Mr. Grigoropoulos had first gone through the history of the site, describing how it started to be used as an informal car park from 1981 onwards. The status of the site was clarified when the Olympia was granted permission to use it as a car park for motor cars and commercial vehicles. That was in 1985. One of the conditions of use was the retaining of the existing woodland. This permission was updated in 1995, "with similar personal and other restrictive conditions on the use for exhibition related traffic, protection of local amenity and the woodland." He then outlined the 25 reasons for refusal which had been included in LBHF's Planning Committee report, which has already been reported upon extensively on this site.

His conclusion is worth quoting at length: "The proposed residential development would result in the loss of the Olympia Car Park, undermining the long term viability of the exhibition centre, a major facility and an important local employer, with adverse repercussions for the local economy, culture and tourism in the area. The decanted Olympia related traffic would worsen congestion and high parking stress currently experienced in the surrounding streets. Traffic from the development would aggravate the situation further. The proposal would destroy the vast majority of the existing woodland in an area of open space deficiency and damage the green corridor to which the site contributes. This would cause harm to biodiversity and the quality of life of the neighbouring residents. The proposal does not seek to provide any replacement open space. The proposal fails to make satisfactory provision for affordable housing within the development, for which there is a severe need in the Borough. The proposed sterile layout and uninspired monolithic design, together with the loss of the woodland would detract from the visual quality of the area and the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the setting of and views out from the adjoining conservation areas. The proposal would harm the amenities of the Sinclair Road residents by way of overlooking, loss of privacy, daylight and sunlight and openness, increased noise and light pollution, increased oppressiveness, sense of enclosure and security risk."

Having requested the Inspector and the Secretary of State to recommend dismissal and to dismiss the appeals respectively, Mr. Grigoropoulos then faced a 4-hour long questioning by Keith Lindblom QC, which provided the highlight of the Inquiry so far, at least from the audience's point of view.

As far as the SRRA observers could tell, the line of questioning used by the Appellant's counsel seemed to revolve around one key point; taking each reason for refusal one by one, Mr. Lindblom QC repeatedly asked if, should the Planning Committee members have received further information before they reached a decision in February 2003, would they have not changed their minds, and made these points of objection into points that could be dealt with by planning conditions and/or obligations, and/or mitigation? Or did Mr. Grigoropoulos stick to these points of objection in principle?

Mr. Grigoropoulos, just as repeatedly, stressed that he had based his report on the information that had been made available to him at the time, and which was severely lacunary, inasmuch the Appellant had failed to provide appropriate information about many aspects of his proposal (ie noise, ecology, transport, etc.).

The debate (for debate it was) took - in SRRA's opinion at least - a slightly surreal turn when it appeared that what Mr. Lindblom was implying in his line of questioning that the proposal might have been received differently...if it had been different. We do apologise to Mr. Lindblom if, unaccustomed to the language used in such a context, we failed to grasp his approach differently. However, Mr. Grigoropoulos did not alter his stance on any of the key points of his report. We also noted that Mr. Lindblom put the suggestion to the witness that the LBHF Planning Committee did not have information at his disposal to reach an informed decision, which we guess means it severely weakened, if not invalidated this decision. Apparently, St. George had entered into a contract with the "landowner" which obliged them to submit a planning application before 2 September. There again, Mr. Grigoropoulos said that if such information that was lacking had been provided (by St. George, lest we forget), his recommendations would have been very much the same.

A crucial moment was reached when Mr. Lindblom questioned the validity of using the effects of the loss of the Olympia Car park as a proper ground for refusal in the event that the Olympia would lose it in any event. We gather that Mr. Lindblom was referring indirectly to the eviction of Olympia from its Car park from the "landowner" (LCR), which will take effect at the end of this month.

Mr. Grigoropoulos, though pressed hard, refused to accept this hypothesis, stressing that the present situation could be reversed, and that Iain Coleman MP had called on the council to consider compulsory purchase of the site, within the context of a trust set up in harness with the Olympia, Groundwork West London and local residents. This dramatic announcement should be expanded upon when Iain Coleman MP himself presents evidence to the Public Inquiry at the 23 September evening session.

After a short break, Mr. Jonathan Wade, Principal Planning Officer, RBKC, took the stand. We will complete the account of the day's proceedings over the next couple of days.

Background:
Public Inquiry starts: 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.

Read also: Public Inquiry heard that St George underestimated the amount of noise residents would face with the new development.

Day 5 of the Public Inquiry, 10 September
(brief by SRRA)

David Rafael, Senior Planner in the Planning and Conservation Department's Policy Team (RBKC), concluded the presentation his evidence to the Inspector. He explained that "when [St. George's] Planning Application was received on 18 September 2002, there was minimal information about the proposed affordable housing" which would be offered in the new development. The information since supplied by the Appellant suggest that 83 of the 251 residential units would be put aside for that use - but that the details of their mix and location within the development remained unclear, until some "basic information was provided in early July.

Mr. Rafael said that, in this particular case (he described the site as a "major windfall site"), 33% was not deemed sufficient, and that RBKC would be looking at 50% as a reasonable proportion. He concluded that "given the size of the site and the nature of the proposal which is classed as a major development, it is considered that the proposal provides inadequate provision for on site affordable housing based on the needs of the Royal Borough and on this basis is contrary to policies contained [in the UDP]"

The next witness to be called was Mr. Michael Olizar of LBHF Environment Department. Mr. Olizar concentrated on the transport and traffic issues which would have led to the Council to refuse planning permission. He described how the present Olympia Car Park was used, and added that surveys carried out when exhibitions were taking place in the Halls "indicate that the use of the Olympia Exhibition centre already significantly impacts on neighbouring residential roads in terms of adding to on-street parking stress".

Should the development be allowed to go ahead, Mr. Olizar said, the loss of the Olympia Car Park would mean that "the kerbside requirement for parking on street [would be] likely to be considerable. I estimate that vehicles currently using the appeal site would be likely to require considerbaly more than three-quarters of a kilometre of road side parking [SRRA's note: i.e. longer than the whole of one side of the whole of Sinclair Road and Sinclair Gardens put together]. In addition to the increased parking stress, vehicles generated by exhibitions would be forced to loop around roads in the area. This would increase vehicle movements in the area and add to traffic congestion. This additional congestion would be supplemented by vehicles generated by the residential development of the appeal site. Extra vehicle movements would increase the portential for accidents, including personal injury accidents."

Mr. Olizar evoked the "major source of conflict [...] between vehicles and pedestrians" that would be created by the design of the development's access road - which, it should be recalled, makes no provision for dedicated pedestrian access, whereas the council, " as highway authority, would require a 1.8 metre footway alongside a carriageway. In his view, "the proposed internal access route would provide no such safe pedestrian route. [...] The internal layout of the access route [to the new development] is totally unsatisfactory and would be likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of accidents including personal injury accidents. [...] Pedestrians and cyclists would be particularly vulnerable and the lack of safe private and public amenity and play facilities leaves me to believe to conclude that children would particularly be placed in unacceptable danger."

The cross-examination of Mr. Olizar by St. George's Counsel enabled the Inspector and the audience to hear that the developer, quite late in the day it is true, was thinking of making a proportion (but far from all, as is indicated the presence of 164 car ports in the development)of its future residents sign a "car-free" agreement, which would limit the number of vehicles active on the site. St. George's counsel went on to suggest that displaced traffic from Olympia operations and traffic generated by the new development (including visitors) could park in streets such as Edith Road and Kensington High Street. An astonishing claim, considering that almost all of K&C parking is residents' permits only, and how far from the Appeal Site these streets are. St. George's counsel also suggested that Olympia way - a private road! - could be used as a car parking amenity. One could imagine the chaos that would ensue.

It will be of great interest to Sinclair Road residents that the traffic assessment survey commissioned by St. George did NOT include Sinclair Road or other streets North of Olympia.

Disclaimer: these accounts of the Public Inquiry proceedings do not pertain to be exact minutes; rather, they should be read as summing-ups of the salient points raised at the Inquiry. Some points may have been omitted, as it is not humanely possible for the association to have representatives present at every hour of every day of the Inquiry. However, all quotes in brackets are verbatim.


SRRA Web site




Comment on this story on the Forum

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter