The Stag Brewery, MortlakePresentation Sept 2020

Your representation

Your representation must reach the Mayor at Theformerstagbrewery@london.gov.uk by 27 Sept 2020. You are welcome to use MBCG’s initial representation as the basis of your own representation but not as a proforma. Planning authorities tend to regard 50 signed proformas as a single representation, not as 50 separate ones.Key points to get across:1. The latest scheme is unsustainable in terms of its scale and density and will put a significant strain

on the existing physical and social infrastructure. 2. The physical infrastructure is already constrained by both the Chalkers Corner junction where the

proposed reconfiguration was refused by LB Richmond (and should not be reconsidered) and by the Sheen Lane level crossing which is the 2nd most ‘at risk’ crossing on Network Rail’s Wessex Region network. The proposed mitigation is ‘Travel Plans’ aimed at getting residents to make less use of cars.

3. The social infrastructure includes schools and open space. A new secondary school is

unnecessary since all additional places that are needed can be provided by expanding the schools nearby, the existing health centres within immediate reach have no room for expansion and the existing grass playing fields are much treasured and should not be removed.

The Stag Brewery, MortlakePresentation Sept 2020

Contents• The Site, Planning Brief 2011, Local Plan 2017• The Planning Applications, February 2018• The Public Response including MBCG and MESS 2018• The Council’s verdict, January 2020• The Mayor’s Call-in, May 2020• The revised plans, August 2020• MBCG’s initial representation with MESS input• London Plan Policies• Your representation

The Site

Brewery for over 500 years8.6 ha

The Planning Brief 2011

Key features• Housing• Mixed use• Community hub• Primary school• Retention of historic

buildings• Retention of

playing fields• Extension of

Mortlake Green to river

The LB Richmond Local Plan 2017

Amendments to Brief• Secondary school

for 6-form entry plus 6th form (about 1200 pupils) instead of primary

• Retention and/ or re-provision of playing fields

PLANNING APPLICATION BSecondary school and all-

weather pitch

PLANNING APPLICATION AHousing and mixed use –

detailed in east, outline in west

PLANNING APPLICATION CReconfiguration of Chalker’s

Corner

The Planning Applications, February 2018

Council refused Application C –reconfiguration of Chalkers Corner: • “Loss of highly prominent trees of

townscape value” (LP1 & LP8, also LP16)

• “Loss of Other Open Land of Townscape Importance” (LP14, also LP1 & LP8)

• “Would result in a poor walking environment and increase the risk of exposure to poor air quality” (LP44, also LP10 & LP30)

The Council’s Verdict, January 2020

But approved Application A –housing and mixed use• Meets housing target • Needs Travel Plan aimed at

getting residents to make less use of cars

And approved Application B –the secondary school• Provides new sec school in

east part of Borough• Needs Travel Plan aimed at

getting staff and parents to make less use of cars

Subject to direction from the Mayor

The Council’s Verdict, January 2020

The Mayor’s Call-in, May 2020

The Mayor called in application on 4 May 2020 for his own determination.

The developer has revised plans to satisfy the Mayor.

Consultation from 14 Aug to 27 Sept.

Mayor Sadiq has called in 22 applications (2016-20)Mayor Boris called in 16 applications (2009-16)All except one plus the five currently on the table have been approved.

ResidentialCommercial

Hotel

Care Village and

School

Community Use

Cinema

Offices

•443 units east side•224 units west side(inc. 138 affordable)•667 units in toto

•1,200 studentsplus staff

•2,500 sqm retail,•3,800 sqm cafes/ restaurants /pubs

•Community Centre•Community Rowing Club

•Boutique 20 roomsPlaying Field

•Single all-weather pitch floodlit

77

77

77

8

6

6

6

6

6

65

5

5

5

5

65

4

4

4

4

4 4 4

4

3

3

33

6

•150 unit care village or residential•80-bed nursing home

Nursing Home

• 2,400 sqm

The Brewery Plan, January 2020

Commercial

Hotel

Care Village and

School

Community Use

Cinema

Offices

•576 units east side•674 units west side(inc 365 affordable)•1250 units in toto

•1,200 studentsplus staff

•2,500 sqm retail,•3,800 sqm cafes/ restaurants /pubs

•Community Centre•Community Rowing Club

•Boutique 20 roomsPlaying Field

•Single all-weather pitch floodlit

77

8

•383 res units instead

Nursing Home

•5,500 sqm

Residential•16 terraced houses replaced by 48 flats

The Brewery Plan, August 2020

Increase in heights of most buildings by 1-2 storeys

•408 spaces in east•256 spaces in west•30,000 m² approx.•60,000 m³ to be excavated•3,000 truck trips•Estimated cost £77m

Basement carparkParking

•679 car spaces•15 at ground level•664 in basement•1754 bicycle spaces

The Basement Carpark, January 2020

•408 spaces in east•70 spaces in west•25,000 m² approx.•50,000 m³ to be excavated•2,500 truck trips•Estimated cost £63m

Basement carparkParking

•493 car spaces•15 at ground level•478 in basement•2833 bicycle spaces

The Basement Carpark, August 2020

View from near Barnes Bridge

Density of previous scheme was466 habitable rooms/ha which is marginally above the upper limit of 450 habitable rooms/ha for this location.

Density of revised scheme 597 habitable rooms/ha

And it shows!

January 2020

August 2020

The Brewery Plan, January and August 2020

PhasingSchool in Phase 1 plus all blocks on east side of Ship Lane and one block on west side; the rest in later phases

No affordable housing in Phase 1 - We were not happy about this.

Phasing Plan, January 2020

PhasingWestern-most blocks, mostly affordable, in Phase 1; the rest in later phases.- This is supported.

Phasing Plan, August 2020

The Chalkers Corner Plan, August 2020Option 1: Do nothingOption 2: Additional left turn lane

The Chalkers Corner Plan, August 2020Option 3: Bus lane in LRR displacing 36 parking spacesOption 4: Combination of Options 2 and 3

The Chalkers Corner Plan, August 2020Option 5: Reconsider the refused scheme

MBCG’s initial representation with MESS input

MBCGMBCG had produced an alternative ‘Community Plan’ in 2019 showing improvements to some of the developer’s blocks (in yellow), replacement of the secondary school with a primary school and retention of the playing fields, thus adhering to the Planning Brief of 2011. Its comments on the latest plans are shown on the next two slides.

The developer has increased the density even further to a totally unsustainable level. The proposals should be rejected and re-thought.Also, circumstances have changed dramatically since the New Year – a paradigm shift which has resulted from the Covid Pandemic in terms of urban density, treasuring open space, travel on public transport, greater travel to work by car, etc. This has totally changed our landscape. Added to this is the total closure of Hammersmith Bridge, a vital connector in West London, with no resolution for re-connection for years to come.

MBCG’s initial representation with MESS input

Density and Design• Scheme unsustainable in its scale and density

40% increase from earlier designs90% increase in population of MortlakeClose to top end of Central London density guidelines despite poor accessibility rating (PTAL 1 to 2) Puts a strain on the physical and social infrastructure

• Building heights unacceptable given suburban context, surrounding Conservation Areas and other constraints shown in the Planning Brief; in particular enlargement of buildings backing onto Grade II listed properties on Thames Bank

• Locally listed Maltings and towpath now overwhelmed by sheer height and scale of scheme

Impact on Transport InfrastructureDespite some reduction in car parking provisions there is no acceptable mitigation to increases in traffic caused by the scheme. Options are put forward at Chalker’s Corner, with no definitive strategy. Consultation on the options at this stage in the planning process is unsound. There is no Logistics solution to any early works/demolitions on site whilst Hammersmith Bridge is closed and any transport of waste by river under this bridge is currently not allowed. The population of the scheme itself has increased even further to unrealistic levels and will create even greater risks and dangers at the Mortlake Station level crossing. This crossing is already the 2nd most ‘at risk’ crossing on Network Rail’s Wessex Region network. Proposed 106 mitigation works are cosmetic and do nothing to address the constraints and daily risks.

Impact on Social InfrastructureThe site for the secondary school is just 30% of the DfE’s recommended size for new schools of this scale (1150 students). This is unacceptable and completely inadequate for students’ health and well-being. There is no GP surgery included and existing GP surgeries in immediate area have no room for expansion. The OOLTI protected sports fields are lost forever and the re-provisioning does not comply with conditions related to quantum, quality and openness.Covid has highlighted the preciousness of open space. The sheer density and increased building heights have further degraded the quality of almost all of the open spaces which have become even more oppressive and over-shadowed.

MBCG’s initial representation with MESS input

The Policy OverlayNeed to address relevant policies in the London Plan: H1 Increasing housing supplyH4 Affordable housing34 Optimising housing potential*D3 Optimising site capacityD2 Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densitiesS1 Improving air qualityS3 EducationS2 Health and social careS5 Sports and recreation facilitiesG1 Open space

*In current London PlanAll other policies are in New London Plan still awaiting approval

London Plan policies

London Plan policies

Housing Comment

NLP Policy H1 Increasing housing supplyA. Table 4.1 sets the ten-year targets for net housing completions that each local planning authority should plan for. vis. Richmond 4,110 units in next 10 years

Proposed 1250 units = 30% of total 10-year target for LB Richmond.

NLP Policy H4 Affordable housingThe strategic target is for 50% of all new homes delivered across London to be genuinely affordable.

28% is an improvement on 17% but at what cost? And is this sufficient? That said, almost all the affordable housing is now in Phase 1, which is good.

Relevant Policies contained in the current London Plan (LP) and the New London Plan (NLP) which is awaiting approval

London Plan policies

Density Comment

CLP Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potentialDevelopment should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2vis. Expected density range for 2-3 PTAL Urban: 55-145 u/ha if 3.1-3.7 hab rooms/unit70-170 u/ha if 2.7-3.0 hab rooms/unit200-450 hab rooms/ha

597 hab rooms/ha is way beyond the top end of the range.Somehow the site area in Aug 20 has increased from 5.88ha to 6.07ha so that the hab rooms/ha can stay below 600?Has the Mayor been having second thoughts about high density development following (a) the Grenfell Tower disaster and (b) the COVID crisis which is not going away?

NLP Policy D3 Optimising site capacityA. All development must make the best use of land by following a design-led approach that optimises the capacity of sites, including site allocations.

The proposals do not optimise the site capacity –they maximise it. Actually they more than maximise it.

London Plan policies

Transport Infrastructure and Air Quality Comment

NLP Policy D2 Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densitiesC. Where additional required infrastructure cannot be delivered, the scale of the development should be reconsidered to reflect the capacity of current or future planned supporting infrastructure.

Surely this is true here? The additional infrastructure cannot be delivered because of constraints at Chalkers Corner and the Sheen Lane level crossing which cannot be resolved.

NLP Policy S1 Improving air qualityB. To tackle poor air quality, protect health and meet legal obligations…development proposals should not: (a) lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality.

Surely any increase in traffic generated by the development will worsen air quality?

London Plan policies

Social Infrastructure Comment

NLP Policy S3 EducationB. Development proposals for education and childcare facilities should: 1) locate facilities in areas of identified need 2) locate facilities in accessible locations, with good public transport accessibility and access by walking and cycling 3) locate entrances and playgrounds away from busy roads, with traffic calming at entrances.

The identified need for a secondary school is based on faulty forecasting and does not exist whereas relocation of the primary school at Sheen Lane crossing is a must.

The proposed location of the school is not easily accessible by bus in the morning peak because Lower Richmond Road is gridlocked.

NLP Policy S2 Health and social care A. Boroughs should work with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and other NHS and community organisations to: 1) identify and address local health and social care needs within Development Plans….

There is no room for expansion at the GP surgeries in the immediate area but the developer claims there is room for expansion at the North Road surgery in Kew.

London Plan policies

Social Infrastructure (cont.) Comment

NLP Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilitiesExisting sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless: (2) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location.

These grass playing fields will be replaced by an all-weather fenced-in and floodlit football pitch – and it’s goodbye to cricket, the annual Mortlake Fair and informal recreation.

NLP Policy G4 Open spaceB Development proposals should: (1) not result in the loss of protected open space

These playing fields are protected as Other Open Land of Townscape Importance (OOLTI). The developer’s plans show the retention of a small area of this land as public open space, and re-provisioning of the rest into a green corridor link to the river plus fragmentation into garden courtyards within the housing development which will be overshadowed.

Your representation

Your representation must reach the Mayor at Theformerstagbrewery@london.gov.uk by 27 Sept 2020. You are welcome to use MBCG’s initial representation as the basis of your own representation but not as a proforma. Planning authorities tend to regard 50 signed proformas as a single representation, not as 50 separate ones.Key points to get across:1. The latest scheme is unsustainable in terms of its scale and density and will put a significant strain

on the existing physical and social infrastructure. 2. The physical infrastructure is already constrained by both the Chalkers Corner junction where the

proposed reconfiguration was refused by LB Richmond (and should not be reconsidered) and by the Sheen Lane level crossing which is the 2nd most ‘at risk’ crossing on Network Rail’s Wessex Region network. The proposed mitigation is ‘Travel Plans’ aimed at getting residents to make less use of cars.

3. The social infrastructure includes schools and open space. A new secondary school is

unnecessary since all additional places that are needed can be provided by expanding the schools nearby, the existing health centres within immediate reach have no room for expansion and the existing grass playing fields are much treasured and should not be removed.