We must apologise for not sending out any updates...truth is there have not been any.
The following article was intended to be sent out in a Leatherhead and District Countryside Protection Newsletter at the time. It was held back waiting for a response after the Petition was heard at the Council chambers in Pipbrook. Please read below as a reminder of what happened at the meeting.....
15 October 2024
Leatherhead residents make passionate plea to save their central park as Mole Valley District Council adopts its new Local Plan
Peaceful campaigners greeted Mole Valley District Councillors arriving at tonight’s Council meeting at Pippbrook, Dorking.
Holding placards pleading ‘SAVE OUR PARK’, ‘SAVE BULL HILL’, ‘NO TO TOWER BLOCKS’ and ‘SAVE OUR PRECIOUS GREEN SPACE’, the campaigners had come to Dorking to present a petition to Council.
The petition was submitted by Helen Hill. On reaching 800 verified signatures it won the right to be heard by Mole Valley District Council, and Steve Preston presented it on behalf of all the petition signatories in an impassioned five minute speech.
The petition concerns proposals by the Leret Partnership to develop the site in central Leatherhead currently known as Bull Hill and Red House Gardens into a major mixed-use project called ‘Urban Quarter’. The proposals feature residential tower blocks up to 12 storeys in height, a ‘transport hub’ and the loss of the current park with provision of a smaller new one. The Leret Partnership is a 50/50 joint venture between Mole Valley District Council and Kier Property as part of the wider ‘Transform Leatherhead’ regeneration programme.
Mr. Preston expressed strong feelings from local residents who believe that Bull Hill and the Red House Gardens within it must be saved. He pleaded with the Council to listen to the many concerns people had about losing the benefits they currently enjoy, calling these “not a luxury, but essential”. He talked about the deep appreciation people had for the heritage of the site and about its value as a green and leafy place of recreation and respite.
Mr. Preston expressed concern about the poor architectural vision presented to the townspeople at the recent public consultation, and frustration at the tangibly empty spaces wasted elsewhere in the town. He stressed that the residents were not opposed to change and understood the need for additional housing, but urged the Council to be more ambitious in their designs and efforts and to work more closely with other landowners and the local community.
The tone was one of exasperation at needing to repeat opinions that people felt they had expressed already:
“These points are not news to you, and have been iterated over and over in a number of Transform Leatherhead engagement sessions that have spanned years. Residents do not feel like you are listening… We want you, our Councillors, to represent us, meet with us, reflect on your decision-making, work with us to make something Leatherhead can be truly proud of. Leatherhead residents are clear: Do not build tower blocks. Do not build over the Red House Gardens.”
Councillor Keira Vyvyan-Robinson responded on behalf of the Joint Venture team, stressing that they recognise the strength of feeling but are restricted because they can only allocate sites that are put forward by their owners.
Various Councillors acknowledged the grievances of the petitioners and expressed their own disappointment at the ineffectiveness of the public consultation and the apparent shifting of plans from earlier proposals. They advocated listening to residents and engaging with them more meaningfully.
Councillor Joanna Slater sympathised with the petitioners’ “feeling of complete powerlessness”. She described the problem of Mole Valley District Council wearing two hats as the Joint Venture partner: the people’s champion, but also the developer out to make a profit.
“As a Council, I think we need to up our communications game”, she said. “We need to start listening to people and we need to have clear separation between who are the community champions and who are the developers here, so that people can feel heard.”
The residents in the packed gallery above the Council Chamber applauded the Councillors who demonstrated empathy, so enthusiastically that one Councillor requested that they be asked to curb their applause. In a quiet but standout moment, Chairman of Mole Valley District Council Elizabeth Daly calmly dismissed this request with the simple explanation: “This is their time.” In a night of many important comments, this one stood like stone.
Councillor Ben Wall, many of whose Leatherhead North constituents had signed the petition and were present, recognised that there were “valid points on both sides”, but then inexplicably launched what felt like an attack on the residents’ concerns about the 12-storey height of part of the proposed development. He claimed that the tallest building in Croydon “is over 150m tall”, while “we’re suggesting a building that is maximum, maximum 20 metres.” Cries of “Wrong!” could be heard from the public gallery as the residents ‘did the math’ and imagined themselves inhabiting storeys each just over 1.5m high…
It was timely that the vote to adopt the Local Plan was next on the agenda. There is no doubt that the preparation of the Local Plan had involved a staggering amount of difficult work, and Councillor Margaret Cooksey spoke eloquently and usefully to clarify some key points (after a stern rebuke to those who had drawn planning into a political debate earlier in the proceedings).
Councillor Cooksey stressed that all sites in the Local Plan must be available and deliverable. She confirmed that they had tried hard to reduce the high housing numbers imposed by the Government: “We asked for help [to no avail] from the then MP for this area in trying to get numbers reduced so that we did not have to build in the Green Belt.” She went on to explain the importance of having a Local Plan: “It has always been anathema to me that we should be building on any green space. I have always objected to it and always will. But what we have to do is have a Local Plan in place. And if we don’t have one, every single green space in this District is under threat, and there’s nothing, without a Plan, that we would be able to do about it because every appeal would go to the Government Inspector and would get passed.”
In the challenging circumstances, it was deemed impressive that Mole Valley has managed to protect most of its Green Belt land, and the Local Plan was adopted. Perhaps the greatest irony tonight is that at least six of Mole Valley’s recent Green Belt losses are in and around the very same road as the Bull Hill and Red House Gardens site. Have Leatherhead residents in the vicinity of Randalls Road (named after the country house which once stood there and which features in Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’) drawn something of a short straw?
At least the petitioners emerged from this evening with a strong sense that their efforts were worthwhile. Most of their elected representatives on the Council implied a commitment to far greater community engagement, better communication, careful reflection and attentive listening regarding the Leret Partnership proposals from this moment on.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as ever, and the residents are keen to see what their new relationship with the project will look like. One might imagine that tomorrow morning a key person from Mole Valley District Council will contact Helen Hill or Steve Preston to get the ball rolling and to resolutely demonstrate that they and their fellow signatories were heard and heeded. Leatherhead’s community deserves this reassurance, and the swift establishing of a better way of doing things.
The District Council and Kier Property must get this right. Pragmatic residents enthusiastic about heritage, ecology and well-being who are asking to participate positively are a gift. The town is watching and waiting.
**Update 17.01.2025. There was no call or message to the petitioners the following morning. Or the day after that. Three months have now gone by, and no-one has yet made contact with the group of residents who had worked so hard to bring their concerns to the Council Chamber on 15 October 2024. They pleaded for better communication and to meet and to be heard. Are they wrong to feel newly aggrieved that their request appears to have been met with bewildering silence and a complete lack of engagement?**