Development and Flood Risk in Staines-upon-Thames

Subject: Re: Appeal Ref. 3280090 The Old Telephone Exchange, Masonic Hall and Adjoining Land, Elmsleigh Road, Staines upon Thames, TW18 4PH

Dear Joanna,

I understand that you hold the office of Chief Planner within the Department of Levelling Up Housing & Communities.

I watched your contribution in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnznwzdUhQU (about 31 minutes into the video).

May I ask why you, Mr Gove and your own Inspector chose to ignore section 14 with regard to Appeal Ref. 3280090, which contradicts everything you said in this video?

The approval of this scheme tells me that you are merely paying lip service to the principals and tenets of the NPPF in the context of Public Safety and Climate Change. The fact that the Department of Levelling Up Housing & Communities has since refused to take any timely corrective action confirms this.

In spite of the published NPPF guidance, you failed in you duty to apply the Sequential Test or produce any valid evidence to support an Exception Test result. The Department of Levelling Up Housing & Communities conclusion couldn’t be any more at variance with the NPPF, than a White Rhinoceros Kebab would be to a Conservation Ecologist. (35 minutes 55 seconds)

You talked about the MNDC Page 27 Part II, (37 minutes 35 seconds), balance and confidence’ in the juxtaposition between “the planning of the green and blue infrastructure alongside the red brick“. And yet as a consequence of you decision, has now condemned a SSSI, which is now for the very first time permanently flooded by ground water all year round. The White Rhinoceros can no longer graze there because they all died of foot rot.

The accelerated flood risk and impact has merely increased considerably as a consequence of your approval of massive and impenetrable deep foundations adjacent to the river Thames. This in my view was an entirely reckless decision.

In the video, you talk about the elephant in the room however, is there possibly a second elephant in the room influencing behaviour?

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 5 May 2011

John McDonnell: “I will name one company, Inland Homes, which is developing properties that not only fail to meet existing need but undermine the quality of housing in the area.”

The Rt Hon. the Lord Goldsmith KC. His name is Peter Henry Goldsmith, and he is a current member of the House of Lords. He has a share interest in Inland Homes Zero Dividend Preference Share plc (property developer and house builder) (interest ceased 25 May 2023).

Inland Homes to appoint administrators – 28 Sep 2023
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/financial/administrations/inland-homes-to-appoint-administrators-28-09-2023/

Did you make this decision in an attempt to protect Lord Goldsmith and the financial interests of the owners of a failing company? Is it possible that had appeal not been upheld the company might have failed two years earlier? Or was the decision an overt display of recklessness or incompetence? What explanation underpins this decision?

I am unable to reconcile what you said in the video with what your department has done.

Lastly, I’d like to invite you to watch these videos (below). I made these videos because the majority of people don’t really understand what has happened since the Thames Conservancy was disbanded nor understand that all of the maintenance of the Thames creased over 30 years ago. It is possible you don’t either, else you might have mentioned it in the video, or somewhere else.

Many people don’t realise that when the National River’s Authority was absorbed into the Environment Agency, riverbed maintenance ceased across the Nation. There are 45 Locks and Weir systems on the Thames, because, like the majority of rivers across the Nation, they are all now man made Land Drains; all of which still require long overdue riverbed maintenance. This is yet another elephant in the room eating vast quantities of White Rhinoceros Kebabs.

As a consequence of the cessation riverbed maintenance and the installation of a series of impervious to water deep foundations impeding and obstructing and the adjacent ground water flows, The river Thames had lost 40% of it’s conveyancing capacity since 1947; whilst it shall require the ability to routinely convey 40% more water than in 1947. A double whammy.

Do you now agree that the two Tower Blocks associated with Appeal Ref. 3280090, should be to removed in their entirety and the substrate restored?
Do you agree that your Department should compensate the Developer for all of his costs to date? Which may only be a £100m?
Do you agree that the accelerated risk and depth of flooding now posed by the very sensitive position of this development may be the cause of £Billions and £Billions of destruction, degrade public safety and probably lead to loss of life? Much of this being in the neighbouring Borough of Runnymede?
Do you have an opinion?
As a Civil Servant, are you allowed to express an opinion?

This is probably not the email you wanted to read but, I would very much appreciate and entirely candid response.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Swinglehurst.