Richmond council planning schizophrenia

The council and Lord True is frankly disingenuous in those RTT article citations: Richmond loses out on planning rules appeal.

  

Just last year, they've approved 300 flats in North Sheen, with no provision for "vital infrastructure such as schools" or transportation.

 

In the process, retail and office space was also added to the already vacant stock on the same stretch of Lower Richmond road.   See also:

• The lost orchards of North Sheen and Richmond Council's cunning plan to impose a new tax?
• Richmond Council Planning Department: for developpers profits only

Richmond Council Planning Department: for developpers profits only

Here's what happens when the council and their deranged planning "policy" allows developpers to pack low standards, non-eco friendly in what was orchards and then cottages before they turned it into a light industrial estate:

Long-suffering residents at wits' end with Garden Road flats (RTT)


It would have been nicer if they had pushed for normal density terraced houses, but when fools run the asylum this is what is to be expected.

See my previous post on the subject:
The lost orchards of North Sheen and Richmond Council's cunning plan to impose a new tax?

The lost orchards of North Sheen and Richmond Council's cunning plan to impose a new tax?

It seems the Richmond Planning department nowadays is quite liberally (and not very democratically) letting through semi-high-rise in North Sheen, with little consideration for the neighbours and terraced houses fabric that presently constitutes North Sheen. There seem to be no limits to empty offices on Lower Richmond road apparently).  As usual, concerns expressed during public consultations (like the lack of parking spaces in the new developments) were ignored.

North Sheen wasn't always like this, it was actually full of orchards (see Orchard road) as the maps below from the London Orchard Project show.

More reading:

• Planning application for the redevelopment of the Shakespeare pub, where the council totally ignored objections received on the parking aspects
• Planning application for "The Works", showing 77 new flats and 3,000 m2 office space and…. 85 parking spaces only.
• Planning application for the former Dairy Crest distribution centre, for 45 flats and 2,000 m2 of office space
• Planning application for the redevelopment of the former petrol station on 293 Lower Richmond road, 52 flats and only 35 spaces

See the trend?  I should add that North Sheen is the only ward that still hasn't got a controlled parking zone (CPZ), and is bordered  by Richmond, East Sheen and Kew –where parking is regulated indeed.  Of course, a CPZ is not free for residents: once established, the council can increase it pretty much at will, and it's very hard to prove that the CPZ permits fees only cover the administration costs.

After a few checks, it's quite obvious that the (previous Lib Dem) council had a policy of restricting car spaces, presumably to impose a CPZ tax to unsuspecting residents.

What's that got to do with orchards? During the public consultation, when the change of use was questioned, residents expressed anger that (at least some of) the land could not be changed back to agricultural or green space.

Since the play area located in the block formed by Bicester road, Lambert avenue and Manor road, there are no play areas for instance South of Lower Richmond Road.

Greed, a Capital sin for the Borough -but seldom punished...

Green = More Taxes (for Politicians)

I thought I'd blog an extension to this post as I've been mullling over this all day:
Richmond Transits: Blatant hypocrisy over parking spaces

A few simple ideas:
- Why don't we get reduced VAT (from 17.5 to 5%) on all loft conversions incorporating a planted roof?
- Or a tax credit when installing solar / geothermic central heating?
- Or get grants for all renovations achieving a set target for insulation?

Both would save significant carbon emissions and make buildings more sustainable.

To me, politicians are hypocritical about green issues: it's not that they don't care. They do. A lot: it allows to raise taxes, such as congestion charge, road pricing, etc etc...

The endless greenwhash (non-sensical talks incorporating green keywords) only harms everyone's acceptance of the need to act now whithout producing significant results. Greenwash kills Green Goodwill because the consumers intimately feel they're not getting a good deal.

Londonist: Save Smithfield Market

Saw this on Londonist: Save Smithfield Market. I really like Smithfields, and in general industrial architecture from 18th and 19th centuries. But it looks conservation movements haven't yet caught up with this century, especially if you look at what they're doing to Camden Town Stables Market. Ten years ago it was vibrant and you could really find unique pieces and good bargains. Not anymore, it's too organised.

It's quite a shame really, and short sighted as well: in fine, depriving areas from their soul is bound to make them lose their souls and therefore commercial viability? People go to Borough Market because it's a market, not a supermarket. Disorganised, lively, unpredictable, cheap...

It's important to fight to keep industrial and folk heritage: when all streets will be transformed in retail chains malls, when the choice will be Gap and H&M, Starbucks and Nero, Pizza Express and McDonalds, people will stop going places. Why indeed travel when Richmond is the same as Wimbledon or Islington as Soutwark, or even Barcelona and Amsterdam? Residents in Barnes fighting to keep their local shops are so right...

Tags: richmondtransits.blog, camden, smithfields, urbanism