th October by the Deputy Mayor of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, Councillor James Chard.

This year’s brass plaques were given for the renewal of the floor, and installation of modern facilities including a coffee point in St Mary Magdalene Church, and The Bridge @ RHACC in the Richmond and Hillcroft Adult Community College.


Brass Plaque Award – St Mary Magdalene Church:
renewal of the floor,and installation of modern facilities including a coffee point

Annual Awards 2019: Internal view of St Mary Magdalene showing the renovated floor.

Client
Richmond Team Ministry

Architect
Peter Bowyer

Contractors

Floor-layers:
Ammonite Projects Ltd

Quarry:
Haysom Purbeck Stone

Ground-work:
William Aldridge

Carpenter/decorators :
John and Gordon Carter; Adrian Robinson

Joiners/furniture-makers:
Robin Johannsen, Tim Hawkins, Luke Hughes Ltd

Services Consultant:
Chris Reading

Heating Contractor :
RS Mechanical Ltd

Electrical Contractors:
Lowe & Oliver Ltd


Brass Plaque Award – The Bridge @ RHACC:
Creation of flexible space in the building at the back of the former Magistrates’ Court for community and college use

Annual Awards 2019: Internal view of The Bridge @ RHACC.

Client
Richmond and Hillcroft Adult Community College

Architect
3BM

Contractors

Fusion Project Management
Noble House


Commendation – Wakefield Road Bus Station:
Development of new bus shelters for passengers allowing better accessibility and protection against the weather

Annual Awards 2019: Wakefield Road Bus Station

Client
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
Transport for London
Design
Steer Davies Gleave
Contractor
FM Conway Ltd
London Buses
Funding
LIP
Village Plan

Commendation – Entrance to the Old Deer Park Car Park:
Installation of wooden pillars and landscaping at car park entrance to replace previous old metal barriers

Annual Awards 2019: Entrance to the Old Deer Park Car Park

Client
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Contractor
Cristi Popa

Stakeholder
Old Deer Park Working Group

Funding
Richmond Society
Kew Society
Friends of Richmond Green
Friends of Old Deer Park


With many thanks to Michael Izett and the Parish of Richmond for the photos.

Richmond Society Forum – Under New Management

Our Autumn Forum on Thursday 18thOctober provided an opportunity for Society members to meet the new administration running Richmond upon Thames Council since May’s elections.  We were pleased to welcome Council Leader Gareth Roberts, together with Deputy Leader Alexander Ehmann who has responsibility for Transport, Streetscene and Air Quality, and Martin Elengorn who looks after Environment, Planning and Sustainability.

Councillor Roberts opened the forum by setting out the administration’s three main priorities: making Richmond fairer, greener, and safer.  These would have to be delivered in the context of the scope of the limited powers available to local authorities and the financial constraints under which they operate.

A good example of these limitations was the central government cuts in policing that have led to the disappearance of routine police presence in Richmond and measurably reduced police performance against targets. Councillor Roberts recognised that this was unsatisfactory, both from the perspective of reported crime and low-level anti-social behaviour.  However, the Council had no powers to increase police resources so instead was focussing on crime prevention.

In response to questions, Councillor Roberts spoke about the merger of services with Wandsworth.  Some departments had good local knowledge of Richmond borough; others were still shaking into place.  It would not be practical, nor indeed affordable, to return to a more localised arrangement, so his focus was on making the current situation work well and delivering the best possible services within cost constraints.

Councillor Ehmann then spoke about the current consultation on introducing a 20 mph speed limit on all roads in the borough other than its two trunk routes, the A316 and the A205.  This proposal had been included in the LibDems’ manifesto in response to mounting evidence that at slower speeds far fewer accidents take place, there are far fewer injuries, and far fewer deaths.  This applies even more so to main roads than side roads, which is why routes such as the A307 Kew Road are included in the proposed 20 mph zone. Additionally, a piecemeal implementation of the zone could as much as double its cost with the extra signage needed, and make it less straightforward for motorists to follow.

It was expected that overall air quality would improve as a result of implementation.  In addition it would encourage walking, cycling, and the use of public transport.  Councillor Ehmann was keen to point out that the administration was not anti-car, but that its aim was simply to encourage people to shift to more sustainable forms of transport.

In response to questions, Councillor Ehmann explained that enforcement of the 20 mph zone would be as for 30 mph. There would be no additional police. Compliance by most drivers would lead to an overall reduction in speed, which would deliver the expected improvement in road safety.  In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposal, and to optimise it if it goes ahead, the Council has already started gathering speed measurements to establish a baseline.  They would not be implementing the modern-day equivalent of speed bumps, as these often lead to an increase in emissions when cars brake to avoid them and then accelerate to the next one.

Former councillor Frances Bouchier asked about the budgetary plans for improving safety for cyclists.   Councillor Ehmann responded that though the budget was limited this was an important priority.  They were reviewing the acclaimed Tower Hamlets scheme, and there was also a bid being made to the Mayor of London to improve the cycling route from Ham to Richmond. In response to a question about dangerous cyclists, he explained that his focus would be more on providing an environment where cyclists did not feel the need to misbehave than on enforcement.

Regarding the length of housing lists, Councillor Elengorn explained that this was a challenge.  The Borough of Richmond had a target of 300 new homes per year, rising to 800.  Failure to meet this target would result in the Council having to relinquish planning powers.  Their approach to resolve this is a “Green Growth Strategy”, which aims to provide quality homes on larger sites.  One site currently under evaluation is at Homebase by North Sheen Station. Additionally he reconfirmed that the Friars Lane Car Park, which was controlled by Property rather than his department, is still zoned for residential development.

Other areas covered included: possible reversion of the Old Town Hall to community use; providing the Museum of Richmond with a more accessible site; consolidation of Richmond’s libraries on the site of the current lending library on Little Green utilising the adjacent Queens Hall; increased pedestrianisation of George Street; the hope that over time the TfL buses that cause most of the air pollution will become greener; the future of the House of Fraser site; and the dilapidated state of some areas of the Riverside, which Councillor Elengorn promised to escalate.

We would like to thank Councillors Roberts, Ehmann and Elengorn for their time, and for providing a very informative evening.

Annual Awards 2018

Annual Awards 2018 logo. The Richmond Society’s Annual Awards for 2018 were presented on Thursday 20th September by the Mayor of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, Councillor Ben Khosa.

Paul Velluet, who founded the awards programme forty years ago, introduced the evening with a review of the more significant winners over the four decades in which they have been presented.

This year’s brass plaques were given for the renovation of the Temperate House in Kew Gardens, and the renovation of the Great Pagoda, also in Kew Gardens.


Brass Plaque Award – The Temperate House, Kew Gardens:
Renovation

Annual Awards 2018: Temperate House, Kew Gardens.

Client
Royal Botanic Gardens
Andrew Williams
Architect
Donald Insall Associates
John Dangerfield
Contractors
ISG
Ramboll
Hoare Lea
Land Use Consultants
Butler and Young

Brass Plaque Award – The Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens:
Renovation

Annual Awards 2018: Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens. Client
Historic Royal Palaces
Rob Umney
Lee Prosser
Craig Hatto


Architect & Landscaping

Austin Smith Lord
David Millar
Catherine Cosgrove


Contractors

3D Systems – Nick Lewis
Hockley & Dawson
Blue Sky Building
PMJ Woodcarving Ltd

Commendation – Ancaster House, Richmond Hill:
Conversion and restoration, and development of new houses

Annual Awards 2018: Ancaster House.

Client
London Square
Mark Smith
Architect
PDP
Simon Gazzard
Contractor
London Square
John Fitzhenry

Commendation – Hogarth House, Richmond:
Conversion and restoration from offices to residential use

Annual Awards 2018: Hogarth House.

Client
Berwick Hill Properties
Architect/Designer
Donald Insall Associates
Jonathan Carey
Contractor
Birkby Construction

Commendation – Gothic Cottage, Richmond Circus:
New side extension

Annual Awards 2018: Gothic Cottage.

Client
Mr Damon Crane
Designer
Just Extend Your House Ltd
Malgorzata Kurzownik

 

With many thanks to Michael Izett for the photos.

 

Old Deer Park Consultation January 2018

The Richmond Society has participated in the Old Deer Park Working Group for more than five years. 

In December 2017 Richmond Council issued its Draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Old Deer Park.   The consultation on this ended on Monday 22nd January 2018. Response thumbnail

The Old Deer Park Working Group’s response can be found here, or by clocking the image to the left.

The original proposals for the Old Deer Park were published by Kim Wilkie on behalf of the Crown Estates in 1999. You can read a copy of this on our website here.

Annual Awards 2017

Annual Awards 2017 logo. The Richmond Society’s Annual Awards for 2017 were presented on Thursday 21st September by our patron, Baroness van Dedem.  This was the 40th anniversary of the first Richmond Society awards in 1977.

Paul Martin, Chief Executive London Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth was the guest of honour.

This year’s brass plaque was given for the renovation and conversion to apartments of the Star and Garter.


Brass Plaque Award – Star & Garter:
Renovation and conversion to apartments

Annual Awards 2017: Star and Garter, Richmond.

Client/Owner
London Square
Mark Lopeman
Mark Smith
Architect
PDP London
Simon Gazzard
Contractor
London Square

Commendation – The Tap Tavern:
Transformation of the street façades

Annual Awards 2017: The Tap Tavern, Richmond.

Owner
Mr Sat Ghuman
Designer
Rosendale Design
Dale Atkinson
Contractor
Thompsons Ltd
Joseph Thompson

Commendation – The Ivy Café:
Transformation of restaurant premises

Annual Awards 2017: The Ivy Café, Richmond.

Client
Pegasus Group
Michael Spurgeon
Architect/Designer
Pump House Designs
Steve Fasey
Contractor
We Make It Happen Design & Build
Lucy Potter
Laura Sadler
Alyssa Kirton

Commendation – Richmond War Memorial:
Cleaning and restoration

Annual Awards 2017: Richmond War Memorial.

Client
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
Michael Pike
Contractor
Stonewest Ltd
Carl Nicholas
Toby Moore
Terry Watts

Commendation – Holbrook House:
Renovation of Garden

Annual Awards 2017: Holbrook House, Richmond.

Client
Holbrook House Ltd
Robert Leigh
Designer
Robin Hart Design
Robin Hart

 

With many thanks to Helen Taylor for the photos.

 

Wendy Macaulay 1924-2017

Members of the Society and many others who have lived in and around Richmond since the 1950s and 1960s or longer were much saddened by news of the death of Wendy Macaulay at the end of June.

Wendy made a significant contribution to the Richmond Society across the years – as a founder member of the Society and as member of its Executive Committee from 1957 until 1964, when she stood down to have her fourth child – her place being taken by her friend Sheila Attenborough – and as a valued member and supporter through the years since, including serving as area-representative for Richmond Hill from 1970.

As a resident of Rosemont Road on Richmond Hill for some sixty years, Wendy was a well-known and highly regarded figure in Richmond and an effective campaigner for securing the best for the Town, its community and its amenity. Members of the Society who attended the celebration of the first sixty years of the Society in April will remember with pleasure Wendy’s fascinating recollections of the Town and the Society in its early days.

Perhaps Wendy’s greatest achievement locally was her co-founding The Friends of Richmond Park in 1961 and her active involvement and continuing support for the protection and conservation of the Park ‘for the benefit of public and future generations’. Right up to her recently leaving Rosemont Road and moving to a care-home overlooking her beloved Park, Wendy remained active in local affairs, supporting Liberal causes and the Richmond Good Neighbours scheme, as well as fulfilling her important role as mother of three daughters and one son and grandmother to nine grandchildren.

The Society and the wider Richmond community have much to thank Wendy for in her public service across the years.

Paul Velluet
Chairman, 1984-1988
27th July, 2017

Old Deer Park

The Old Deer Park Working Group (ODPG) consists of representatives of The Richmond Society, The Kew Society, The Friends of Richmond Green, The Friends of Old Deer Park and The St Margaret’s Estate Residents Association.

ODPG response to the Council’s Old Deer Park Draft Supplementary Planning Document
(December 2017)

Response thumbnailIn December 2017 Richmond Council issued its Draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Old Deer Park.   The Old Deer Park Working Group’s response can be found here.

ODPG response to the Council’s Old Deer Park Supplementary Planning Consultation
(November 2016)

Response thumbnailIn October 2016 Richmond Council issued its Old Deer Park Supplementary Planning Document.   The Old Deer Park Working Group responded to this.

ODPG response to the Council’s Pre-Publication Consultation on the Local Plan
(August 2016)

Response thumbnailIn July 2016, Richmond Council issued out its Pre-Publication Consultation on the Local Plan. http://www.richmond.gov.uk/local_plan_pre-publication. In its response, the Old Deer Park Working Group highlighted the absence of a draft Proposals Map, uncertainty whether the Old Deer Park has (or does not have) a Village Plan. It also reiterated the need for the Council to resolve the significant anomalies relating to the definition of the Old Deer Park’s boundaries as highlighted in its Boundary Definitions report of February 2013 (see above).

ODPG response to the Council’s Site Allocations Plan Pre-Publication consultation
(July 2014)

In June 2014, Richmond Council issued its Site Allocations Development Plan (Pre-Publication consultation on new additional sites).
Response thumbnailThe Old Deer Park Working Group responded, expressing concern that the Council had failed to address the adjustments that it had highlighted as being necessary in its November 2013 response. This failure went against the clear recognition of the case for adjustments in the definition of the relevant zoning boundaries expressed by the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Members, other Councillors and planning officers at useful and constructive meetings held at York House on the 22nd January and 24th February, 2014. The Group once again urged the Council to effect the necessary adjustments in the definition of the relevant zoning boundaries under the provisions of the Site Allocations Plan.

ODPG response to the Council’s Site Allocations Consultation
(November 2013)

In October 2013, Richmond Council issued its Site Allocations Plan consultation, aimed at meeting “present and future needs for housing, employment, retail, transport, education, health, community facilities, sport and leisure, looking ahead over the next fifteen years”.
Response thumbnailThe Old Deer Park Working Group’s response to this reiterated the principles it had set out in its Boundary Definitions report (see above). The Group’s principal concern was that failure by the Council to remedy the designation anomalies that it had identified would leave the relevant areas of the Old Deer Park at significant risk of proposals for substantial built development damaging the integrity and distinctive character of the Park.

ODPG Boundary Definitions Proposal Proposal
(February 2013)

Proposal thumbnailThe Group’s 2012 report raised concerns regarding significant anomalies regarding the definitions of a number of boundaries relating to the Old Deer Park shown in the Council’s Local Development Framework Proposals Map, Adopted November 2011. So in February 2013 the Group issued a further Boundary Definitions report recommending that the scope of future Old Deer Park plans include:
(1) the Pools on the Park, its grounds and car park
(2) the Old Deer Park car park and the land between that and the railway
(3) the carriageway and footways of the Twickenham Road.

ODPG Framework Proposal
(June 2012)

Framework thumbnailIn June 2012 the Group published the report: The Old Deer Park, Richmond – Re-connecting the Town to its local park – Realising an under-recognised parkland asset – A framework for conservation and enhancement.
The Group’s aim in publishing the report was to provide a positive contribution to discussion and debate in the context of the falling-in and renewal of all but two of the existing leases granted by the Crown Estate for the land comprising the Old Deer Park, Richmond.

Old Deer Park Richmond: The Crown Estate Strategy (Kim Wilkie, 1999)

Report thumbnailThe original proposals for the Old Deer Park were published by Kim Wilkie on behalf of the Crown Estates in 1999:
The Old Deer Park, Richmond – Re-connecting the Town to its local park – Realising an under-recognised parkland asset – A framework for conservation and enhancement.