UPDATED 21.00 5/11/25

Please contribute to my fundraiser to seek a legal opinion from a barrister on whether I have grounds to pursue a claim against the adoption by Richmond Council of their new Local Plan (the “Richmond Plan”).

We have done incredibly well to raise £1328 in less than 48 hours. Thank you to everyone.

Given the timeframe involved, we will not be able to seek an Opinion from Jenny Wigley. I have therefore approached an environmental charity who are kindly seeking a barrister who can work within my tight deadlines and within whatever funds we have available, to get advice on whether I should take my proposed claim forward.

I will use any funds we raise to pay for this advice and to support any costs of taking a claim forward as a litigant in person.

I will donate any funds left to The Friends of Richmond Park.

I believe the grounds I have put forward to Richmond Council and The Secretary of State are strong. However, I need confirmation from a barrister that this is the case before deciding to take a claim forward as a litigant in person, a process that I know will be brutal.

The Possible Claim

The Richmond Plan is the latest in a series of plans for development being adopted by local authorities, like Wandsworth, Hounslow, Merton and Kingston.

All this development will bring a huge increase in population within easy reach of Richmond Park. Yet, none of the plans has considered their impact on Richmond Park; on the contrary they have all screened out any impact on the Park at the first hurdle. Richmond Council has followed this trend.

But I believe that this screening out is legally wrong.

Common sense tells us that increased population around Richmond Park will lead to increased numbers of visits and greater pressure on the natural environment within the park. The effects are already becoming visible in fuller car parks, increased traffic and pollution, footpath erosion, compaction of woodland areas and ant hills, and damaged trees. This pressure will increase as the coming development tsunami hits, made worse as developers use the existence of the park as an excuse to wriggle out of commitment to provide green space as part of new schemes.

But there is one small creature that can save Richmond Park and protect us from vast, sterile over-development.

Richmond Park is designated as a legally-protected Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for the threatened stag beetle, England's largest beetle.

This status extends to the park’s ancient trees that provide decaying timber for the stag beetle’s larvae, and to the park’s grasslands and open spaces used by adult stag beetles. The effects of development on the stag beetle and the habitats within Richmond Park must be considered before any plan or project bringing forward development is approved.

But it seems that Richmond Council has reduced the complex ecological requirements of the stag beetle over its whole lifecycle, and of the habitats that support it in Richmond Park, to a need for “dead wood”; as if piles of off-cuts from B&Q in a corner of a car park are all that is needed for legally-required protection to have been delivered.

You might also ask if Richmond Council, whose development plans are far less intensive than those of other authorities, is the right target for a challenge.

If a Judge were to rule that Richmond Council must consider the effects of the Richmond Plan on the ancient trees and wider habitats in Richmond Park, and on the whole lifecycle of the stag beetle, this would support demands for a review of the basis on which surrounding councils have said development they are bringing forward will not harm Richmond Park. I can tell you that the conclusions they have drawn leave a lot to be desired.

If I were to bring a successful challenge, this should help reduce the risk of harm to Richmond Park as developers should have to provide more green space with development in order to alleviate pressure on the park.

In the case of Epping Forest SAC, major developers within 6.2 km of the forest must provide new green space or contribute financially towards the upkeep of the forest and pay even more for development within 400 metres of the forest.

Measures like this would help secure the long-term future of Richmond Park whilst raising the quality of life for both existing and incoming residents to the wider area.

If we can get a barrister's opinion on the strength of the grounds I have laid out in my Letter before Claim, we will have a clearer understanding of our chances of making a successful challenge on behalf of nature and people.

Thank you so much for your support.

Caroline