Richmond (Parliament Politics Magazine) – A South West London resident Caroline Shah is weighing legal action against a proposed development she claims threatens the natural environment of Richmond Park.
Caroline Shah is desperately trying to raise plutocrats for legal counsel on possible legal action against Richmond Council’s relinquishment of its Original Plan, which will serve as the city’s development companion for the coming fifteen times.
Kingston occupant Caroline told the Original Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that she feels the plan doesn’t adequately regard how unborn development will affect Richmond Park, especially given its designation as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) that protects stag beetles and their territories. According to her, expansion in near councils would put the demesne under tremendous strain due to an increase in callers, which Richmond’s Original Plan must meetly regard for.
Caroline said:
“It’s incredibly busy a lot of the time and there’s signs of erosion, trampling, people climbing trees and people cycling through the woods when they shouldn’t be, and so if you imagine more and more development coming forward, which is what’s happening in Kingston, Wandsworth, Merton, Hounslow – all the boroughs around the park… it’s going to affect the park. My view is that Richmond Council has not done the process of assessing future harm to Richmond Park properly.”
She added:
“It’s not that you want to stop people going, it’s not that you don’t want to go, but you don’t want so many people or so many visits to be happening that the very nature that is meant to sustain us all is destroyed. How can you have access to nature when you destroy that nature?”
Inspectors verified the plan was “legally compliant and sound” before the authority formally endorsed it on October 7, according to Lib Dem councillor Julia Neden-Watts, chair of the Environment Committee.
Caroline disapproves of the system used by the council to determine that similar development is doubtful to have a major impact on the demesne. According to her, the authorities came to this conclusion by concentrating on the stag beetle’s niche, which is dead wood, rather of the broader surroundings that sustain the species, similar as timber ranges, old trees, open champaigns, and sunny clearings.
Caroline feels that the council ought to have appropriately taken into account how the plan would affect the adult stag beetle, which has different requirements than the beetle in its egg and larval stages.
She pointed out that the park is “one of the most beautiful and rare habitats in London and England – there aren’t many places that have such large areas of grasslands and then incredibly beautiful and large areas of woodland with 700-year-old trees” .
In just 48 hours, Caroline has contributed almost £1,500 of her £1,800 goal to acquire legal counsel on pursuing her proposed claim, which she needs to submit in a few days.
She told the LDRS:
“The timing is the critical thing here, so I really need people to donate as much as they can afford as quickly as they can because that will enable me to get an opinion and get any support I need to take a claim forward, which I will do on my own. I’m prepared to do this, despite how brutal it will be, because nature can’t fight for itself, the environment can’t fight for itself.”
Councillor Neden-Watts said:
“The Local Plan has been developed through a thorough and careful process, including extensive public consultation and independent examination. Inspectors have confirmed the plan is legally compliant and sound, endorsing the council’s approach to guiding development across the borough.”
What legal grounds could challenge the Richmond Park development plan?
Failure to misbehave with statutory conditions in the Planning and mandatory Purchase Act 2004, particularly under Section 113 which allows for a High Court statutory review of an original plan’s relinquishment.
Allegations that the plan isn’t” sound,” meaning it may be unsound if it has not been appreciatively prepared, isn’t justified by substantiation, isn’t effective, or isn’t harmonious with public policy like the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Claims that there were procedural irregularities in the plan’s medication, similar as shy public discussion or failure to duly consider indispensable options.
Challenges grounded on environmental protections similar to the designation of Richmond Park as a locally or nationally defended green space, where development might violate programs aimed at conserving similar areas.