All responses received to the Local Plan Review Pre-Publication consultation and Sustainability Appraisal www.richmond.gov.uk/local_plan_pre-publication.htm Consultation from 8 July until 19 August 2016 Published by LBRuT on 14 October 2016 Please note, the responses below are as received from the respondents and have not been edited by the Council. They are not alphabetically ordered or in any other order of priority. Name / Organisation Name / Organisation Caroline Brock, Kew Society Cllr Martin Elengorn, Environment Spokesperson Richmond upon Thames Jenine Langrish Liberal Democrat Councillors Group Myrna Jelman Rob Gray, Friends of the River Crane Environment (FORCE) Cllr David Linnette Liz Ayres, Richmond Clinical Commissioning Group Richard Geary Wendy Crammond, Co-Chair Kew Residents Association Heather Mathew, Richmond CVS Ben Mackworth-Praed, on behalf of the Barnes Community Association Helene Jelman Kevin Goodwin, RPS CgMs for Goldcrest Land Dale Greetham, Sport England Sarah Stevens, Turleys for British Land Katharine Fletcher, Historic England Paul Massey Charles Pineles, Planning Spokesman, Richmond Society Tim Lennon, Borough Coordinator Richmond Cycling Campaign Peter Willan, Old Deer Park Working Group Matthew Eyre, RPS CgMs on behalf of Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) Celeste Giusti, Greater London Authority on behalf of Mayor of London Brian Willman, Chair Ham and Petersham Neighbourhood Forum Robert Leadbetter, Hon. Director Hampton and Kempton Waterworks Mike Allsop, Committee member Strawberry Hill Residents' Association Railway Geoff Bond, Chair Ham and Petersham Association Robert Deanwood, Amec Foster Wheeler on behalf of National Grid George Burgess, Indigo Planning on behalf of Beechcroft Developments Alison Mackay, Colliers on behalf of Greggs Plc Ltd Tom Sadler, Bilfinger GVA on behalf of Defence Infrastructure Neil Henderson, Gerald Eve on behalf of Reselton Properties Ltd Organisation Alice Roberts, CPRE London Judith Livesey, NLP Planning on behalf of St Paul's School Janet Nuttall, Natural England James Togher, Environment Agency Tim Sturgess, Bilfinger GVA on behalf of The Lady Eleanor Holles School William Mortimer Unity Harvey Tim Catchpole, Planning Representative Mortlake with East Sheen Society David Taylor Andrew Dorrian, Transport for London Sam Hobson, Quantum Group Rachel Botcherby, Planning Advisor, London and South East National Trust Richard Barnes, The Woodland Trust Lucy Owen, Port of London Authority All responses received on the Local Plan Pre-Publication Consultation 1 Name / Organisation Name / Organisation Kevin Scott, Kevin Scott Consultancy Ltd on behalf of Port Hampton Dinesh Vitharanage Estates Limited Cllr Liz Jaeger Sarah Dixey, London Borough of Wandsworth Fabio Galvano Katharine Harrison, Surrey County Council Caroline Britton Mike Mills, Firstplan Ltd on behalf of Maxicorp Ltd Peter Britton Tanja El Sanadidy, Indigo on behalf of Shepherd Enterprises Limited Kathleen Massey Maria Walker Jane Morrison Stephen Rankin Ray Morrison Sally Arnold, Planning Potential Ltd on behalf of Power Leisure Laura Stritch, Transport for London Bookmakers Jane Bond Ross Anthony, The Theatres Trust Savills on behalf of Thames Water Mel Barlow-Graham, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Martin Kirrage Bethany Evans, NLP Planning on behalf of The Harrodian School Anna Smith Krystyna Kujawinska David Yates Steve Simms, SSA Planning Limited on behalf of Kentucky Fried Chicken Geoff Bond, Chair Martingales Close Residents' Association (Great Britain) Limited Dale and Juliet Nolan Michelle Hatton-Smith Andrew & Bryony Barnard Spelthorne Borough Council Gilda Rogner Helen Harris, Cushman and Wakefield on behalf of Royal Mail Group Ltd Tess Pinto, 20th Century Society James Sheppard, CBRE on behalf of LGC Ltd Peter Dowling, Indigo Planning on behalf of Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Strategic Planning Team, Royal Borough of Kingston Charlotte Gibb, St Mary's University Emily Vyse, Brooke Smith Planning on behalf of Ancient Order of Forester's Peter Willan, Chair for The Friends of Richmond Green Friendly Society Ltd Marie Claire Marsh, NLP Planning on behalf of RFU Christian Leigh on behalf of Jane Miller Paul Velluet Jamie Wallace, CgMs on behalf of Notting Hill Home Ownership Tor Barrett, NLP Planning on behalf of the West London Mental Health Caroline Wilberforce, Indigo Planning on behalf of on behalf of Sharpe NHS Trust Refinery Service Joanne Merritt Teresa Gonet, Highways Agency David Deaton Paul Luton Mark Jopling, The Teddington Society and the Friends of Udney Park Eliza Shaw Playing Fields Anthony Paish Lesley Forster Table 1: All respondents to the consultation John Finnerty All responses received on the Local Plan Pre-Publication Consultation 2 About you Part A of the response form asked about yourself or who you are responding on behalf of. There were a total of 103 respondents to the Local Plan pre-publication consultation. Of those, 31 (29%) respondents answered some or all of the questions in the About You section. The figures below reflect only those who answered ‘yes’ and does not include those who answered ‘no’. Note that some respondents ticked yes to multiple options, e.g. they live, work and run a business in the borough, and these are all included separately in the figures below. • Live in the borough: 18 • Work in the borough: 13 • Run a business in the borough: 14 • Student in the borough: 1 • Visitor to the borough: 1 Your General Views Part B of the response form asked about views on the Strategic Vision, Strategic Objectives and Spatial Strategy. Strategic Vision 27 respondents answered this question. The breakdown of responses is as follows: Strongly agree: 1, Agree: 13, Neither agree/disagree: 10, Disagree: 3 Do you agree or disagree with the Strategic Vision (section 2.2)? Agree or strongly agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Strategic Objectives 25 respondents answered this question. The breakdown of responses is as follows: Strongly agree: 2, Agree: 9, Neither agree/disagree: 10, Disagree: 4 All responses received on the Local Plan Pre-Publication Consultation 3 Do you agree or disagree with the Strategic Objectives (section 2.3)? Agree or strongly agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Spatial Strategy 24 respondents answered this question. The breakdown of responses is as follows: Strongly agree: 1, Agree: 7, Neither agree/disagree: 12, Disagree: 4 Do you agree or disagree with the Spatial Strategy (section 3.1)? Agree or strongly agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Summary: A small proportion of respondents (between 24 and 27 of the 103 total) responded to these questions about the extent to which they agree with the Vision, Objectives and Strategy. Those who did not respond have not been included. More respondents agree than disagree with the vision, objectives and spatial strategy. The option ‘neither agree nor disagree’ was a popular option across the three questions with between one third and one half of respondents selecting this option on each question. In cases where respondents disagree this tends to be because of a specific issue that they were responding about and this detail is picked up in the tables (below / separate). All responses received on the Local Plan Pre-Publication Consultation 4 Ref. Name / Organisation Strategic Vision Comments Strategic Objectives Comments Spatial Strategy Comments No. 1 Richard Geary I have read the draft Local Plan but it does not seem to bear any relation to reality. There is already an Area Plan that has not been adhered to. 2 Judith Livesey, NLP The School broadly agrees with the strategic vision, The School agrees with the Council's strategic The School acknowledges the principle of Planning on behalf of noting specifically that: Access to a range of objectives including those relating to education protecting open space that makes a valuable St Paul's School education facilities is important, including schools provision and housing and the need for a range contribution to the Borough, however, as set within the independent sector which make an of homes that are affordable. It notes that out the detailed response, there is a need to important contribution to education provision education provision will need to be delivered review the boundary of the Metropolitan Open within the Borough. It is important to provide a through development, including extensions of Land (MOL) to ensure that the delivery of wide choice of homes, particularly affordable homes existing sites. Specific reference to the need for required facilities is not unduly fettered or of varying types. In the case of St Paul's School there development would provide a clearer complicated by historic boundaries that are out is an urgent need to provide accommodation for indication of what is required and be of date or relate to land that does not function staff that is affordable in order to retain staff and consistent with proposed Policy LP29. as MOL or meet the criteria for designation. A support future recruitment. review through the plan process would be consistent with London Plan policy in relation to MOL and NPPF policy relating to Green Belt. For this reason the School objects to protecting existing areas of MOL as specified at para 3.1.12 (specifically at the St Paul's School site) in the absence of such a review. 3 Myrna Jelman Your intentions on every count seem spot on. I See above but in summary I would like more would have liked to see the Council be much more ambition on public transport and more innovative and ambitious in solving public transport accountability to the public. issues. I also enjoyed reading that accountability to the public is one of 4 strategic vision bullets in the report and was then very unhappy that no reference to accountability be placed anywhere else. As a resident dealing on almost a weekly basis with RHP (Richmond Housing Partnership) for example, I feel very little accountability in that organisation which is allowed to fail to deliver results for years, unchecked. At the end of the 200 something pages, there is no invitation to provide comments and finding how to leave the feedback was not clear.