-----Original Message----- From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 14 November 2002 09:44 To: 'cllr.gmackinney@richmond.gov.uk'; cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk; Gillian Norton (g.norton@richmond.gov.uk) Cc: 'cllr.hdance@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.gmackinney@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.mmorley@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.bking@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.wtreble@richmond.gov.uk'; (inglis@blueyonder.co.uk); 's.mcknight@richmond.gov.uk'; James Page (james@jamespage.fsnet.co.uk); David Dawson (dave.dawson@london.gov.uk); Vincent Cable (vincentcable@cix.co.uk) Subject: Area Consultation Meeting; Disputed Advice re. Mill Farm Site. To Councillor John Coombs, the Chief Executive (LBRuT), Councillor Gina MacKinney, and to whosoever it may concern. I write with regard to the Whitton and Heathfield Area Consultation meeting last night, hence the prior UDP inspection of proposals for the Mill Farm Site and my complaint to the effect that Councillor Coombs' account of events to those assembled misrepresented important facts. The Chair of the meeting, Cllr. Gina McKinney, will also recall, I am sure, that she responded to the effect that Councillors can but report according to whatever brief supplied by officers, hence my complaint to the effect that the planning department are a therefore a bunch of crooks, an observation that I would never propose in ignorance. You will also recall that the Chair, Councillor Gina MacKinney, reasonably enough, advised me to refer the matter to the Chief Executive or to the Ombudsman. I therefore copy this to the Chief Executive, Gillian Norton. The difficulty is then that we do not yet know, beyond any dispute, who in particular supplied whatever brief that Councillor Coombs relied upon, nor do we know what particular form it took. I therefore invite him, hereby, to supply whatever details would allow the Chief Executive to take appropriate action I am especially aggrieved in this because your account of the UDP situation effectively precluded any respect to the merit of my complaint, hence any discussion of it. In effect it completely negated the considerable effort that I had previously put into researching the issue, especially because your version of events had it that the UDP inspection had changed the situation; your version had it that the Planning Inspector had ruled to the effect that no margin of land should be preserved. I would have thought, however, that the facts in that respect were clear enough. I had taken the trouble to assemble the moot quotations alongside photographic evidence on a web site as advertised in a message that I circulated to local Councillors, officers and others, i.e. http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/index_.htm Nobody to whom I have advertised the effort has yet complained to me that any of the facts thus represented are wrong. Before the meeting last night we had also exchanged some considerable correspondence. You should therefore at least have gathered that my concern had especially arisen, and properly so, over the clearance of land previously designated as a margin to be preserved. I grant that the extent to which it was designated as such is arguable. That is perhaps a matter of maladministration. Other facts are recorded, beyond doubt. The UDP Inspector's recommendation was clearly stated, i.e. "12.433 That the Plan be modified as set out in Post Deposit Change W13/01, BUT otherwise make no further modification to the Plan in response to these objections." see href= http://www.richmond.gov.uk/depts/env/envplanning/policy/Inspectors%20Report/whitton%20&%20heathfield.doc W13, including these provisions: "Any proposal should include a buffer of land of nature conservation importance to link to the area to the west of the site. A suitable buffer should also be provided to protect residential amenity." see href= http://www.richmond.gov.uk/depts/env/envplanning/policy/valudp/chapt11.rtf As to whether or not this would be taken to mean that a margin should be preserved as it as is stands, I refer you to a the provision that the Inspector especially relied upon in making no recommendation to alter the UDP site designation as proposed by the Council. W19 states clearly enough "All new development will be expected to preserve and where possible enhance existing habitats and wildlife features. ... etc." Given that at no juncture during the planning process was it ever expressly stated that any consideration (e.g. land contamination) would override W19, I therefore contend to expect to be entitled to rely upon it. I therefore eagerly await a reply to this, especially with regard to the particulars of any recent conversation or discussion with appointed Council officers. Perhaps then we may proceed to clarify the land contamination background, another matter that Councillor Coombs and the Chair of the meeting both misrepresented last night. Contrary to her assertion, the soil survey conducted in 1997 most definitely is and was pertinent. Re. application 00/3562/OUT, it was cited as a background paper to the officer's report to the Development Control Committee last year. Sincerely, Mr. Ron Harvey, 020 8755 3587 75 Farm Road Hounslow (LB Richmond) TW45PH UK Please note that this correspondence is in no way intended to be confidential. It may eventually be reproduced as a part of further action with regard to matters arising.