Read with care

Previous planning application – The developer achieved planning permission in 2016 for a good proposal, whose viability had been assessed. This plan was subsequently blocked not by the community but by the developer.  The brochure says it was not implemented because it was ‘not viable’, but no evidence was ever presented for this.  

Size of the community centre –  The brochure implies that the planning policy for the site estimated  a sustainably sized community centre at 4,500 sq ft.  In fact, that  document provides no guidance on the required space. On the contrary, the Council’s  Supplementary Planning Document for this site – whose purpose is ‘to assist developers in the submission of high-quality proposals’ – provides a guideline of  17,200 sq ft. Where did the  impractical 4,500 sq ft come from?

Size of the boatyard – The previous Alchemy boatyard had ‘one dock’. True, but Jericho residents with longer memories know that when that dock was in operation boats were craned out of the water and positioned across the site to be worked on. Typically six to eight boats were out of the water at any given time, occupying a footprint far exceeding that of the proposed new docks. 

Size of the piazza – Strangely, the size and the estimated number of stalls that will fit into the piazza are actually those for the 2016 scheme. For the current application, the piazza has shrunk to 160 sqm of usable space, with room for 14 stalls, or 8 to 10 gazebos (based on a report on the site by Noel Farrer, former President of the professional body for Landscape Architects).

Boatyard flooding – The docks were  designed to the JWT’s specification, but the design was unilaterally changed to exclude the silt traps and to increase the flood risk frequency to an unacceptable and potentially disastrous  level.

Community benefits –  The bridge, piazza, and community infrastructure levy costs of £2.9 million  were a planning requirement for the site, so correspondingly reduced what the developer had to pay for it. Moreover, the contribution to building the shell and core of the community facilities, on a more realistic calculation is not £4.3 million but £2.4 million. All these calculations aim to justify the lack of affordable housing.

Excess profit – On the basis of real-world valuations, this site is likely to make far more profit than the developer suggests. But we are asked to take comfort from the fact that 60 per cent of these excess profits will go to the City Council, and 40 per cent to the developer. But by then the damage will have been done. We will have had no more affordable housing in Jericho, a shrunken square, a flood-prone boatyard and no bridge into the square. The time to say no is now, not in five years time.

It might be argued that all this has gone on long enough, that we should just accept the proposal as it stands and get on with it. But that would be wrong, indeed irresponsible. For one thing a constrained site would compromise our ability to attract the large-scale funders   needed to help fit out and complete the project. If we are to raise the funds quickly and effectively, the Jericho Wharf project should not just be workable, it must be wonderful.

Jericho Wharf Trust Chair Phyllis Starkey says: “The Council should refuse this application, but this should only be a temporary setback. We still believe that with goodwill on both sides, the outstanding issues can be resolved. We have already established the basis of a great scheme, and we can work with the developer and with the City Council, along with the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency to fulfil the original vision for Jericho Wharf as a vibrant new community and waterways hub.”