Article contributed by Teddington Residents Association.

Teddington Residents Association fully support a high-quality provision for the elderly, and affordable housing development on an appropriate scale that does not disproportionately impact the existing community.

However, the planning application for the redevelopment of the twin sites is flawed and should not have been submitted.

The developer's supporting reports are ridden with inaccuracies, some of which are highlighted in this piece.

In just one statement published on Teddington Nub News, Cllr Wilson manages to mislead threefold.

He states: "The social housing proposed is modest for a town centre location - 18 flats including two units specifically for those with a disability."

Firstly, the proposal is not modest as demonstrated by the image from the submitted planning documents. To the contrary, it dwarfs all other surrounding buildings.

Secondly, the proposed developments are in a quiet residential and historically important area, not in a town centre. The proposed designs do not resemble the surrounding buildings, many of which are of townscape merit. It is the council's plans which will lead to the urbanisation of this quiet place.

Thirdly, the proposed plan is for 16 not 18 units as Cllr Wilson states.

Continuing this trend, many reports submitted in support of the council's planning application are at best incomplete, and at worst misleading.

Here are some reasons why the application should be withdrawn:

â— Perhaps the most important omission from the council's application submission is a statement from a Residential Social Landlord, committed to owning and operating the proposed affordable housing. As the landowner and the applicant, the Council needed to have a Registered Social Landlord development partner for this application to have been validated and published.

Requests for information on this matter remain unanswered. For any other applicant, such omission would lead to the application not being accepted.

â— Richmond Design Review Panel, a body of independent professionals, raised significant reservations about the proposed plans and designs stating, 'the design for the residential site needs much more work to convince us that it will achieve a high quality. For both sites we feel the team needs to push harder to achieve the highest sustainability in line with the Council's ambitions'… 'We suggest a further design review would be beneficial to see the scheme prior to any submission.' Apart from minimal changes, the substance of the panel's advice has been ignored.

â— Numerous design flaws will result in substandard accommodation for potential occupiers and significant adverse amenity impacts on the surrounding area.

â— Parking and transport issues have not been adequately considered. The survey report does not take into account the additional parking stress resulting from the proposed CPZs in adjacent roads, loss of North Lane East car park, reduced number of parking spaces offered by the new hall and the impact of hall's wider range of services.

â— The Daylight and Sunlight report was based on assumed floor plans for many surrounding properties rather than actual plans. The intrusive photos included in the original Daylight and Sunlight report and obtained without residents' consent had to be subsequently removed due to residents' breaches of privacy complaints.

â— Despite assertions that Elleray Hall must be expanded, the council appears to have no data on the number of regular users of the Hall. It seems implausible that the council would commit to spending £3m or more on a hall without a proper service needs assessment.

â— The submitted Heritage Assessment was not available when the designs were formulated and has been produced as an afterthought. It could not therefore inform an appropriate and sensitive design from the onset of the process. The purpose of a heritage assessment is to help understand the significance of heritage assets and help shape proposals which avoid or minimise harm.

â— The report is peppered with inaccuracies, revealing ignorance of the area and calling into question its validity. Richmond Council claims to actively protect the Locally Listed Buildings. It has not done so in this case.

â— The Richmond Local Plan states the minimum requirements for the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions; 'All new major residential developments (10 units or more) should achieve zero carbon standards in line with London Plan policy.' In the case of the proposed housing development, the Clive Chapman Architects in their Energy and Sustainability Report admit to a carbon shortfall.

By rushing through a planning application with inaccurate 'evidence', the council has set a dangerous precedent with regards to planning standards. It would be hypocritical for the council to raise objections to potential intrusive proposals by private developers were its own plans given approval.

The project is alien within the current landscape and fails to achieve the support of the local community, demonstrated by the number of objections received on the council website here.

About Teddington Residents Association

Teddington Residents Association are a group of 50 neighbours of Elleray Hall who are opposing plans by Richmond Council to move the hall and develop the site.

When will a decision on Elleray Hall be made?

Richmond Council is expected to decide on the planning application by 5 November 2021.

In case you missed it: catch up on what's going on with Elleray Hall

1. Teddington: update on Elleray Hall development as plans validated by Council
2. OPINION: why Teddington residents should support plans for Elleray Hall
3. OPINION: plans for Teddington's Elleray Hall site show that Richmond Council has a democratic deficit
4. Trustees of Elleray Hall write in support of Council plan for new site