At a raucous Richmond planning meeting, the replacement of Ellery Hall with one-bedroom affordable accommodation was unanimously approved for delegation to the assistant director, Environment and Community Services (Planning and Transport ), to approve once certain conditions had been met.
The conditions are as follows:
- The negotiation, revision, and completion of a draft Section 106 agreement; and securing the heads of terms set out in Section 9 of the report to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transport Strategy); and
- A decision by the applicant not to dispose of the application site without securing that any future development partner would be required to enter into, without amendment, the final draft Section 106 agreement referred to at resolution 1, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transport Strategy); and
- A list of conditions, including that the development is commenced within three years.
The proposal is in two parts for the demolition of Ellery Hall, replacing it with 16 affordable housing units and building a new community centre on the North Lane Depot and East Car Park site, previously covered here.
The proposal also delivers on many of the policies included in the London Plan, including small sites, delivering affordable housing and developing London’s social infrastructure.
The applicant is the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, and the agent is Clive Chapman Architects.
© London West (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
Sign up to receive your free bi-weekly London West journal here
The LPA agreed with local residents on most of their challenges.
Issues with sunlight and daylight, no external amenity space for upstairs flats, parking stress will be over 100% in the locality, wrong mix of housing units to name but a few.
Unfortunately the decision had been made at least 18 months ago and the council agreed on balance because of the affordable housing that they would support the scheme.
The whole process was a box ticking exercise by the local authority. A total sham.
I couldn’t agree more with the above comments.
I watched the committee meeting on line.
The jovial way the committee was chaired, the stuttering responses from interested councillors who had no answers to the questions posed to them.
Clear for anyone to see that it made no difference how poor a development Clive chapman has designed it would be pushed through.
Committee members were voting on secure by design principles and it was clear they had no idea what this was. Why not have people voting in these positions that understand planning?
The council like to tell you that the planning department is separate to other departments so there is no bias. Do they think the constituent was born yesterday?
The LPA is clearly in bed with the council.