Hammersmith and Fulham Liberal Democrats

GOLDHAWK INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

---

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

ON BEHALF OF BRACKENBURY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

---

1. The Brackenbury Residents Association (BRA) submits that the Inspector should recommend that the Secretary of State refuse to grant planning permission for the applicant's proposed redevelopment of the Goldhawk Industrial Estate.

2. In summary BRA's submissions are as follows:

a. The proposal would result in the loss of a thriving industrial estate to speculative residential-led mixed use development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan and PPS4;

b. The applicant's dogmatic approach to increasing density would result in a development which is poorly designed and which plainly constitutes a physical overdevelopment of the site. The development would create cramped spaces hampering the amenities of future occupiers. The design lacks sensitivity to its surroundings in terms of the amenity of the adjoining occupiers and the impact on the wider area, including the adjoining conservation area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy EN8 of UDP and 4B.1 of the London Plan;

c. Among the consequences of overdeveloping the site is an acute shortage of amenity space, including an inexcusable failure to adequately cater for

children's play. The proposal is contrary to policies EN23B of the UDP and 3D.13 of the London Plan;

d. Similarly, the overdevelopment would cause adverse parking and traffic issues. It is contrary to policies TN8 and TN15 of the UDP;

e. Despite the proposal to overdevelop an industrial site in a prime residential area, there is a failure to make appropriate provision for affordable housing or school places.

3. In short, the proposal amounts to an unsatisfactory series of compromises: purported compliance with employment policies through a mix of uses, but the displacement of a number of established businesses and the extinction of a successful employment site; increases in density, but an inappropriate scale of development to accommodate that increased density; and high density housing, but little thought to the consequences for neighbours, future occupiers of the scheme or the wider community. For those reasons permission should be refused.

Loss of employment land

4. UDP Policy E5 provides that "Development for employment purposes will not be permitted if it would involve the loss of existing Class B accommodation in a range of units of 500 sq. m. or less". As Mr Simmonds noted, the objective is to retain small units and the policy does not relate to employment numbers, but only floorspace.1 What is absolutely plain is that this proposal results in a loss of employment floorspace which is currently provided in a range of unit size, including those of 500 sq m or less. Indeed, it is only because of Innocent's merger of a number of small units that the whole site is not is small units.

5. How much employment floorspace will be lost by the proposal? The applicant has not been able to give a clear answer. Their own survey of the existing floorspace (SCG App 2) suggests the site has a current floorspace of 2,798 sq m with the mezzanines and 2,235 sq m without. For planning purposes, the mezzanines are lawful structures and there is no reason why they should not be taken into account. The suggestion that a landlord may enforce their removal at the end of a lease without recourse to planning control is a matter of private law and not one which should affect the judgment as to what would be lost through this scheme.

6. The real issue is how much employment floorspace will actually be provided in the proposal. The gross external area of the employment space is 2,003 sq m.2 That figure is relied on in Mr Stephenson's and Mr Simmonds' analysis of the scheme. However, Dr Lee valued the new commercial element on the basis that there was 1,517 sq m of lettable space. It is not clear whether this figure is a gross internal area: it was not fully explained by Dr Lee in XX, save to say that the figure had been obtained from Hamiltons Architects. The applicant has chosen not to explain this figure, despite Dr Lee being cross examined on the issue well before Mr Simmonds gave his evidence. A change of floorspace from 2,798 sq m to 1,517 sq m is very significant and should in itself be a reason for refusal.

7. In any event, whatever the true figure for the loss of floorspace, the proposal is prima facie contrary to Policy E5 because there is a loss: this is something which neither the applicant nor the Council have grappled with.

1 Simmonds Re-X

2 Hall Proof p 68

8. In terms of employment land supply, the Council's up to date position in the May 2009 Employment Land Assessment - Updating Statement (Cartwright App 3) is clear that, in accordance with the SPG on Industrial Capacity (2008), new uses should be accommodated on employment sites where valuable economic activity will not be displaced. In the present case, valuable economic activity in the form of the existing occupiers will be displaced.

9. Looking at the particular occupiers of the site, Innocent is planning to leave the site because of the redevelopment proposals (Cartwright App 4 and 5). Nonetheless, the fact is that at the present time, when the application is being assessed, they remain in occupation of the site. Soundhouse does not wish to leave and, because of the bespoke fit out of its premises, would be harmed by being forced to do so. The other businesses may feel more confident of finding alternative locations. What the Goldhawk Industrial Site has provided, however, is a flexible incubator function over many years. It is the sort of site which is attractive to emerging new businesses: see for example the representation from Sipsmith, the local distillery. The effect of granting planning permission will be the displacement of the existing economic activity, both in terms of the current occupiers and the future users of this accommodation.

10. Whilst Messrs Stephenson and Simmonds would condemn the site to motor trade and storage uses once Innocent have left, that is not necessarily the case. It is noted that Mr Hitchcock would take into account the fact that the site could be upgraded to provide modern B1 premises to a better overall specification in his valuation (Lee Rebuttal App 1, para 3.16). He clearly does not share the view that the site is to be limited to motor trade and storage uses. Nor does the BRA.

11. In terms of employment numbers, the site currently provides employment for in the region of 180 people. If permission is granted this would drop to zero during the construction phase. Thereafter, the recovery of employment numbers is entirely dependent on the ability to let the office space: whilst Mr Stephenson is confident that he could do so, there is much available space in the Borough (see Cartwright Proof and App 6). In any event, the number of employees of the new businesses will depend upon a number of variables. There is, as noted above, considerable uncertainty as to how much space is actually available to them. BRA does not accept that employment

numbers without Innocent on the site will drop as low as suggested. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has taken any steps to market the Innocent unit to a similar occupier, rather than resigning itself to low value storage uses. With a need to have particular regard to local employment (PPS4, EC10.2e), the loss of a significant quantum of employment floorspace should serve as an indicator that this proposal runs a real risk of resulting in decrease in local employment. BRA's case is that there is likely to be significant loss of jobs from the development: Cartwright Proof para 37.

12. Finally on the issue of loss of employment land, in Re-X Mr Simmonds treated Soundhouse's circumstances as being purely a matter of private law and not related to planning. Whilst planning control is not directed to the particular purpose of a particular occupier and therefore should not solely protect the occupation of a particular tenant, the interests of particular occupiers may properly be taken into account in assessing the planning balance.

Design & density issues

13. As noted in the introductory comments, the applicant's approach to density is central to the design issues which arise from this development.

Density

14. Whilst there has been repeated reference to London Plan policies (particularly 3A.2 and 4B.1) to justify increase density, as Mr Simmonds accepted in XX the ultimate question is not whether density or plot ratios are met, but whether the development is appropriate for the site.

15. The applicant has sought to use the strategic demand for increased densities to justify the proposed quantum of development on the site. This results in an overdevelopment of the site, sacrificing principles of good design and good neighbourliness and creating a defective living environment for future occupiers. Density considerations appear to have driven the design of the scheme and therefore merit some consideration.3

16. The density of 309hr/ha understates the scale of development on the site. This is for the simple reason that this is a mixed use scheme; accordingly neither the density matrix in Table 3A.2 of the London Plan (which is designed for residential schemes) nor the plot ratio approach (for commercial uses) as advocated by Mr Simmonds in EiC provides an appropriate guideline as to the quantum of future development on the site.

17. In re-examination, Mr Simmonds was taken to 3.34 of the London Plan draft revised interim Housing SPG [CD6/19]. Of course this is only guidance and only in draft form, so little weight should be attached to it. However, contrary to Mr Simmonds' interpretation, it in fact advocates an approach to density which accords with the case advanced by BRA (see in particular Winterton Proof, para 16).

3 In XX, Mr Hall was unable to say whether a particular quantum of development was required as part of the design brief as it pre-dated his involvement in the case. Note, however, the repeated XX of BRA witnesses whose evidence addressed design and amenity issues by reference to Policy 4B.1 of the London Plan and "maximising" the potential of sites.

"In the case of vertically-mixed schemes (i.e. where housing is on top of non-residential uses), any non-residential floorspace should be deducted from the total floorspace indicated by the appropriate density for a purely housing scheme on that site to avoid creating development out of scale with its context."

18. Applying that draft guidance to the present case, an allowance should be made for the fact that commercial floorspace means that there is at least one extra storey (being a storey with higher floor to ceiling heights than residential) in the central block. Ultimately the case advanced by BRA is quite simple in this regard: the Secretary of State should not be persuaded that this patent overdevelopment of the site is justified by reference to either the density matrix or the plot ratios guidance in the London Plan. The need to have compatibility with the local context (London Plan Policy 3A.3) must be borne in mind.

Site context

19. The site at the moment is unobstrusive, consisting of low sheds behind a high boundary wall. The proposal is more intrusive than what exists at present.4 The issue is whether that intrusion is appropriate in the context. Whilst the surrounding buildings vary in height, the residential neighbours are the terrace of Dalling Road, the three storey blocks of Cressy Court and the predominantly three storey houses of Goldhawk Road. Clearly, the sheltered housing building is of four storeys but it lies on Goldhawk Road itself, a major road. Providence Villas is some distance from the centre of the site and the upper storey is within the curve of the roof. The dominant feature is the Victorian school: typical of Victorian institutional buildings in terms of its scale.

The applicant's design analysis

20. A pervasive feature of the criticism of the applicant's design is that they have focused on the development as perceived from public highways outside the site (Hall XX; Coleman XX). This is a naive approach in the context of a backland development. By its nature the design issues relate to its interaction with its neighbours: Winterton Proof. Moreover, it hides the true adverse effects of the scheme which BRA has attempted to model, albeit without the computerised sophistication available to the

4 Coleman EiC

applicant. The applicant has chosen not to refute these drawings with models of its own.

The Mews houses

21. The "Mews" houses on Vinery Way lie on the narrow access road. They directly overlook and overbear the gardens on Goldhawk Road. Together with the central block they make Vinery Way appear "narrower, darker and longer".5 Moreover they are unsatisfactory houses: the downstairs bedrooms suffer from poor daylight (Simmonds App 2; App D, drawing 3186-74) and the houses have only small terraces by way of amenity space. Those terraces overlook the rear gardens of Goldhawk Road.

The western and southern terrace

22. Confusingly renamed "the Mews", these two terraces present a series of design problems. Firstly they purport to "buffer" the site from the surrounding area. In doing so they present overbearing structures which fail to respect separation distances (in the western terrace relationship to Cressy Court's southern block) and despite amendment still have an overbearing effect on the surrounding properties, because of their scale and the raised ground levels of the site.

23. In terms of separation distances, roof terraces present a particular problem in terms of overlooking, as the text of UDP Standard S13.2 recognises. The applicant's reliance on the "18m rule", which applies to windows rather than roof terraces or balconies, is therefore misplaced. Whilst the applicant is keen to emphasise that the UDP standards are standards and no more, it must be remembered that flexibility and on site judgment must work both ways. In this case, even where the standards are not breached the design presents problems of overbearing and overlooking.

24. Despite the apparent concession by the developer in respect of the majority of the southern terrace,6 large outdoor terrace areas remain in Unit B10. There can be no justification for these to remain, the changes having been made elsewhere on the terrace. The problem is well illustrated in the appendices to David Pearson's Proof and does not need to be repeated.

5 Winterton XX

6 Considered by Mr Simmonds, but not the applicant's design witnesses, to be important changes

25. Aside from the relationship with the surrounding properties, the combined southern and western terrace, along with the central block, create an enclosed and cramped space ("the Mews"). To say that this space has a "very urban feel"7 is an understatement. A space of as little as 10m between buildings of 3 and 4 storeys respectively will not create a pleasant environment reflective of the existing urban grain.

26. It should also be noted that the western terrace house suffer from small enclosed "backyards" (Coleman XX). They face a 5m wall and create a "chasm" (Hammersmith Society, para 10).

Central block

27. As Mr Goodacre accepted in XX, it is completely inappropriate to suggest that a particular height of block can be justified because of the presence of four storey buildings around the site. But this appears to have been the design approach adopted: Hall Proof 3.2.8.8. The block is bulky, excessively tall and overbearing in relation to the Goldhawk Road properties. It is completely out of context and is the most patent example in the scheme of density at the expense of design.

Conservation area

28. The impact on the conservation area goes hand in hand with the criticisms of the design advanced by BRA. The analysis of the applicant is patchy: see for example the use of a wire line view on Cardross Street (Coleman, App B, Fig 27), as opposed to a computer generated image of the block. Even the wireline shows a significant adverse impact of the new block overtopping the existing dwellings on Dalling Road. Neither the applicant nor the Council has considered the impact of views from the private gardens and houses in the conservation area. This is plainly a relevant consideration, but it is reflective of the overall design approach of focusing on street views, when by the very nature of the site those views are the least relevant.

7 Goodacre XX

Amenity space

29. The applicant's approach to this issue is somewhat disjointed because it did not seek to challenge the evidence of Mr Beere or Mrs Whitlock but then proceeded to advance a far more detailed case in re-examination of Mr Simmonds. It is submitted that this shows a failure properly to consider the real shortcomings of the scheme in this regard. Indeed the amenity space provided (or, more accurately, not provided) is a fundamental flaw in the development.

Public amenity space

30. Policy EN23B requires the provision of playspace in accordance with the standards in S7 and "Residential developments that contain family accommodation without gardens must make some or all of such playspace provision on site". The proposal is comfortably large enough to require on site playspace as Mr O'Keeffe agreed in XX. Quite why the Council have been so loathe to apply its own policy and standards in this regard is not clear.

31. This issue was rehearsed at length in XX of Mr Simmonds. The key points are these:

a. The UDP, London Plan and SPG all create a presumption in favour of on-site provision of playspace for developments yielding 10 or more children as, by any measure, this does. Although there is no up to date play strategy for the Borough, there is nothing in the SPG to contradict standard S7 in the UDP;

b. That presumption may be displaced where accessible off-site provision can be made. "Accessible", for those under 11 years old, means within 400m subject other issues concerning the safety and ease of access;

c. There is no playspace within 400m and none is proposed;

d. Ravenscourt Park is at least 510m from the site; it is over 600m from the site to a play area in the Park. Cathnor Park - a late arrival in the applicant's reasoning - is over 400m away and over the busy Goldhawk Road;

e. The applicant proposes an off-site contribution for Ravenscourt Park. There is no evidence of a demand for such a contribution and no specific proposal as to how it will be used.8 It is not clear how it meets the impact of the development. It is not clear whether the proposed use of the Park by Hammersmith Academy has been taken into account.9 In any event, off-site contribution as opposed to off-site provision is inappropriate for a development of this scale;

f. Off-site provision "may be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it fully satisfies the needs of the development whilst continuing to meet the needs of existing residents": paragraph 3.312 of the SPG. No evidence has been presented by the applicant to show that the off-site provision will satisfy this test;

g. The off-site provision is for "tennis and basket ball courts, the Astroturf pitch and the provision of changing facilities"10. These facilities are not addressed to 0-11 year olds: see the playspace typology, Table B5, p 77 of SPG.

h. The applicant places reliance on the existence of (i) gardens and (ii) the "Mews" as amenity space. That would only be a reasonable point if those areas were of satisfactory quality for play.11 The "Mews" has a "very urban feel", is a narrow space and directly abuts houses and commercial space. It is unsatisfactory for ball games, as even Mr Simmonds tended to concede. The Mews is simply not playspace: see paragraph 4.53 of the SPG. It is plain that these sorts of spaces are not to be treated as replacements for playspace: paragraph 4.71 of the SPG. The gardens of the western terrace are, in the words of Mr Coleman, back yards rather than back gardens. Much of the private amenity space is at balcony level. It is plainly no substitute for playspace;

8It is not clear how (if at all) the contributions satisfy Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.

9 Comments of Andy Slaughter MP

10 See Summary Note Regarding Section 106 Obligations and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, para 3.6.

11 SPG para 3.11

i. In a strange development in Mr Hall's Proof, a very small play area, against the central block and beneath a balcony, has appeared. There is no condition or undertaking relating to its delivery. It should be disregarded, save to the extent that it demonstrates the failure of the applicant to engage seriously with this issue.

32. As to the quantum of playspace required, it is clear that whatever the child yield, meaningful space is required. That means that minimum areas should be met. As to child yield, dogmatic adherence to the Wandsworth evidence in the DMAG document is not advised by the Playspace SPG, but in any event even on the applicant's child yield figures, permission should be refused for a failure to comply with EN23B and London Plan Policy 3D.13 as developed though the SPG.

Private amenity space

33. The UDP standard S5.A1 provides that new family dwellings with accommodation at ground floor level should have at least one area of private open amenity space or garden space of not less than 36 sq m. There is a consistent failure to meet this standard in the majority of family dwellings in the scheme. When this is coupled with the lack of provision of on-site playspace, the provision for families is very poor indeed.

Parking and transport

Parking

34. BRA contend that this develop will produce significant off-site parking effects, making the use of surrounding streets less convenient to residents and less safe for all users, contrary to policy TN8 of the UDP. In short there are now two issues (i) the effect of the residential development on on-street parking outside the hours of operation of the CPZ and (ii) the effect of the commercial development on on-street parking during the day.

35. Parking provision in the proposal is less than one space per unit, with only four spaces provided for the 8 commercial units. The shortage of parking for the residential units is exacerbated by the provision of dedicated parking for the three, two-bed, mews houses.12 The level of parking provided does not comply with the specific standards in the UDP13 and therefore consideration must be given as to the off-site effects.

36. Mr Jaffe-Pearce's evidence is a clear demonstration of the current parking pressure in the vicinity. In EiC, Mr Davies took the view that there was little between him and Mr Jaffe-Pearce regarding parking in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, he considers that Mr Jaffe-Pearce had failed properly to consider the opportunities to park on single yellow lines. As Mr Jaffe-Pearce explained in Re-X, in fact the yellow lines in the vicinity of the site are properly excluded for these purposes because they do not amount to safe parking opportunities: see UDP Appendix 12.1 (p 366). Yellow line parking opportunities are, as a matter of fact, very limited.

37. Mr Davies considers it unlikely that people would live in the development but only choose to park outside CPZ hours. However, that assumption is dependent the behaviour of those occupiers and indeed appears to ignore the general approach of measuring parking pressure overnight: when visitors have left, but those without permits are still able to park. The pressure on parking in the surrounding streets is a matter which is clear to see and which has been demonstrated by BRA's own parking

12 Hall XIC

13 UDP Table 12.1, p 369

surveys. It is a matter which causes concern to residents, particularly because of the danger of poorly parked cars on a busy street.

38. In the heavily parked surrounding streets there are already parking controls in place so little that can be done to improve the situation. The matter cannot be resolved through the introduction of controls: see PPG13, paragraph 51(2). There is no evidence that the extension of the CPZ hours or operation would assist in dealing with this problem.

39. Day time parking has become an issue because of the late revelation that business occupiers would be entitled to CPZ permits. Business permit holders would have to park within the CPZ immediately adjoining the site. Whereas outside CPZ hours, drivers can look beyond the CPZ boundary, in day time conditions that is not possible. Up to 16 extra vehicles will be focused in the streets immediately surrounding the development.

Traffic generation

40. BRA's case is that the developer has significantly under-reported traffic levels on Brackenbury Road at present, but over-reported the existing traffic generation of the site. The result is an analysis which does not paint an accurate picture of the situation. There is a particular concern regarding the changes to the time of traffic movements into and out of the site, and the potential conflicts with school traffic. Brackenbury Road experiences more accidents than surrounding streets and a new and different form of traffic flows may increase the risk of further accidents, not least because of the intensification of use of the sub-standard access in Vinery Way.

41. Finally, in XX of Mr Jaffe-Pearce it was suggested that i-Transport's report14 did not support the contentions of BRA, and that if i-Transport did support their case they would have been called to give evidence. Both suggestions are wrong. The i-Transport report makes a series of criticisms of the developers approach and suggests that parking beat surveys and manual traffic counts are carried out by BRA. Those surveys were duly carried out in accordance with i-Transport's recommendations, and it is the results of those surveys which are before the Inquiry. The i-Transport report pre-dated the surveys and therefore could not have formed conclusions on the

14 RJP1

outcomes. It goes to show that BRA addressed itself to the correct issues and carried out a proper assessment of the highway implications of the proposal.

Affordable housing

42. There is seemingly agreement as to the need for affordable housing provision and the policy direction which should secure its supply. The relevant policies are set out in Mr Hibbert's Proof and they are not repeated here.

43. One issue between the parties in terms of policies is whether a failure to provide affordable housing at the target figure should be counted against the development in assessing the planning balance. The applicant's witnesses suggest that it should not. In APP/K0425/A/09/2093279 (Former BCUC Site, High Wycombe), an Inspector held that it should: see para 23. He did so with reference to the Secretary of State's decision in respect of Badnell's Pit, Maidenhead (APP/TO355/A/06/2073713: see paragraphs 29-35 of that decision letter. In BRA's submission, regardless of the viability evidence presented, the failure to provide affordable housing at a significant level is a clear disbenefit of the scheme which should be weighed against any perceived benefits. Of course BRA do not accept that there are any such benefits.

44. In terms of the argument that the planning system should not impose a greater obligation than the developer considers viable, as otherwise no affordable housing will come forward, it is in any event not clear that will be brought forward immediately, not least due to the tenancy position.

45. The shortfall in affordable housing supply in London is a "huge problem".15 The demand in the borough is "effectively endless".16 The applicant relies on a viability appraisal to justify a provision which is well below the strategic target of 50%. The starting point is the startling proposition that developing industrial sheds is high value residential area into what are said to be high quality, predominantly market houses, and allegedly economically sustainable grade A offices is at the very margins of viability without providing affordable housing.

46. Mr Hibbert approaches this proposition by considering that it begs audit scrutiny, not least because of his experience of other schemes in London. He does not say what the amount of affordable housing should necessarily be. But he asks the question question

15 Lee XX

16 Andy Slaughter MP

is: does it provide maximum reasonable proportion? His evidence shows that there are significant problems with the applicant's approach to this issue.

The evidence as to "inputs": general observations

47. First a comment about the approach of the applicant to BRA's data in Mr Hibbert's analysis. There is a clear tactic of seeking to discredit rather than engage. The Inspector and the Secretary of State should consider carefully why the applicant has found it necessary to take that approach to BRA's case. If its own case stood up to scrutiny it would be surprising for it to take that approach for the reasons set out below.

48. The BRA is a group of local residents which has sought to resist the proposals for this site. It has sought to do so in a constructive way throughout, seeking full information from the applicant and the Council to allow it to properly assess the development. It has sought expert advice at various stages of the process (e.g. from a leading planning silk and experienced transport consultants [RJP1]). It has been funded by voluntary contributions and a sustained fundraising campaign. It has paid for representation at this Inquiry.

49. What the applicant's attack on evidence of Martin Hayes, Richard Keat and Robert Barr amounts to is a statement of the obvious: the applicant has more money than the BRA. It is an unattractive approach to take because it seeks to draw away the attention of the decision maker from the facts and issues. It is also an unattractive approach to take given the importance of accessibility to planning process, particularly for local residents. There is no reason for expert evidence to be tainted because it is provided without payment of a fee: the professional obligations of those concerned remain unaltered. Indeed, the fees paid to those who support developers at planning inquiries are rarely scrutinised for their proportionality to quality of work done: it is neither here nor there.

50. Such an attack would serve only to demean the process and not to further the recognised need for public consideration of development proposals through the planning process. That the applicant chooses to make such an attack gives it no credit; on the contrary it begs the question as to why such a tactic is resorted to if the applicant is confident in the sustainability of its own case at the Inquiry.

51. A further point to note which should be borne in mind is that the Council's only assessment of viability relates to a submission in June 2009, which is no longer relied on by the developer. It has not called evidence on the point, nor is Lambert Smith Hampton's view tested before you.

Sales values

52. In terms of sales values, you have two reports on valuation. Mr Hibbert's relies on Mr Barr, a local agent with vast experience. Dr Lee relies on Savills acting "in estate agency capacity", and not local agents. It is submitted that Mr Barr's evidence should be preferred because of his expertise in the local market.

53. Mr Hibbert was tested on the use comparables by Mr Barr in respect of flats. However, it is to be noted that the Savills comparables (Lee Rebuttal App 2) do not underpin their own valuation figures. Indeed the total value for the flats in the evidence is either the £13,585,000 given by Savills compared or the £13,680,000 out forward by Mr Barr. That equates to an average difference of less than £4,000 per flat (see the comparison table at Hibbert Rebuttal, 4.3). There is no substantial difference here.

54. In respect of the houses, Mr Barr provides an extensive appendix of comparables which support his valuations. Savills provide none. Strangely, they rely (Lee Rebuttal, 4.19) on a £900,000 ceiling for three bed houses but break that ceiling themselves in their valuations.

Costs

55. Mr Hibbert does not rely on an elemental costs plan but takes the view, on the basis of Richard Keat's report, that the costs are over-inflated. Mr Keat does not provide an elemental costs scheme of his own, but nor does he need to. Mr Hibbert is not trying to set the precise quantum of affordable housing, but to demonstrate that the developer has failed to provide the maximum reasonable amount. Rebuttal toolkit (Hibbert Rebuttal App 1) demonstrates the need for audit of the costs: in June 2009 and absent any affordable housing contributions, the scheme would have cost only £583,000 less to build than it would be worth upon resale. 17

17 See the "residual value" on the "Scheme Results" page.

56. The elemental costs plan of the applicant was withheld from BRA until the week before the Inquiry. The applicant later produced a further costs plan from Cyril Sweett. That plan was provided to developer on 21 May, four days before the Inquiry and presumably commissioned some time in advance. But it was not disclosed until after the audit of the Carruth Marshall plan had been carried out by Richard Keat. It might be asked why the applicant chose to take this approach rather than exposing both Carruth Marshall and Cyril Sweett costs plans to audit scrutiny in advance of the Inquiry?

57. Mr Keat has addressed the costs plan in considerable detail. He looked at each element and found the costs to be overstated. This key input of the applicant's assessment did not stand up to independent scrutiny. Accordingly the robustness of the applicant's assessment is in considerable doubt and it should not be accepted that the maximum proportion of affordable housing has been provided.

EUV

58. It seems that it was only in response to BRA's formal valuation from Martin Hayes, an experienced local surveyor, that the developer properly sought to assess the EUV of the site. It did so in a report from Grant Mills Wood which is not expressed to be a "red book" valuation. Indeed Mr Hitchcock's report is said to be in response to Martin Hayes (Lee Rebuttal App 1, 1.1). It is a rebuttal made by reference to other evidence at the Inquiry, rather than a freestanding valuation.

59. Two points are worth considering in terms of the EUV:

a. Yield: the yield applied makes a significant difference to valuation. Lambert Smith Hampton in July 2009 used a yield of 8.5%, but applied it to a rent of £361,000, which was not the rent roll used by Messrs Hitchcock or Hayes. The applicant's valuers have varied between yields of near to 6%, 8% and now 7%. Mr Hayes considers that unrealistic for the reasons he gives in his valuation;

b. Future rental prospects: Mr Hitchcock is optimistic of achieving new leases on the same or better terms to those at present. But that sits uncomfortably with the view of Mr Stephenson that any future use of the site is likely to be for storage or motor related uses. It will also be recalled that Mr Stephenson refers

to the economic obsolescence of the site, a point which Mr Hitchcock notes (at 3.4) but seemingly goes on to ignore (3.14, 3.16 and 3.20).

60. For the reasons given, it is submitted that Mr Hayes' analysis should be preferred to that of Mr Hibbert.

Premium above EUV

61. Dr Lee relies on the latest Toolkit guidance to argue that a premium should be added to the EUV. However, he does not do so in his Toolkit, nor did he seek to do so in earlier submissions. There can be little doubt that if he felt it appropriate, he would have done so. There is no reason why Mr Hibbert should treat this issue differently: indeed, Mr Hibbert's view of good practice is that such a premium should not be included.

Tenure mix and unit size

62. Mr Hibbert explains that the proposed tenure mix is inadequate, principally because it fails to address the need for family social rented units. The same is true of the position

Conclusions

63. What is absolutely clear is that the affordable housing provision of this proposal falls significantly short of the London Plan target. It is a poor contribution from a development in a valuable part of London. The viability appraisal which has been submitted has been systematically shown not to be sufficiently robust to allow the scheme to proceed on this basis.

Section 106 contributions

64. It is simply wrong to suggest that £300,000 is a figure determined by the viability appraisal. It was an input to the appraisal, not an output of the Toolkit.

65. In respect of school places, Mr Rennison was not made available for XX and Mr Allen's evidence was not the subject of XX by the Council. Mr Allen's figures rely on submissions made to the Council's cabinet, relating to the 2009/2010 school year as opposed to the 2008/2009 year referred to by Mr Rennison. As for child yield, there is no evidence that the Wandsworth study, consisting mainly of flats, is appropriate for this context: it is admitted that it may be "atypical" (p 9). There appears to be no robust basis for Mr Rennison's defence of the Council's position; indeed there is a strange contrast between his approach in his statement and that of the Council at the Inquiry, choosing not to question Mr Allen.

66. Both the education contributions and the amenity contributions are focussed on Ravenscourt Park. But no clear explanation is given as to how those sums will be used, and therefore how they relate to the development.18 In terms of the education contributions, the calculation has been made by reference to the Building Schools for the Future figure.19 But no-one is proposing to refurbish a school; the money is to be spent in the park. It appears that this figure is being justified through a rather strange logic after the event.

67. The general observation is that the s 106 contributions have not been explained or justified. It is supposed that somehow if there is less money required for the highways works, more will be paid over to other causes. That suggests either that there is an unmet demand, or that the sums do not properly relate to the impact of the development. In other words, the contributions are either inadequate or unlawful or should not be taken into account. It is impossible for BRA to undertake a complete assessment of this issue: by way of cross reference, it referred to the draft SPG on contributions. That shows this proposal to be out of step. No adequate explanation of the inconsistencies has been provided at the Inquiry.

18 See Summary Note Regarding Section 106 Obligations and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, paragraph 3.6: "It is hoped that the contributions would go towards facilities such as..."

19 Rennison statement, para 10.

68. In short, the patchy justification for these contributions means that they should not be taken into account. The result is that the development does not consume its own smoke in respect of amenity space demands, school pressures and so on.

Note regarding role of call in

69. Lest it be suggested that the Secretary of State should defer to the Council's original judgment on this application because the issues are of no more than local significance, that is plainly contrary to the purposes of s 77 TCPA 1990. Once the decision has been taken to call it in, it is a decision for the Secretary of State. The Council's judgment - or purported judgment - on the application should not be deferred to. For those reasons it is not necessary to review whether the Planning Committee was properly informed of all the matter which the Inquiry has heard about in making its judgment.

70. In R (Hadfield) v The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and The Regions [2002] EWHC 1266 (Admin), Sullivan J noted in respect of the consequences of a call in: 20

All that will happen as a consequence of this decision will be that the merits of the claimant's application for planning permission will be scrutinised before an independent inspector at a public inquiry and then decided at the highest level in the planning system. Anyone with a meritorious case could not possibly have any reasonable fears about that process.

CONCLUSIONS

71. For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully submitted that permission should be refused.

Richard Turney

Landmark Chambers

8 June 2010

20 See Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice, Vol 2, P77.14.