From: Ron Harvey [ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 05 December 2002 14:03 To: 'h.cornforth@richmond.gov.uk' Cc: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk; cc@ccar.co.uk; Anne Harvey; alex.wilson@richmond.gov.uk; trees@richmond.gov.uk; David Dawson (dave.dawson@london.gov.uk); cc@ccar.co.uk; n.vasilev@richmond.gov.uk; Gina MacKinney (cllr.gmackinney@richmond.gov.uk); Anne Harvey Subject: Mil Farm Site. To LBRuT Principal Policy and Research Planning Policy Officer Helen Cornforth, and whosoever it may concern: I thank you for your recent letter. For your convenience I transcribe it below. I had already taken part in the UDP process. It is not therefore so easy to appreciate your reiteration of what was already officially recorded. It would be more interesting to me to see answers to particular concerns exactly because the nature of your Council's dealings with them are anything but clear and because of the implications of maladministration that thus arise. For instance, please: 1. With due regard to the planning application [00/3562/OUT] and to Mr. Summers' two reports to Committees last year (25th Oct & 6th Dec) what within them, please, would reasonably lead an innocent observer to expect the complete clearance of the development site, including the western margin? 2. With due regard to trees to be preserved, how many were marked as such along the border of the site immediately opposite to the Farm Road Flats, between the newly created entrance gate and the south eastern corner of the development site? 3. With due regard to the UDP Inspector's reliance upon UDP policies ENV 19 and ENV 9, am I correct to understand that Mr. Fuller, your Council's Tree Officer, prior to the destruction of trees on the site, was never in any sense instructed to be aware of the site? 4. Presuming that I am correct to discern that your council, during the Unitary Development Plan deliberations, made no mention whatsoever of soil contamination as a factor in effect opposed to conservation interests, did anybody involved ever actually bother to read the soil report cited as a background paper to the moot application (00/3562/OUT)? 5. With due respect to my previous raising of the issue, e.g. at a public meeting chaired by Councillor Lourie, Dec 11th 1997, and in subsequent letters to the local press, why was there never any subsequent attempt to intelligently compare the previous soil contamination survey for the adjacent Farm Road flats? 6. With due regard to any pertinent policy or whatever other intelligent consideration, should or should not the details of Planning Condition NS01U (Land Contamination) properly and sensibly be submitted before or after a significant and irreversible part of that work (i.e. the complete clearance of the land) is already complete? 7. Given that (according to the developer) the vegetation has to be all but completely cleared because the soil is contaminated and thus presents an unacceptable health risk, notwithstanding the covering vegetation, why then was it never previously or presently deemed to be immediately necessary to clear the entire site? 8. Further to the previous question and with due regard to the present situation, has it yet crossed anybody's mind that the exposure of unvegetated but contaminated soil, but without the removal of the same would possibly constitute an increased health risk? 9. Further to both of the previous questions, hence to the reasons for the stipulated Planning Condition NSO1U, would you or would you not concur as a principle of policy, that the clearance of the site, hence the felling of mature trees, is especially a protection of amenity issue? 10. With due respect to Condition LA04A (Tree Protection), and with heavy machinery on site, is it not reasonable enough to suppose that the trees were obviously enough as much in any danger of harm during the recent clearance work, and therefore as much in need of protection as at any later stage? 11. Further to the previous question, and given that for the past thirty years or so, with no development imminent, no such clearance had ever taken place, nor would it now have taken place if no development were intended, is it not reasonable enough to construe that the recent work was "for the purpose of the development"? 12. Further to both of the previous questions, and in view of the letter to your Mr. Summers, dated 30th October and registered as '00/3562/DD01' is it not indisputably clear that the same understanding was indeed accepted by the developer? 13. Has there yet been or would there otherwise (apart from my own interest) be any attempt on your Council's part to verify by examination the information and the promises as supplied within the Jaquelin Fisher Associates Reptile Capture & Translocation Report? 14. With respect to my publication of material relating to these issues, on this web site: [http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/index_.htm] do you find anything therein to be incorrect or objectionable as a matter of fact or policy? Sincerely, Mr. Ron Harvey 020 8755 3587 75 Farm Road, Hounslow, (LB Richmond), TW45PH ---- original letter -------------- Dear Mr Harvey Helen Cornforth Ext 7334 28th November 2002 Mill Farm I have been asked to respond to your e mail of 14th November referring to discussions at the Whitton and Heathfield Area consultation meeting on the 13th November, about the above site. I confirm that the following is the situation with regard to the UDP;- The proposal site description in the UDP (ref W 13) included reference to the protection of a strip beside the River Crane as follows:- " Any proposal should include a buffer of land of nature conservation importance to link to the area to the west of the site." The site was considered at the UDP Inquiry, and changes added to include a reference to the inclusion of a children's playspace, access changes and the provision of a linking cycle/pedestrian route, but otherwise no other changes were proposed. At the time the Inspector considered the question of whether the whole site should be designated as a site for nature conservation, but concluded that any nature conservation features identified could be protected by UDP policies ENV 19 (Nature Conservation and Development Proposals) and ENV 9 (Trees in town and landscape) The progress of the planning application was as follows:- Outline application No 00/3562 first went to Development Control committee on 25th October 2001, was deferred to seek the written views of the Environment Agency and GLA Biodiversity Manager and re- presented to DC committee on 6th December 2001, when it was given permission, subject to conditions. The permission was for 75 new residential units with parking and associated works. Following advice from both the Environment Agency and GLA, a 10m wide strip by the River Crane widening at the south end to include a pond and the wetland around it with a buffer zone of 2m would be left for nature conservation. Conditions included NS 03 -that a landscape management plan should be submitted and approved by the local authority for the area between the houses and the stream, NS 05 - that a reptile survey should be carried out and appropriate action taken, and NS 01 - That no development should be carried out other than in accordance with the Contamination and Geotechnical Assessment Report dated January 1998. The latter condition refers to the fact that the land had already undergone a contamination survey and that certain conditions and monitoring were required. The site has been subject to a number of contamination surveys, in 1977,1989, 1998,2001 and 2002. It is understood that the developers have recently cleared the site of some vegetation. They have confirmed that no top soil has been removed from the site, no trees shown as "existing" on plan MFS17A have been removed, and the vegetation clearance has amounted to pre-development works in accordance with the conditions. The clearance was done as part of the extensive "Reptile Capture and Translocation Exercise", and remediation works necessary for the safety of future and neighbouring residents. It is understood that the developers propose to restore the riverside strip for nature conservation, and will be submitting a detailed landscaping scheme for the Planning Authority's approval shortly, which will be in consultation with the GLA Biodiversity Manager. Once implemented this will introduce extensive and appropriate indigenous planting to foster wildlife along the riverside. I hope that the above clarifies the situation. Yours sincerely .....