Tim Catchpole, Chair of Mortlake with East Sheen Society (MESS) has reviewed the Inspector’s Report. MESS has been a tower of support for MBCG, providing expert planning advice over the years and also significant funding towards our legal and expert representation at the Planning Inquiry. More information about MESS here https://mess.org.uk/
The long-awaited Inspector’s Report has now reached us. MBCG gets mentioned several times, but alas the Inspector concludes each section of his report by siding with the developer and the Council.
He mentions the concern of the opposing parties about the building heights creating a wall of development fronting the river edge but he is not convinced saying the wall would be relieved by roof forms, detailing of facades and the street openings.
He mentions that the Council considers the redistribution of the Other Open Land of Townscape Importance (OOLTI) designation on the playing fields would result in a better quality of provision and he is satisfied that the proposed landscaping strategy would complement the development and promote its attractiveness.
He is concerned about the harm caused to the listed buildings on Thames Bank and to the Buildings of Townscape Merits on the site, namely the hotel and bottling plant façade, but he feels that the significance of the Maltings would be preserved without harm as would its character and setting.
With regard to transport, he notes that MBCG’s reading of the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) database has resulted in a higher number of potential trips generated by the school but he has sided with the developer on this. He also notes MBCG’s argument that the school will put more pressure on the Sheen Lane level crossing but feels that the proposed mitigation measures should address the concerns raised by the MBCG’s evidence.
In terms of the impact on the natural environment (flood-risk, drainage, air quality, sunlight/daylight and waterfront lighting) he feels that the proposed development would result in some harm but that the harm is minimized through the proposed mitigation.
He mentions MBCG’s challenge of the Council’s forecast of school population but has sided with the Council’s claim that the school is needed, especially in view of the new housing developments proposed in the area.
As for the affordable housing, he agrees with the developer’s intended level of profit (17%) and not the GLA’s (15%). He concludes that the appellant’s supply of 7.5% affordable (habitable room basis) would have a positive effect and that the appellant’s alternative offer of 12% would not be appropriate!
Three other factors considered are the Council’s poor housing delivery record, the opportunity for brownfield land to be redeveloped for housing unless substantial harm would be caused (National Planning Policy Framework or NPPF para 125c) and the provisions of the Section 106 agreement.
Putting all this together the Inspector is of the view that the benefits – the housing including its affordable component, the extended community, the infrastructure improvements, the environmental mitigation measures, the reprovisioning of the OOLTI, the new school and its sports facilities, the new employment, office and community floorspace – outweigh the harms to the heritage. The Inspector quotes the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development which he states applies to both Appeals.
MBCG is of the view that these benefits, taken together, represent a highly dense overdevelopment of the site which is not in fact a benefit at all but an overall harm.
So, what next? We have 6 weeks to decide whether or not to go for a Judicial Review, but we would not recommend this on the grounds of exorbitant costs. Instead, we need to see how certain features can be improved within the context of the planning permissions now granted. There are numerous planning conditions to be addressed before any ground-breaking ceremony occurs.
Tim Catchpole