News

LUMBER WHACKED

Comments (0)

12 February 2009

Residents celebrate ‘unknown’ High Court victory but new plan allows destruction of woodland

By Chris Mullany
chris@southwarknews.org 

FURIOUS ROTHERHITHE residents took direct action against developers on Wednesday morning, hurling themselves in the path of mature trees earmarked for felling, in a desperate bid to halt the destruction.

The angry scenes took place in a week of extraordinary twists, with Downtown residents, local ward councillors - and even Southwark Council's Executive Member for Regeneration, Paul Noblet - discovering that a High Court appeal lodged by the authority against developer Barratt Homes' original application had been successful.

Campaigners were stunned to learn that the appeal had been won back in August 2008, and insist they were not informed by council officers. Just over two months later, the developers' third attempt to secure permission was considered by the council's planning committee and given approval.

As residents celebrated the High Court revelation, they stepped out of their doors on Tuesday to find mature trees being felled on the Downtown site by contractors for Barratt, on the back of the subsequent secured approval. A spokesperson for Barratt told the 'News' that they were "not in breach of planning regulations" and were "acting legally in accordance with a licence granted by Southwark Council and... clearing tress and undergrowth in readiness for construction."

Yet the timing of the felling has enraged campaigners, who have pointed out that Barratt have yet to submit a revised application, showing how they will meet 44 conditions laid out when their November permission was granted, including how they will provide a health/community centre.

Steve Cornish, Chair of the Downtown Defence Campaign, [DDC], told the 'News': "How can they be allowed to destroy these trees when we haven't yet seen from them whether they can meet the conditions imposed upon them?
If it turns out that they can't, are they going to be made to put all the mature trees back up?"

And whilst a spokesperson for Southwark Council confirmed that Barratt were in their right to proceed with clearing the site, Regeneration boss Paul Noblet hit out at planning legislation that allowed such a situation to arise, saying: "I am deeply frustrated by the national legislation, which means that we cannot protect the trees until the revised health/community centre application is either rejected or granted, as I want to stop this happening." As the ‘News’ went to press, local councillors were appealing to the developers to halt the felling ‘out of goodwill’.

The controversial scheme to build residential units and amenity facilities on the Downtown site has been rumbling on since 2004, when developers Barratt Homes first applied for permission to build. Their scheme, which would have seen 280 residential units constructed, was fiercely opposed by residents and rejected by the council's planning committee. The decision was appealed by Barratt, and in April 2006 a planning inspector upheld the decision. But to widespread local condemnation, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Ruth Kelly, overturned this, giving Barratt the green light.

In September 2006, despite running the risk of incurring costs of up to £20,000, Southwark Council decided to take the matter to the High Court. A confidential internal document seen by the 'News' at the time suggested that the authority estimated only a 35 to 40 per cent chance of success.

Separate to this process, in 2007, Barratt Homes submitted a second application, which scaled the number of residential units down to 250. Yet this in turn was rejected and the developers again appealed, before asking for the appeal to be 'frozen' up until the end of 2008.

In the summer of 2008, Southwark's Executive Committee agreed to renew a development agreement and land sale with Barratt for an undisclosed sum. The agreement, originally signed in 2003, was due to expire, and was renewed subject to planning permission being granted.

Later that summer, a third application was submitted and was promptly objected to by new Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. By September the application had been revised and, in spite of a DDC delegation asking for a deferral, in order to see various critical documents including a transport study, permission was granted on November 4, with ratification by Full Council on December 23 2008.

But unbeknown to residents and local politicians, the High Court appeal over the original application had meanwhile come to a head. On Monday this week, residents were stunned to receive letters from current Secretary of State Hazel Blears, informing them that the High Court had ruled in favour of Southwark Council and quashed her predecessor's decision. The ruling, it transpired, had been made in August 2008. “None of us knew anything at all about it”, said Steve Cornish.

A spokesperson for Southwark Council confirmed this week that officers had learnt of the High Court decision back in August last year, but stated that both the council's planning committee and members of public at the meeting had been informed. "The Southwark Council planning officer presenting the planning application for the third scheme in November was aware of the quashed decision in regard to the first scheme and specifically raised this at the Planning Committee. In addition, an Addendum report was circulated at the meeting informing Members and the public, specifically to clarify the different situation between the schemes."

Yet astonishingly, Cllr Noblet - who oversees the borough's regeneration projects and is also a local Rotherhithe councillor - confessed that he had only learnt about the High Court appeals we have. We [Southwark Council]  will also be putting in an objection to the first application until it is withdrawn."

But the fact that the Liberal Democrat/Conservative administration's top regeneration politician was kept in the dark by his own council officers about such a massive decision will be of huge embarrassment, as well as reigniting the debate as to whether it is elected politicians or civil servants who actually run the council.

Cllr. Paul Bates, Labour Spokesman on Housing & Regeneration, was scathing in his criticism of the lack of information given out: "What I fail to understand is why the council did not inform the Downtown Defence Campaign and other residents of this judicial review judgement during the process to decide the third, revised application from Barratt's late last year.  The council seem content to nudge and wink that they did bring this to people's attention - but if they had, I am absolutely convinced that the Downtown Defence Campaign would have reacted.”

The DDC have also voiced their unhappiness that they were not informed about the High Court decision, which they argue could have influenced their opposition, as well as helped to explain Barratt's rapid revisions to the final application. Southwark Council maintains it had no duty to inform residents about the ruling and that all planning applications - even concerning the same development - are considered separately.

In yet another twist in this seemingly unending saga, the matter of the first application now falls back to the Secretary of State, who is expected to make a final decision after holding a public inquiry. It is the third, and ultimately successful, application that has allowed Barratt to begin felling trees on the site, just days after residents posed for photos celebrating the High Court victory over the original application. But with a public inquiry on the original proposal now expected, residents fear that a return to the biggest scheme of all is still on the cards.

Barratt this week stated that it was committed to delivering "a high quality regeneration scheme with considerable community benefits, including a state of the art health centre, new public park and play facilities and over one million pounds'  investment to be spent to the benefit of the community in Rotherhithe" and that it intended "to deliver the scheme which was granted planning permission in November 2008."

When asked whether this meant that Barratt would abandon appeals on the two previous, larger proposals, a spokesman would only say that the appeals were 'pending'.

---

Social Bookmarks:
del.icio.us Digg Newsvine Reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Wikipedia: social bookmarking

---

Comments (0)

No comments have been posted.

Post a Comment

Please note Name and E-mail Address are required.

Name
E-mail Address (not displayed)
Comment (you may use HTML tags for style)
Enter Text Shown in Picture*
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this article until the comment has been approved.