Background history to current issues

Updated 11 November 2023

(scroll down for Hammersmith Bridge, Richmond Park, aerial masts, and all other topics)

Our “Minefields”

Our troubles began in the space of three days in mid-August 2020 when we came to realise we were caught between three minefields, viz:

Thurs 13 Aug: Hammersmith Bridge closed to pedestrians and cyclists due to widening cracks.

Fri 14 Aug: Richmond Park Traffic Management Plan unveiled.

Sat 15 Aug: Revised plans for the Mortlake Brewery unveiled.

The three minefields are interlinked. The closure of Hammersmith Bridge to vehicular traffic in April 2019 had already caused the diversion of traffic to Chiswick Bridge through our area. The Richmond Park Traffic Management Plan prevents such traffic from entering East Sheen via Sheen Gate and the Brewery redevelopment can only be accessed from the A3003 (Lower Richmond Road/Mortlake High Street/ Barnes High Street) which is already heavily gridlocked.

The Mortlake Brewery

The story to date

The site was sold in 2015 and we have been involved in the plans for redevelopment of the site from the outset.   We have collaborated with the locally based Mortlake Brewery Community Group (MBCG) and have attended meetings alongside them with the developer’s representatives and with the Council.  To ease the pre-application process the Council had already adopted a Planning Brief for the site in 2011 which advocated housing and community use, a primary school and retention of the playing fields, also restoration of the maltings, hotel and bottling plant and creation of a green corridor from Mortlake Green to the river.  The brief did not specify the number of housing units but a consultation document at the time indicated a figure of max. 560 units.

Alas, the Government’s Department for Education made life complicated by insisting that our area should accommodate a new secondary school for around 1,200 pupils and the Council decided that the Brewery site should be the best location for it.  This became included in the update of the Council’s Local Plan in 2016 together with the “re-provision” of the playing fields.   The upshot at the first public exhibition of the developer’s proposals was a massive redevelopment of the site including over 900 units, replacement of the grass playing fields with a single all-weather pitch and the reconfiguration of the Chalkers Corner junction, including land take from the front gardens of Chertsey Court, to allow an increase in traffic capacity to serve the development.

A key issue relating to the site is the lack of good access off Lower Richmond Road which is gridlocked in peak hours caused by severe constraints at both Chalkers Corner and the Sheen Lane level crossing, whose barriers are down for much of the peak hour period.  We organised – and funded – a video survey of traffic conditions at this level crossing.  The reconfiguration of Chalkers Corner and its damaging impact on Chertsey Court will not ease traffic conditions in Lower Richmond Road because the level crossing will forever remain a problem.   We have indicated all along that these two pinch points dictate the extent of development allowable on the Brewery site.

The planning applications for (A) the Brewery redevelopment including 817 units, (B) the school and (C) Chalkers Corner followed in early 2018.  We contributed extensively to the 125-page response of the Mortlake Brewery Community Group on applications A and C providing expertise in planning, traffic, and environmental impact to add to their expertise in architecture and landscape.   We also contributed extensively to the 45-page response on application B maintaining that there is no proven need for it and that the current primary school population can be accommodated in further expansion of the existing secondary schools in the area.  We also separately submitted one-page objections to all three planning applications highlighting contravention with a number of policies in the Council’s Local Plan.

The developer produced revised plans in the summer of 2019 which showed inter alia the reduction of housing units from 817 to 813.  Our objections remained the same as before.  The Council considered all three planning applications in January 2020 and decided first to refuse application C and then to approve applications A and B subject to direction from the Mayor of London.  In May 2020 the Mayor called in all three applications for his own determination, primarily in order to engineer an increase in the affordable housing content.   A month later the Council granted planning permission for temporary use of the Brewery site as a film studio, to which we did not object.

On 14 August 2020, news reached us that the Mayor of London had received the revised plans for the Brewery development, accessible here. For subsequent further plans and documentation, click here (please scroll down for the most recent).  These showed an increase in the housing quantum from 813 to 1,250 units (including a higher percentage affordable) and an all-round increase of between one and two storeys to accommodate them.  There was no change to the school and there were options for the Chalkers Corner junction including the scheme that the Council had refused.

We held a meeting about the latest Brewery scheme on 14 September 2020 and then contributed again significantly to the Mortlake Brewery Community Group’s representation which was submitted to the Mayor on the deadline of 27 Sept (click here). We also submitted our own representation highlighting contravention with a number of policies in the London Plan (click here). We contributed to the Brewery Community Group’s comments on a number of additional documents by the due date of 31 Oct (click here).

We then heard that the re-submitted scheme for the Chalkers Corner junction had been withdrawn, but we were asked to comment on the other options including the provision of a bus lane in Lower Richmond Road, which would entail displacement of 36 parking spaces.  For this we produced a technical response on behalf of MBCG (click here) and a more general response on behalf of the Society (click here).

On 22 July 2021 the Mayor chaired a public hearing into the two planning applications.  He first refused the housing/mixed use development on grounds of its height, massing and visual impact (an unduly obtrusive and discordant form of development in this arcadian setting), its impact on the heritage (not convincingly outweighed by public benefits), its impact on neighbouring amenity (Parliament Mews and Thames Bank) and the absence of a legal agreement (notably on the %age affordable).  He then refused the application for the school on grounds of it being intrinsically linked to other application, particularly in terms of reprovision of designated OOLTI, transport mitigation, safe and convenient access, comprehensive development and place-making. 

If you would like more detail including the policies cited and our comments thereon please click here. 

In March 2022 new planning applications were submitted for (A) the housing/mixed use development and (B) the secondary school. Application A showed a reduction in building heights near the heritage assets, namely the Maltings, the bottling plant and the backs of Thames Bank and a reduction in housing units from 1,250 to 1,085 (including 20% affordable). These were further reduced to 1,071 partly to allow room for more staircases in order to comply with post-Grenfell fire regulations, and then to 1,068 with only 65, or 7%,  affordable.  Application B remained largely unchanged.

The slight widening of the Chalkers Corner junction within highway limits and other highway proposals remained as before.

MESS sent its comments on these new plans to the Council within the deadline: click here.

These plans were eventually submitted to the Council’s Planning Committee on 19 July 2023.

Barnes Hospital

We gave support in principle to the outline planning application for redevelopment of the hospital to provide a health centre, a Special Education Needs school and 83 housing units.  We regretted the demolition of 5 of the 8 Buildings of Townscape Merit on the site, these being ward buildings that did not lend themselves to re-use, but we were pleased to see the three smaller BTMs by the entrance gate retained.  We registered concern about the access in South Worple Way both via the narrow streets from the west and via White Hart Lane in the east where right turning traffic from the north causes blockage at the level crossing.  These issues must be resolved at the detailed stage to follow.

A new planning application has been submitted showing an increase in the housing quantum from 83 to 109 units and hence an overall increase in height.  We have raised concern about the impact of the development on back gardens to the south and on the inadequacy of South Worple Way to accommodate any further increase. Evidently revised drawings are on their way.

A new application has also been submitted for a replacement medical centre, now referred to as a mental health  facility (MHF) and new Special Educational Needs (SEN) school.  Whereas at the outline stage the MHF and SEN school occupied respectively 25% and 25% of the overall site, they now occupy 13% and 37%. 

Homebase, Manor Road

Although outside our area we nevertheless made a representation on the planning application to redevelop this site for a high density housing development of 385 units including 35% affordable, our main concern being the knock-on effect on traffic in our area and the generation of yet more passengers at North Sheen Station onto the Waterloo-bound trains which are already full in the morning peak by the time they reach Mortlake Station.  We also showed concern about passengers from our area taking the train to North Sheen where they have to climb two footbridges to reach the south side of the level crossing in Manor Road.  There is an opportunity here for improvement to station access.  The Mayor of London called in the application for his own determination in order to engineer an increase in the affordable housing content – now 453 units including 40% affordable – and he arranged a public hearing at City Hall on 1 Oct 2022, following which he granted planning permission.

The Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, issued a holding direction on the application, which meant Mayor Khan’s permission for it was suspended until the Secretary of State decided on whether to uphold Richmond Council’s original decision to refuse. He subsequently decided not to uphold the Council’s decision but instead to allow the Mayor’s decision to proceed. However, problems remain because planning permission was granted on the understanding that the site had good public transport links but since then one bus service has been discontinued and South Western Railway has reduced the number of off-peak rail services. In addition, the plans have had to be revised to respond to the latest fire regulations post-Grenfell.

A further decision by the Mayor is still awaited.

Aerial Masts

Recent applications are as follows:

  • Outside Barnes Hospital, South Worple Way: 12.5m pole.  We did not object, Council refused, appeal upheld, now installed.
  • On roof of Nos. 40-59 Rosemary Gardens : antenna in shroud.  We objected, Council refused, appeal dismissed.
  • At Mortlake Bus Turnaround, North Worple Way: 15m pole. We objected, Council refused.
  • At Mortlake Bus Turnaround, North Worple Way: 12.5m pole. We were concerned but did not object, Council refused, appeal dismissed.
  • At Mortlake Bus Turnaround, North Worple Way: 10m pole. We were concerned but did not object, Council refused. Appeal dismissed.
  • On roof of Telephone Exchange, Upper Richmond Road West: antennae. We did not object, Council approved.
  • Upper Richmond Road West, outside The Willoughbys: 20m pole. We objected, application withdrawn.
  • On roof of Park Sheen, Derby Road: antennae. We objected, Council refused.
  • On roof of St Leonards Court: 7.5m pole. We objected, Council refused.
  • Upper Richmond Road West/East Sheen Ave: 20m pole. We objected, Council refused.
  • Upper Richmond Road West/Connaught Ave: 20m pole. We objected, Council refused.
  • Upper Richmond Road West/Clifford Ave: 20m pole. We objected, Council refused.
Other Recent Applications

In addition to the above we have commented on the following recent planning applications of note in our area:

  • Home Guard site: swimming pool. We supported this in principle but were concerned about access/parking, noise of plant and management of pool.  Council approved, overturning officer’s recommendation for refusal, and the development is now complete.
  • 190 Sheen Lane: demolition to allow expansion of Tower House School. We gave this our full support, not least because it enabled removal of existing unsightly high fence.  Council approved. Now complete.
  • 21 Sunbury Avenue: replacement house with basement. We supported this but were concerned about overlooking.  Council approved.
  • 1A St Leonards Road: redevelopment of warehouse for 9 homes. We were concerned about parking and overdevelopment.  Council refused, and appeal dismissed.
  • 26-28 Priest’s Bridge: redevelopment for 7 homes and commercial floorspace. We were concerned about the displaced commercial tenants.  Council approved, since when a new application has followed for two more homes at the rear. Council again approved.
  • Lock-up garages, South Worple Way: redevelopment for 6 homes (subsequently reduced to 5). We gave support in principle but were concerned about building heights and a pinchpoint in South Worple Way.  Council approved. Construction has now started.  This was followed by a second application for another 5 homes on the remaining part of the site.  We were concerned that the site had been split into two in order to avoid the inclusion of affordable housing in situ, albeit the applicants still have to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere.  A decision on the second application is awaited.
  • Pure Gym, 172-176 Upper Richmond Road West: details of parking pursuant to planning approval. We were concerned about parking off-site.  Council has asked for a Travel Plan, which we have been monitoring.
  • All Saints Church: solar panels. Council confirmed that this was ‘permitted development’ and hence no application was made.  However, an application still had to be made to the Diocese who supported the scheme in principle but not if the building is to be listed, which it could be.  Accordingly the application to the Diocese was shelved.
  • Richmond Park Academysolar panels. The application has been withdrawn as the Council has agreed that the proposals constitute ‘permitted development’.
  • Oxford House, Upper Richmond Road West: change of use from old people’s home to children’s nursery did not require planning permission but supporting statements on traffic and noise were required. We raised concern about the traffic and also the air quality in the front garden alongside Upper Richmond Road. Council approved.
  • Land to rear of No. 1 Enmore Gardens: 2-storey house with basement. We objected on grounds of its impact on the openness and character of Palewell Common.  Council refused. Appeal lodged and upheld.  The development has been allowed because it is now a separate site and no longer part of 1 Enmore Gardens.
  • Land to rear of No. 194 Upper Richmond Road West: replacement of 6 lock-up garages with two 2-storey houses, partly sunken. We objected on grounds of the development being out of character and unneighbourly.  Council refused, since when a new application has followed with the two houses no longer sunken, hence taller and hence impact on outlook.  An appeal on the first application has been dismissed.
  • Sheen Lawn Tennis Club: floodlights.  We objected on the grounds that the benefits to the Club did not outweigh the harms caused to residents in the immediate surrounds.  Council refused.
  • 422 Upper Richmond Road West: extensions to provide 10 studio units.  We did not object but raised concern about the access of light to the basement units.  Application withdrawn and applicant now proceeding with less ambitious scheme.
  • 311 Upper Richmond Road West (former tyre shop): rear extension to provide two residential units.  We have shown concern about the proposal being out of character.  Council approved.
  • 13-17 White Hart Lane: additional storeys.  We objected, and the applicant appealed against Council’s failure to decide. Appeal has been dismissed.
  • 7-9 Fitzgerald Road: rear extension at 2nd floor level.  We objected, Council refused, and appeal dismissed.
  • 55 East Sheen Avenue: forecourt parking and crossover.  We objected as out of character in Conservation Area, and Council refused.
  • 62 Derby Road: replacement of house with two houses.  We objected to construction of basements (since deleted from plans) and raised concern about height of end wall fronting Stanley Road. Council approved, since when a new application has followed with basements reinstated.  This was also approved, but since then a new application has emerged for refurbishment of the existing house and this has been approved.
  • 48 Berwyn Road: side and rear extensions. Six applications in rapid succession for different configurations.  Council refused all six, appeals were lodged against all six, and all six appeals were dismissed. There is now a seventh application being considered.
  • 40 Sheen Common Drive: replacement house with hi-tech energy-saving features plus creation of basement to include a swimming pool. We objected on grounds of conflict with character of Conservation Area and impact of the basement on the flooding regime in the area.  Council refused. 
  • 42 Upper Richmond Road West: demolition of single storey industrial units on backland and replacement with 2 blocks of 2-storey flats. We objected on grounds of visual intrusion and out of character.
Sheen Lane Centre and Milestone Green

In the aftermath of Covid lockdown this project, which aims to aims to inject new life into these two focal points of East Sheen, is going ahead with funding from the Council’s Public Realm Improvement Fund secured by MESS member Cllr Julia Cambridge.  On 13 December 2022 the Chair of MESS attended an on-line meeting with the Council and its consultants who presented some initial ideas for these two sites and then attended a second meeting with the same group to look at two options for each site, one rectilinear and the other curvilinear. The consultants will be working these up towards a further presentation in the spring/summer.

Prior to this on 16 November 2022 the Chair had attended a meeting with the Council about its updating of the Conservation Area citation for this part of Sheen Lane from Milestone Green past the Sheen Lane Centre to Mortlake Station.   The Council will be issuing a draft update in due course. 

The Local Plan

We are now involved in the update of the Council’s Local Plan which was adopted in July 2018 but needs to be further updated to reflect the Mayor’s New London Plan, especially in regard to increased housing targets and its new policies concerning Metropolitan Open Land; also to take on board new policies from the Mayor and from the Council itself regarding climate change. Our comments on the draft update were submitted on 31 Jan 2022 and can be viewed here.

Historic walls

We have learnt that, following Nicky Gill’s study of the historic walls of East Sheen in 2015, the Council two years later designated several such walls as of ‘Townscape Merit’ thereby affording some degree of protection – and we were never informed!   We would not have known about this had a member of MESS not contacted our Committee this year registering concern about the historic wall at the end of Larches Avenue.  We asked Patience Trevor of our Sub-Group (formerly of English Heritage) to look into the matter and it was she who discovered that several walls had been designated as of ‘Townscape Merit’.  Unfortunately the wall in Larches Avenue was not included and we are proposing to add this to the list – together with a number of walls in Mortlake.

The list of walls and mapping have now been updated and Patience Trevor has been leading walks around our historic walls.

Planning and Environment Sub-Group

To cope with this workload and also to enhance the MESS credibility, the Committee has approved the establishment of a Planning and Environment Sub-Group made up of architects, an engineer, landscape architect and transport planner, all drawn from the MESS membership, who meet occasionally on an ad hoc basis to help advise.

Traffic Issues

East Sheen Parkside Low Traffic Neighbourhood Plan

The Council implemented temporary traffic measures in Palmerston Road in 2018 and in Temple Sheen Road and Coval Road in 2019 to deter rat-running traffic emerging from Richmond Park (some of it being traffic thwarted by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge in April 2019 and detouring to Chiswick Bridge).  Our Society participated in the Council’s consultation on these measures – and also on its concept of implementing a Controlled Parking Zone covering the whole area of Parkside (from Richmond Park to the Upper Richmond Road) – but was very aware of a difference of opinion not only among residents generally but among its membership in particular.  In January 2020 the Council cancelled its temporary traffic measures and shelved its consultation for a whole year in the knowledge of the forthcoming Richmond Park Traffic Management Plan.

Six months later the Royal Parks introduced its Traffic Management Scheme for Richmond Park including closure of the road past Sheen Gate on a trial basis (see below).  It solved the problem of the traffic rat-running from the Park into East Sheen at a stroke.  However, a new problem emerged: Richmond Park during lockdown became a magnet for both cyclists and dog-walking pedestrians and the latter were using East Sheen Parkside as an extended carpark.  A further problem arose when the central London Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) was extended to reach the South Circular on 25 October 2021 and a large number of non-compliant cars escaped to Parkside where they could be parked freely.  This has renewed efforts by some to request the Council to introduce CPZs in streets on the south side of the Upper Richmond Road.  The Council responded with a consultation exercise during autumn 2022.

The results of the consultation have now emerged and the Council has issued a map showing the extent of the proposed CPZ – and also a wider area which is likely to become prone to the knock-on effects of the CPZ where residents have been given a second opportunity to join the CPZ if they so wish. 

Our Society is represented on a working group (the East Sheen Traffic Group) that has been addressing these issues during these last few years.

Richmond Park Traffic Management Plan

From mid-March to mid-August 2020 visitors to Richmond Park enjoyed the peace and quiet brought about by lockdown.  This came to an end on 15 August 2020 when traffic was allowed to return to the road from Roehampton Gate to Richmond Gate, (but restricted from Monday to Friday) and on the road from Richmond Gate to Ham Gate and Kingston Gate on all days of the week.  The rest of the circuit road was re-opened for access to car parks only and the link road from Sheen Gate into the Park remains closed.

The key element of this Plan for us is the closure of this link road which:

  • will transfer the problem of commuter traffic penetration (guided by satnav) from the back streets of East Sheen Parkside to the area beyond Richmond Gate; but
  • may frustrate residents of East Sheen who would be unable to drive through the Park to Pembroke Lodge, the Isabella Plantation, Kingston Hospital or Queen Mary’s Hospital, Roehampton.

The traffic measures were introduced on a six-month trial basis and a consultation exercise started on 16 November 2022. Our newsletter of 15 August 2020 gave a background to the traffic management plan including the need to reduce commuter traffic through the Park but also explained the difficulty of removing it entirely.  Our final comments were sent to the Royal Parks on the deadline date of 10 Jan 2021 – click here.

The Royal Parks also publicised a proposal to charge for the use of its car parks and we had until 1 Nov 2022 to submit our comments, which we did, commenting that the Society is split on this proposal but that The Royal Parks must be made aware that any introduction of charges will result in a greater number of visitors parking free in Fife Road, Sheen Lane and many other nearby streets.

The results of the consultation emerged on 9 March 2021 and showed that:

  • Of the 10,765 responses to the consultation, 43% were from local postcodes (the rest largely from Greater London), and SW14 provided the largest number or responses at 12% (1,306).
  • 69% agreed that the closure of the vehicle link between Sheen Gate and Sheen Cross should be made permanent (a lower figure of 51% for locals), agreed to by 67% of walkers and 85% of cyclists. Support decreased as age groups got older and one’s level of disability increased.
  • There were also 6,389 “open text” comments and 260 written submissions. Their most common theme was support for further discouraging vehicles, followed by concerns raised about increased traffic in the surrounding area, dangerous interactions between (sport) cyclists and other park users, and reduced accessibility.

The Royal Parks’ decision following the consultation was to extend the trial period by another 12 months in order to review the impact post-COVID. This was further extended until Autumn 2022 when the Royal Parks finally declared the Traffic Management Scheme including closure of the road past Sheen Gate as permanent.  This decision is now being challenged by certain residents of Parkside on the basis that (a) the Royal Parks’ Traffic Report had failed to accurately predict the likely traffic levels in the Park following the end of the Covid lockdown and (b) the Royal Parks, as a registered charity, had failed in its charitable duty to consider the plight of the elderly and less able who are now having to make much longer detours on the grid-locked Upper Richmond Road to reach Pembroke Lodge and Kingston Hospital.

North and South Worple Way Study

Following complaints from residents in these two streets about rat-running traffic during peak hours the Council has launched a study of the problems and consulted local residents including MESS.  The Transport Committee on 22 September 2022 agreed for the study to proceed to the next stage, namely the generation of options for dealing with this problem, and we await the findings.

Hammersmith Bridge

As mentioned above, the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to traffic in April 2019 has caused a diversion of traffic via East Sheen to Chiswick Bridge.  The Richmond Park Traffic Management Plan has effectively extended the diversion from Sheen Gate to Richmond Gate.  Our Society has been liaising with TfL to get Hammersmith Bridge restored as soon as possible but TfL funds have suffered under lockdown and it is now up to LB Hammersmith & Fulham and Central Government to help foot the bill.  On 14 August 2019 the bridge was closed also to pedestrians, cycles and boat traffic beneath due to widening cracks in the pedestals. Central Government subsequently appointed a Taskforce to take over the management of the restoration which is now likely to last at least six years. ‘The Taskforce has indicated that the Government will provide the necessary funding but that LB Hammersmith & Fulham will be expected to contribute and must produce a Business Plan.  It is currently awaiting the Borough’s reply.

The report on the condition of the pedestals has since emerged.  The condition is not as serious as was originally thought and pedestrians and cyclists are now allowed back on the bridge, boat traffic has resumed beneath and necessary stabilisation works can begin.  At the same time there was a planning application for a temporary ferry service across the river which can operate during the construction process when the bridge is closed. This idea has since been abandoned.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council has revealed a radical new solution to the on-going closure of Hammersmith Bridge, which would negate the need for a second temporary bridge structure. The plan would be to build a temporary double-decker crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith Bridge. A new raised truss structure would be built above the existing road deck resting on the existing bridge piers, featuring a lower level for pedestrians and cyclists and an upper level for cars and buses. This would allow existing approach routes for traffic to be used. The proposed structure would also provide support for the bridge as well as a safe platform for restoration work to be carried out. There would be no load added to the existing bridge deck, which would be removed in stages for repair and restoration off-site. This would allow works to be done at greater speed and at a reduced cost. When completed, the temporary raised deck would be removed. The concept plan designed by Foster + Partners and further developed with specialist bridge engineers COWI, was presented to Department of Transport officials w/c 23 Nov 2022, and has now been worked up in more detail. It was presented at a public exhibition in March/April and is expected to be the subject of a planning application in May 2023.

Heathrow Expansion

We do not usually get involved in proposals to further expand Heathrow because our Committee are split on this issue.  It was interesting to note, however, that the Mayor’s and Council’s objections to the Government’s decision to further expand Heathrow were upheld by the Court of Appeal on 27 February 2020 but then overruled by the Supreme Court in December 2020. More recently there was a motion in Parliament to reconsider this final decision in the light of the pandemic and climate change considerations but this was overruled by the present Government.