PLANNING: CHURCH GROVE DEVELOPMENT – COUNCIL HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

Click for larger image (PDF) – The Firs, Church Grove, Hampton Wick

The Council has approved one design, albeit it in differing guises, but the developers have built something different.

As is usual in a conservation area, the original consent was conditioned requiring further approval and details of materials. Normally this is to advise the precise choice and specification, rather than the general. (e.g. ‘Michelmersh multi reds, laid Flemish bond’ rather than simply ‘bricks’.) So we were very surprised that the approval granted to this condition included accepting completely different materials (render and stone cladding instead of brick) and different massing without the need for a new application. To us this was a new scheme. But, even so, they did not build as consented.

They are now putting in a retrospective planning application to legitimise the inferior design that has been built.

Does this sound right to you? We think there are questions to be answered. If you agree, don’t delay in making your voice heard. Search online for LBRUT Planning to get to the planning portal and enter 21/3042/VRC or click this link to the application online.

We have reported several times about the development of ‘The Firs’ on Church Grove. The more the saga has dragged on the murkier it seems to have become.

You might recall that we have taken the council to task over changes to the materials actually used from those originally specified and how poor they look. It’s got even worse. The building’s design, as it has been built, is quite different to that which was proposed and approved.

HWA never thought the proposal was entirely in keeping with the area but at least the proposal was ‘good looking’ with clean lines and architecturally considered features. However, it now turns out that the building actually put up is significantly inferior in several key design aspects.

We have written to Richmond Council’s planning department. While they have replied (albeit inadequately) to our complaints over the use of downgraded materials/finishes, they have not responded to our points about changes to the design of features such as windows, and the overall lines of the building. Where we were promised a reasonably elegant addition to our environment, we appear to be getting a cheap, clunky-looking box.

Suddenly, last week, there is a retrospective planning application which describes some changes but makes no mention of the design downgrages that we had drawn to the council’s attention (see below). The retrospective application talks about providing a different mix of flats – which on the surface is fair enough – but this change of mix doesn’t excuse or require the downgrading of the design and appearance of the building as follows:

The upper storey:
Consented:
Wood panelling finish looks seamless and straight grained/ Sharp, clean lines on single plane / Large single and dual pane French doors with glass appearing to wrap the corner.
As built:
Wood panelling looks patchy, inferior quality so likely to weather badly / Bulky ‘pelmet’ has been constructed and is more dominating to the skyline than consented / Much smaller, multi-paned windows, which don’t go right to the corners and with wider central columns.

Side elevation windows:
Consented:
Single paned, clean lines / Windows nearest the front are perfect squares / Windows above the door are clean-cut, 1×2 portrait dimensional, single panes
As built:
Multi-paned, busy-looking / Windows nearest the front are 3-paned, rectangles with mean-looking small horizontal top pane. / Windows above the door are mean, fussy looking landscape orientation with multiple panes and larger than consented.

Is the developer seeking to legitimise the cheap shortcuts they have taken by claiming, retrospectively, that they were needed to allow for a different mix of flats (1, 2 and 3 bedroom)? If so, they have failed to demonstrate that such downgrades are needed, and they’re certainly not desired. Why wasn’t an application made BEFORE making the changes rather than assuming they would be nodded through AFTER the event?

Richmond Planning department needs to explain:

1. How did we get here?
Why wasn’t work at this site stopped when it became obvious that the building being built was different and so inferior to the approved one?

2. Will the Council be insisting that the developer carries out remedial action to ensure that they deliver the clean-lined, architecturally considered building that they promised and was approved?
If not, why not?

We will be continuing our dialogue with our local councillors over this apparent breakdown in the planning process. Please also take the opportunity to make your voice heard by objecting to this retrospective planning application (21/3402/VRC). click this link to the application online. Or search the web for “LBRUT Planning” to get to the planning portal and enter “21/3042/VRC.”