Day 4 of the Chepstow Public Inquiry in which the second and third schemes by Telford Homes are being considered (3398/08 and 2393/09 respectively) was again quite a long day as within days 1 and 2. Telford’s second witness, David Wood (their architect) was on the stand for the entire day and in fact the Inquiry had to relocate at 5pm from the main council chamber so that his re-examination could continue.

His main evidence was relatively swift, all be it interupted for clarification arguments at several points. The main cross examination by Redbrige was however painfully slow and seemed to gain little in the 4-5 hours of questioning - Mr Wood was very considered (annoyingly so from the perspective of the CRA’s position) in defending Telford’s case regarding Scheme 2 (flat roofs on Nutter).

The CRA got to question Mr Wood quite extensive and again Mr Wood was annoyingly defensive regarding the flat roof schemes, however, several points (all be it minor ones) were conceded such as the depth of the Scheme 2 houses (the ones we do not like) not being 16m in depth as had been suggested, but rather 18m. Roding Cottages which had been described as “early 20th century” by Mr Wood was also picked up to be wrong as they were built in 1892.

CRA questioning got some small admissions that there were some design “problems” with the Scheme 2 houses, in that they are cramped at the left hand end, their layout somewhat dictated by spatial problems (TPO trees in the way) and that the overal result was less than pleasing.

It soon became apparent that Telford’s third witness, discussion of conditions and unilateral undertakings would not be possible in the remaining time alloted. A sixth day was therefore added to the proceedings. Day 5 will be on the 14th June from 10pm in the council chamber with day 6 to be sometime w/c 28th June (date/venue tbc).

Documentation from Telford Homes


Documentation from Redbridge Council


CRA Documentation


Other Documentation

 Inspectorate Decision Paperwork

NB The above links will be updated over each day’s proceedings and duplicated across each days report.