Plans to redevelop Twickenham Railway Station as a catalyst for regeneration of the area and to provide a gateway to the town and Twickenham Stadium were today upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Richards LJ dismissed a challenge from a local representative of the Twickenham Residents Action Group who claimed that, in granting permission to Solum Regeneration for the revamp in March 2012, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames failed properly to take into account a report from a group set up by the Leader of the Council to work with the Council and advise on development and regeneration, with the aim that the vision for the future of Twickenham should be rooted in the views of local people.
The Twickenham Advisory Panel (TAP) submitted a report on the scheme in December 2011 in which it acknowledged the public’s “significant interest” in the station redevelopment and identified the 2015 Rugby World Cup as a target to aim for, but concluded that there were “serious areas of concern” with the current plans and that its height and mass was “not sustained in terms of local support”.
The judge said that the report was distributed to the Council’s planning officers and was intended to be taken into account in the planning committee’s consideration of the application, but that in the first addendum to the officers report published on 16 December it was stated that the TAP report had “not been submitted against the planning permission or formally to planning officers and as such the comments therein are not considered material to the consideration of this application”.
Planning permission for the scheme was granted on 30 March 2012, and John Watson, a member of the Twickenham Residents Action Group which objected to the height of the development, claimed that, in failing to properly consider the TAP report, the Council failed to take into account a material consideration.
Richards LJ said that he was “deeply unimpressed” with the way the Council handled the TAP report and that the truth behind its “volte face” over the extent to which it was to be treated as material had not been disclosed.
But he said that the question for the court was whether it constituted a legal error justifying the quashing of the permission.
Ruling that it did not, he said: “I am very surprised that the Council officers advised members of the planning committee to leave the TAP report out of consideration, which was the effect of the relevant passage in the first addendum to the officers’ report.
“I am not persuaded, however, that the resulting failure of the planning committee to take the TAP report into account amounted to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations.
“There is no real possibility that the planning committee would have reached a different conclusion if the report had been taken into account. It was not something that would (or even might) have tipped the balance to any extent. The way the report was handled was highly unsatisfactory but did not render the grant of planning permission unlawful.”
He said that he accepted the submission put forward by the Council and Solum that all the points of substance made in the TAP report were covered in the officers’ report and were taken into consideration in any event, and added: “Most importantly, the TAP report contained nothing capable of affecting the committee’s conclusion that the proposal accorded overall with the development plan.
“Nothing in the TAP report could have affected the committee’s assessment of the acceptability of the design and architectural approach of the proposed development, nor was there anything to undermine the view that there existed significant local community support for the public benefits of the overall scheme. If anything, the first paragraph of the report’s conclusions, in referring to ‘a clear consensus that the existing Station needs investment and improvement’, lent support to the existence of that local community support. The statement that the height and mass of the development ‘is not sustained in terms of local support’ made a different point and added nothing in that respect to what was already known to the planning committee from the summary of representations in the officers’ report.
“Given’s TAP’s position as an advisory body established by the Leader of the Council with broad terms of reference, and the fact that it had been given at least the initial brief of organising a public event in respect of the proposed development, its views on that development were plainly worthy of respect. But its role and remit did not give it anything like the status of a statutory consultee; and in so far as it was conveying the views of members of the public who had taken part in its processes, it is likely that those same members of the public had submitted their own representations directly to the Council: the TAP report records that 114 people attended the public event, whereas the officers’ report records that letters had been received from over 1,300 households.”
The proposed development involves demolition of the existing station building, a phase 1 redevelopment including erection of a podium (or concrete raft) over the railway lines, and a phase 2 redevelopment including a new station concourse with stair and lifts to platform level, three buildings ranging in height between seven storeys and two storeys comprising 115 residential units, shops, offices and café and restaurant uses.
The officers’ report stated: “The proposed development provides an opportunity to redevelop the area of Twickenham Railway Station providing some key improvements to the station itself benefiting residents, employees of the borough, visitors and rugby/concert crowds.”
Granting permission in March 2012, the Council stated that the significant benefits of the scheme had local community support and had been carefully considered, balanced and found to outweigh the key material non-compliances of the scheme, which included non-provision of affordable housing and the building heights exceeding policy in a supplementary planning document (SPD).
Watson v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Court of Appeal (Maurice Kay, Richards and Pitchford LJJ) 15 May 2013
Douglas Edwards QC (instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors) for the Appellant
Rupert Warren QC (instructed by Merton and Richmond Legal Services) for the First Respondent
Neil Cameron QC (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the Second Respondent
Plans to redevelop Twickenham Railway Station as a catalyst for regeneration of the area and to provide a gateway to the town and Twickenham Stadium were today upheld by the Court of Appeal. Richards LJ dismissed a challenge from a local representative of the Twickenham Residents Action Group who claimed that, in granting permission to Solum Regeneration for the revamp in March 2012, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames failed properly to take into account a report from a group set up by the Leader of the Council to work with the Council and advise on development and regeneration, with the aim that the vision for the future of Twickenham should be rooted in the views of local people. The Twickenham Advisory Panel (TAP) submitted a report on the scheme in December 2011 in which it acknowledged the public’s “significant interest” in the station redevelopment and identified the 2015 Rugby World Cup as a target to aim for, but concluded that there were “serious areas of concern” with the current plans and that its height and mass was “not sustained in terms of local support”. The judge said that the report was distributed to the Council’s planning officers and was intended to be taken into account in the planning committee’s consideration of the application, but that in the first addendum to the officers report published on 16 December it was stated that the TAP report had “not been submitted against the planning permission or formally to planning officers and as such the comments therein are not considered material to the consideration of this application”. Planning permission for the scheme was granted on 30 March 2012, and John Watson, a member of the Twickenham Residents Action Group which objected to the height of the development, claimed that, in failing to properly consider the TAP report, the Council failed to take into account a material consideration. Richards LJ said that he was “deeply unimpressed” with the way the Council handled the TAP report and that the truth behind its “volte face” over the extent to which it was to be treated as material had not been disclosed. But he said that the question for the court was whether it constituted a legal error justifying the quashing of the permission. Ruling that it did not, he said: “I am very surprised that the Council officers advised members of the planning committee to leave the TAP report out of consideration, which was the effect of the relevant passage in the first addendum to the officers’ report. “I am not persuaded, however, that the resulting failure of the planning committee to take the TAP report into account amounted to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations. “There is no real possibility that the planning committee would have reached a different conclusion if the report had been taken into account. It was not something that would (or even might) have tipped the balance to any extent. The way the report was handled was highly unsatisfactory but did not render the grant of planning permission unlawful.” He said that he accepted the submission put forward by the Council and Solum that all the points of substance made in the TAP report were covered in the officers’ report and were taken into consideration in any event, and added: “Most importantly, the TAP report contained nothing capable of affecting the committee’s conclusion that the proposal accorded overall with the development plan. “Nothing in the TAP report could have affected the committee’s assessment of the acceptability of the design and architectural approach of the proposed development, nor was there anything to undermine the view that there existed significant local community support for the public benefits of the overall scheme. If anything, the first paragraph of the report’s conclusions, in referring to ‘a clear consensus that the existing Station needs investment and improvement’, lent support to the existence of that local community support. The statement that the height and mass of the development ‘is not sustained in terms of local support’ made a different point and added nothing in that respect to what was already known to the planning committee from the summary of representations in the officers’ report. “Given’s TAP’s position as an advisory body established by the Leader of the Council with broad terms of reference, and the fact that it had been given at least the initial brief of organising a public event in respect of the proposed development, its views on that development were plainly worthy of respect. But its role and remit did not give it anything like the status of a statutory consultee; and in so far as it was conveying the views of members of the public who had taken part in its processes, it is likely that those same members of the public had submitted their own representations directly to the Council: the TAP report records that 114 people attended the public event, whereas the officers’ report records that letters had been received from over 1,300 households.” The proposed development involves demolition of the existing station building, a phase 1 redevelopment including erection of a podium (or concrete raft) over the railway lines, and a phase 2 redevelopment including a new station concourse with stair and lifts to platform level, three buildings ranging in height between seven storeys and two storeys comprising 115 residential units, shops, offices and café and restaurant uses. The officers’ report stated: “The proposed development provides an opportunity to redevelop the area of Twickenham Railway Station providing some key improvements to the station itself benefiting residents, employees of the borough, visitors and rugby/concert crowds.” Granting permission in March 2012, the Council stated that the significant benefits of the scheme had local community support and had been carefully considered, balanced and found to outweigh the key material non-compliances of the scheme, which included non-provision of affordable housing and the building heights exceeding policy in a supplementary planning document (SPD). Watson v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Court of Appeal (Maurice Kay, Richards and Pitchford LJJ) 15 May 2013Douglas Edwards QC (instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors) for the AppellantRupert Warren QC (instructed by Merton and Richmond Legal Services) for the First RespondentNeil Cameron QC (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the Second Respondent
