After a brief introduction by Inspector Gibbs, each of the three main parties made a brief opening statement, in effect a summarised presentation of their case. Speaking on behalf of St. George Central London Ltd., Keith Lindblom QC stated: "Behind this appeal lies the pressing need for the development of new housing in London generally, and in the boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham in particular. The supply of suitable sites is limited. [...] In these circumstances, and in accordance with policy in PPG3 (including now the views being expressed by the government in the course of that guidance note), in RPG3 and in the draft London Plan, the clear imperative is that, where opportunities for new housing development on previously developed land do arise, their potential must be optimised." Mr. Lindblom went on to say that "the area at the northern end of the site contains no trees of any significant individual or group value, and has little, if any, real value for nature conservation[...] If the government's policy [...] is to be carried into effect, sites such as this one must not be left undeveloped or underused."

It should be noted that Keith Lindblom QC repeatedly referred to the expression "previously developed site" when speaking about the land St. George intends to build its housing units upon, adding "and this ought not to be controversial" - when, in SRRA's eyes, it very much is, as we will try and prove when we submit our evidence at the beginning of October. In fact, a substantial portion of the Former Motorail terminal site has never seen any development (i.e. erection of man-made buildings/permanent structures) at any stage in its documented history.

RBKC followed suit, through its counsel, Mr. Cosgrove, who summed up the numerous points of objection to the proposed development already raised by the Borough's Planning Committee, saying: "the proposal is, in our submission, a clear overdevelopment of the site which causes harm to the surrounding area and a poor living environment for future residents. It [the development] would amount to a highly visible development with a bulk, scale and height that is out of keeping with the surrounding environment. Moreover, the detrimental impact of the proposal is exacerbated by the associated loss of open space and woodland on the site [...] In essence the Council is firmly of the view that the design/layout of the proposal fails to reflect the constraints and character of the area.[...]The Council will accordingly invite the Secretary of State to dismiss the appeal."

Speaking on behalf of LBHF, Mr. Beresford said: "what is being witnessed is an opportunistic developer seeking to cram as much on the site as is physically possible without regard to the good planning of the area, the appropriate balance between important land uses, good neighbourliness, the amenities of those close to the site or the needs of the community." Mr. Beresford stressed the negative impact the development would have on the Olympia Employment Zone, the increased traffic and parking problems the loss of the Olympia Car Park and the influx of new vehicles would create in the area, the lack of amenities for prospective new residents, the loss of sunlight/daylight for existing residents, and spoke of "the destruction of the great majority of the woodland area that is present on the northern end of the site", the lack of affordable housing within LBHF, etc., concluding: "The appellant is a residential developer. It appears to have seized upon the government policy to optimise the use of urban land as some kind of carte blanche to disregard proper planning considerations on the idols of residential cramming and maximum profit."

These opening statements were followed by lengthy critiques of the development's design by both boroughs' witnesses, who were later cross-examined by Mr. Lindblom. As no minutes were officially taken during the afternoon session, and as the content of these exchanges were of a quite complex technical nature, we cannot reproduce them here in a suitable fashion. As an observer, SRRA was nonetheless struck by the forcefulness of the arguments put forward by Mr. McCoy, RBKC's witness, who, answering one of Mr. Lindblom's questions, stated quite clearly that a "linear" development on a site of that kind could only consist of 2 to 3-storey terraces to respect the character of the surrounding area, as opposed to the 14m-high, 5-storey development put forward by St. George.

The afternoon session, which closed at 5:15pm, slightly later than planned, was followed by an informal discussion between all interested parties, which resulted in the setting of a provisional timetable. All these meetings are open to the general public. Proceedings start at 10am and conclude at 5pm, including a 45-minute break for lunch at 1pm. Here are its details.

4/9: daylight/noise/vibration
5/9: ecology
9/9: employment/housing
10/9: housing/transport
11/9: transport
12/9: transport
23/9: afternoon (at K&C Town Hall): transport, followed by evening session at LBHF Town Hall, to which all parties and interested individuals are invited to take part, at Hammersmith Town Hall (Council Chamber), from 7pm onwards. SRRA URGES ALL ITS MEMBERS TO MAKE THEIR PRESENCE FELT AT THIS EVENING SESSION.

All these dates will be used by the two Councils to present their evidence, after which it will be the Appellant's turn to do so, which it will do on:
24/9: design
25/9: daylight/noise
30/9: ecology/trees

The 1st of October has been provisionnally set aside for the third parties, including SRRA, to present their evidence; however, as our ecology consultant, Mr. John Newton, is unavailable on that date, we will request to be heard on the 2nd of October, and invite all our members to be at the hearing on that day.

Other sessions will take place on October 3, 16 & 17, during which it is expected the Earl's Court & Olympia Group will present their evidence.

Background:
Public Inquiry starts this Wednesday: SRRA encourages residents to attend as many sessions as possible.

Woodland under threat:
Habitat of a number of protected species menaced by St George development plans

A 5-storey building 17m from residents' windows: Residents will loose privacy and light together with increased traffic, parking problems and security risks.

Day 3, 05 September
(brief by SRRA)

The proceedings opened at 10 am with the cross-examination of Mr. David Trevor-Jones, who had been called by LBHF to provide evidence about noise vibrations. Mr. Trevor-Jones spoke at length of the noise problems which would be experienced by Sinclair Road residents due to the nature of the development, whose access road would be all too easily clogged by vehicles. The cross-examination by Mr. Lindblom seemed to indicate, however, that noise and vibration problems could be dealt with by the establishment of a set of conditions. Very much the same conclusion was reached after the cross-examination of the RBKC witness on the same issue, Mr. Ian Hooper, even though interesting facts came to light when he presented his evidence, such as the "deficiencies in detail" of the report submitted by the Appellant's consultants (ADC). Similarly, according to Mr. Hooper, a report submitted by Equus Partnership for the Appellant "did not reflect the maximum noise exposure of the site" - in layman's language, underestimated the amount of noise residents of the new development would experience, particularly at night.

Mr. Hooper was cross-examined by Keith Lindblom QC after the morning break. Once again, it appeared from this cross-examination that noise and vibration problems could be dealt with as a set of conditions. Mr. Lindblom also seemed to imply that the levels of noise and vibration experienced by residents of the proposed development would not be dissimilar to those experienced by residents of other railside developments, such as the Barratt's buildings on Russell Road and Kensington West on Warwick Road.

The rest of the day was devoted to the ecology of the site.

First to present evidence (for RBKC) was Mr. Jon Riley. To quote from his proof: "The proposal would destroy almost 0.5ha of semi natural secondary woodland. Loss of the wooded area would reduce the value of [this Borough Grade 1 Site For Nature Conservation] in terms of habitat variety, quality, and as an ecological corridor. [...] The proposal would seriously harm the integrity of an important Green Corridor that runs the length of the western boundary of the borough. [...]The loss of the woodland would remove an amenity of value to occupiers of property backing onto both sides of the railway line. This extends beyond of visual amenity to include privacy and amelioration of the air and noise from the adjacent car park and rail route. In summary there is nothing in [St. George's] proposal that recognises or contributes to the acknowledged nature conservation and landscape amenity value of the existing Nature Conservation Site [...] If the proposal subject of this appeal receives planning permission, it would largely destroy a woodland of significance to two London Boroughs [...] It would also severely impair the integrity and function of an important part of a green corridor within the urban fabric of northwest London and along the boundaries of the RBKC and LBHF specifically. The impact on the open space, nature conservation and local amenity value would be further compunded by the lack of any mitigation proposals within the scheme within respect to nature conservation and landscape amenity thus even further urbanising further a highly urbanised part of west London at present. For these reasons [...], I urge the Inspector to dismiss this appeal."

Mr. Lindblom's cross-examination seemed to place great emphasis on the use of the word "commonplace" used by Mr. Riley when he quoted from the Mayor's biodiversity plan, which recommends protection of the "commonplace" as well as "the rare". Mr. Lindblom obviously implied that the Olympia Car Park woodland was (according to Mr. Riley's own words) "commonplace" - and, one guesses, of little value. Mr. Lindblom also noted that there had been "no assessment of the impact of the development on species present in the woodland".

After a short break, it was Mr. Stephen McAndrews's turn to present his evidence on behalf of LBHF. Mr. McAndrews covered much the same ground as Mr. Riley. It should be noted that Mr. McAndrews repeatedly affirmed quite unequivocally that the "wooded open space" referred to by the Appellant - a terminology which had been agreed upon at a pre-Inquiry meeting - was, indeed, a proper woodland, which the Appellant seems to question. Why that is so should be made clearer when the Appellant's ecologist is called to present his own evidence.

Mr McAndrews reminded those present of how scarce woodland is in LBHF (0.3% of the borough's total surface area), and, therefore, how important the Olympia Car Park woodland was in that context. "Green Corridors", he said (the site being part of the so-called West London Railway Green Corridor), "provide important wildlife and amenity benefits within urban area and help facilitate the movement of certain plants and animals within the urban fabric. Amenity and landscaping benefits also accrue from this. The Corridor is described as "rather tenuous". In my view the fact that it is rather tenuous is a compelling reason to ensure that the site's value as part of a Green Corridor is not compromised."

Mr. Lindblom's cross-examination - after pointing at some inaccuracies in LBHF's Planning Committee's report, which were acknowledged by Mr. McAndrews, focused on the "discontinuous" nature of the said Green Corridor, and on the "fact" that the loss of part [90% in SRRA's estimation] of the "woodland" (a term Mr. Lindblom used with some reluctance) would not create a gap significantly more important than other gaps observed along the Green Corridor. He also insisted on the fact that there were no protected species present on the site, despite the presence of a nationally scarce "wasp-eating spider", the many references to which created some moments of levity during the afternoon session, which ended at 4pm.

SRRA Web site

Comment on this story on the Forum

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter