Following the recent decision of Lewisham Council to approve the City of London’s proposals for their Sydenham Hill Estate, concerned members of the community have set up a Crowd Justice account to fund a legal opinion as to whether there is a case for a Judicial Review. Time is tight. Please donate and/or share on Social Media or with your contacts:
The community living on Sydenham Hill Ridge welcomes the development of the City of London Sydenham Hill Estate for social housing. We believe in building good quality, environmentally friendly social housing that will last well into the future. However, the huge increase in density sets to impact the quality of the housing built, the historic environment, the conservation area, the local infrastructure and the natural environment, reducing the much needed green communal space, felling mature trees and impacting the ancient woodland opposite, visited by people across London. We raised money to fund the initial advice of a solicitor. Following that advice, we are now raising funds to seek the opinion of Counsel.
The approved planning application can be seen here:
Mais House - Next High Court Hearing 9th June 2022
Update (Sun 20 Dec)
Legal advice is that there is a good chance of success. Further details on Crowd Justice, here:
The pre-action protocol letter has been sent to Lewisham and, because Lewisham timed the publication of their planning decision to hit the Christmas period, as of today (Sun 20 Dec) there are now just 10 days remaining in which to raise the money needed to lodge the case with the Courts.
Please share this with your contacts.
As at the time of typing, we have pledges totalling £6685 on the Crowd Justice website. This leaves us with a shortfall of £315, which we have to make up today or tomorrow, to enable us to pay our lawyers to do the work necessary to file at Court by the morning of 31st December.
It would be a terrible shame if such a strong case were to fail to even get the chance of a hearing, not because of a weakness in the case, but for want of an additional £315.
Please consider heading over to the Crowd Justice website and donating and/or sharing the link:
The latest update from the Crowd Justice site …
Update on the legal case and fundraising
We are thrilled to have made our initial Crowd Justice target. Thank you for supporting and sharing our campaign to challenge a planning decision that will be so detrimental to this unique environment.
Our lawyers received the responses from Lewisham and The City of London and filed the claim in Court where it was issued and has been served on the defendant. Lewisham and The City of London are required to respond to the court with their grounds for defence by 26th January 2021. A Judge will then consider whether there is an arguable case and make a decision on granting permission for judicial review.
We are now actively fundraising to reach the £12,000 stretch target to cover a potential claim for costs from the other side and enable us to begin moving on to the next stage, which will be to consider any grounds of resistance.
Your support is hugely appreciated.
Note: now that we have met the initial target, the countdown will automatically renew every 30 days.
Thanks for sharing the CrowdJustice campaign Mary.
I am concerned that due to Covid, the applicant did not display notices for the demolition of a wall and removal of half a garden on Lammas Green. This could have been done in a safe way, other site work has continued at Mais House throughout lockdown.
The transparency of the planning process has been reduced, some residents have been excluded from the process as they can’t join online calls. Those who were removed from Mais House have not been included in the process and other tactics have been questionable.
Estate residents were refused a ballot and co-design, it is all a bit high-handed.
The removal of half that garden and demolition of the wall just seems so unnecessary and detrimental to Lammas Green. Trying to squeeze too much into that particular space when they could easily have started the terraces just a little further down. Such poor and inconsiderate design. I feel for whoever is having their garden chopped in half and will now have people peering directly into what remains of their garden. Not to mention the loss of light.
Hi @jemma and @Audrey_Finch
I really share your concerns. Sydenham Society has a formal complaint in with Lewisham Council, which due to non response has now been raised to Stage 3, which I believe means it goes to the Ombudsman. It won’t overturn the approval of the works to the Grade II Listed Lammas Green though.
Even though Lewisham didn’t notify the Society of the Listed Building Consent Application (despite the fact that it was the Sydenham Society who alerted Lewisham Planning to the fact that Listed Building Consent would be required), or the neighbours, or display a site notice, we would still have picked up on the application had it been linked on Lewisham’s website to the main Mais House application. It wasn’t included in the “related applications”, despite the fact that the City of London’s Listed Building Consent Application paperwork relied on documents that could only be viewed on the main Mais House Planning Application pages.
I am also concerned at the loss of the well used footpath that links Lammas Green to Kirkdale and which has not only been in existence at least as long as the Estate has stood there, but also appears on maps from the mid 19th Century.
Re the main application, Friends of Mais House have produced this flyer, which includes a QR code linking to our Crowd Justice fundraising page …
flyer mais 14.1.21 to print copyds_CDds.pdf (213.2 KB)
Good work. Sadly the link to the fundraiser is broken in the article.
Oh dear! Thanks so much for pointing that out. I have now asked for it to be fixed.
This may be a silly/ obvious question, and by no means to undermine the fabulous work done, but aside from the costly judicial review, are there any efforts currently in play to appeal the plan though the normal route (aka the planning inspectorate). Perhaps showing how much local objection there is and the advice from the 20th Century Society.
(As judicial reviews just look at processes rather that the end decision (and don’t stop the decision being repeated))
Thank you Grainne. Much appreciated.
Unfortunately @Poppleoppledus that’s not an option open to us. Only developers can appeal a Council Planning decision via the Planning Inspectorate. They can appeal if the Local Authority has refused their application or has not determined within a set period of time.
The only option open to objectors is a Judicial Review. Lewisham could have decided not to defend the case - which they still have the option to do - but they are driving it to Judicial Review.
And you’re right, it’s only whether correct procedures were followed that the Judge can rule on. It can be the most horrendous, ridiculous , divisive development since the Tower of Babel, if it was a lawful decision, the Judge can’t quash it But the Judge will quash it if it was an unlawful decision. Which our lawyers believe it was.
Thank you. Very informative. I know nothing of these things but seems unjust that challenging a council decision like this needs to be so costly and difficult. Wishing you the best of luck.
Just to say, if anyone is thinking of donating please don’t be put off by the confusing 30 day countdown on the Crowd Justice website. It’s an automatically generated thingy that the site keeps defaulting to. Friends of Mais House need to raise the currently needed traunch of money in the next couple of days.
Thank you @Poppleoppledus
You’re right- It is blooming unjust that developers have the right of appeal, but objectors have only the expensive option of Judicial Review.
Scales of justice ?
Update from Crowd Justice website:
Yesterday, Friday 29th January, Lawyers [Susan Ring of Harrison Grant Solicitors & Richard Harwood QC] acting on behalf of a member of the Friends of Mais House, filed a Reply to the Council’s defence at Court; a Judge will now consider whether to grant permission to bring Judicial Review proceedings against Lewisham Council and the Corporation of the City of London.
If the Judge approves the application for permission, the case will move to a full hearing; the Friends hope that the Courts will quash the recent planning permission and the City will work collaboratively to produce a co-design scheme for the Estate that respects the existing community as well as providing high quality homes for new residents.
Your contributions have made this progress possible. Thank you! We are working hard to reach our target of £12,000 by Monday. Please continue to support this campaign by donating and sharing the Crowd Justice link. Inevitably, our target will be stretched further as the case progresses. However, we are taking this step-by-step, with each step bringing us closer to success.
Please consider donating here:
FRIENDS OF MAIS HOUSE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
PERMISSION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW GRANTED
The Friends of Mais House are delighted that Mrs Justice Lang yesterday [11.02.2021] issued permission for a Judicial Review into the way Lewisham Council handled an application by the Corporation of the City of London to redevelop its Sydenham Hill Estate.
In her Order, Justice Lang said: ‘In my view, the Claimant’s grounds are arguable and merit consideration at a full hearing’.
The case will now move to a full hearing; the Friends hope that the Courts will quash the recent planning permission and the City will work collaboratively to produce a co-design scheme for the Estate that respects the existing community as well as providing high quality homes for new residents.
The Friends will be stepping up their fundraising campaign and you can help this important case by spreading the word and donating here:
THE FRIENDS OF MAIS HOUSE are delighted that we have a Judge’s permission for a Judicial Review into Lewisham Council’s handling of their grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the City of London’s Sydenham Hill Estate.
The hearing has been scheduled for 27-28 April 2021.
The Judge who issued permission for the hearing said: ‘In my view, the Claimant’s grounds are arguable and merit consideration at a full hearing’.
Few cases cross this high bar. This is a great vindication of the Friends’ hard work and the support that you’ve already given that we’ve achieved this.
Please continue to support this important case by following this link or using the QR Code to donate to the legal fund. Every donation, no matter how small, helps.
MAIS HOUSE CAMPAIGN ON THE BBC!
The Friends of Mais House Campaign will be featured on BBC London News tonight [late breaking news stories permitting].
In the item, to be broadcast as part of BBC1’s London News at 18.30 tonight [Weds 07.04.2021]reporter Luke Hanrahan films the next generation enjoying an Easter Egg Hunt on the communal area that will be impacted by the City of London’s redevelopment of their homes. Luke speaks with campaigners, including long term tenants and investigates just what the City’s plans will mean for the environment.
Following the broadcast, the programme will be available on Catch Up.
UPDATE: Apologies, this didn’t broadcast last night. It will go out on a future broadcast, date TBA. I will post again when I know. So sorry if anyone tried to watch.
I missed this last night and went to watch the recorded broadcast, but it doesn’t appear to be included. Was it cut?
Sorry Robert it was postponed because of other news stories. It will still go out, but I just don’t know when. There was a BBC London Radio interview that was transmitted live at 17.50 and I’ll try to post a link later today.
Thanks for trying to view and I’m really sorry for the disappointment. I’ll update my post now.
Here is the link to the BBC Radio London interview with one of the Friends of Mais House:
The interview starts at 50.25 mins in and the interviewer is Salma El-Wardany (not Eddie Nestor)
Hi @marymck I’ve just been watching the BBC lunchtime news and at the end of the London news the report you mentioned above was shown, so I imagine it will be included again in the evening news at 6.30pm. .As the lunchtime London news is only 10 minutes I don’t know if the report was shown in full or not but the BBC iPlayer link is https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000v5gf/bbc-london-lunchtime-news-12042021 and the report starts at 5:18.
Brilliant! Thanks so much Chris for letting me know.
It wasn’t on the evening news, but can be watched here:
Edit: Oh, @ChrisR has already said this - sorry!
FINAL PUSH FOR FUNDRAISING
The Friends of Mais House would like to thank everyone who has spread the word or donated to our legal fund; the response has been amazing.
We have campaigned for over 2 years for a more sensitive development, which we strongly believe is achievable.
We have been featured on BBC London News and you can see Luke Hanrahan’s report here:
Thanks to your generous donations we are now nearing the target required to see the matter through the Court hearing next week.
Please continue to support our cause. We still need your help.
Some great news!
Following the Judicial Review, Mrs Justice Lang handed down her Judgment at 10.00 hrs this morning [18.05.2021]. She concluded:
“Given the number of significant errors made by the Council, and the possibility that, absent such errors, a different conclusion could have been reached by the Planning Committee, I consider that the decision to grant planning permission ought to be quashed.”
The Judicial Review hearing on 27/28 April found a number of failures in the way Lewisham Council handled the planning application by the Corporation of the City of London to redevelop its Sydenham Hill estate, including that the Planning Committee were given an incomplete picture of the heritage harm and were materially misled on some aspects of the heritage issues.
Thank you to everyone whose support - both financially and emotionally - made it possible for the community to challenge Lewisham.
Out of interest, as the Council made these ‘significant errors’, which may well have amounted to negligence on their part, did the Judge award costs in your favour?
One of the greatest failures in the planning system is the £30,000 that local residents needed to raise to seek to overturn a flawed decision and a ‘significant number of errors’ in the planning process that appears to favour social housing development for the council over the council’s own policies and the rights of neighbours.
I have a great deal of admiration for people who are willing to take on the might of the council and property developers when there has been an injustice. But how many more injustices happen without ever going to court?
In this case the council knew it had a weak argument but did not present the council’s own reports that would be negative for the developer. It is possible that the opportunity for more social housing for the council clouded their judgement and led to serious omissions in the presentation of the application to the planning committee. It is tough for residents to fight such injustice and makes other very suspicious of the planning process when it comes to other similar developments (Valentine Court, Dacres Road, Drakes Court, Greystead Road and many more).
How can the council restore faith in the planning system for local residents so that more housing can be built legally and with appropriate scrutiny?
Very well put, @Michael - I wholeheartedly agree.
I made a comment elsewhere about it sometimes feeling that the Council maybe ‘marking it’s own homework’, and this case is exactly a demonstration of that.
It was also £35,000 that was raised - but whats and extra £5k between fundraisers
Simple - just play with a straight bat.
They know their policies and the parameters - and they know the procedure - so do it with honesty and integrity; and if a proposal merits it, it should succeed.
Coverage from Local Democracy Reporter Gráinne Cuffe in 853 London:
Excellent news; well done FoMH and all who helped.
Lets hope that LBL & CoLC can now swiftly devise a sympathetic plan that both blends in with the local environment and provides the social housing we so desperately need.
For those that are interested, Grainne Cuffe has an excellent summary of these projects, which were apparently mentioned at Wednesday’s council meeting and are still being pursued, subject to feedback and planning permission:
This is a great summary and far clearer than Lewisham’s presentation of its intentions. The maps are particularly useful. Thank you @GrainneCuffe.
The Architect’s Journal has a bit more coverage of the Mais House case, giving some more details of the errors considered in the judgement:
Here’s an interesting letter into the Architects’ Journal from a (local - I think?) architect offering her point of view on in-fill developments in London, and specifically referencing the errors in the Mais House case:
Clicking through to the tweet should allow you to see the image at a readable size, where the relevant correspondence is outlined in red:
Looks like the same plans are back to committee this month with recommendation for approval again.
Got a message from Commonplace yesterday but didn’t believe it. Let’s hope Einstein’s definition of Insanity is proved correct and they don’t get a different result by doing the same thing over and over again.
Sadly that’s often how planning works I fear. It’s an often aggressive and undemocratic system
Yes, my heart sank. It would be unbelievable that this could happen if the world were sane - especially at such short notice. But this is Kafka Towers at work here. Masses and masses of confusing documents have been added to Lewisham’s website in the last few days and probably more to follow. Sigh.
Still up to their old tricks. I read one one of them they claimed the east side of Lammas Green was not as architecturally notable as the other sides in an attempt to devalue the harm (despite it being built in the same style by the same architect at the same time).
The whole thing is so unbecoming of them to put it mildly
Received a ‘consultation’ questionnaire today about Drakes Court development (junction of Devonshire Road and Ewelme Road. Work has clearly already begun there, so is there really any possibility that the consultation is meaningful rather than a tick-box sham?
If Grainne wants to stand as an independent councillor in Forest Hill, I can guarantee her at least one vote.
I worry that a lot of councillors hold this ideological need to combat perceived ‘NIMBYism’ at any cost.
And that can be seen here in this completely aggressive and uncompromising approach by Lewisham Council.
What they can lose sight of is that the many council residents fighting for the right to green spaces and community preservation (and in this case respect for much valued listed buildings), are not privileged career ‘NIMBYs’. They’re ordinary, often working class people who deserve not to be crammed in and concreted over. They deserve green spaces as much as those lucky enough to own private gardens.
Infilling estates is all well and good but it has to be done responsibly. And can’t be at any cost to those living there. There has to be more understanding and compromise and less bully-boy tactics.
Neighbouring Southwark Council are infilling aggressively too – here’s the Green Party’s take on it and a list of those green spaces that are under threat. Alas, what’s sauce for the Southwark goose is usually sauce for the Lewisham (and Lambeth) gander, three of the absolutely worst boroughs for planning.
Here we go again …
Less than 24 hours to go now. Feeling completely swamped by the avalanche of 41 new documents and 250 page Case Officer Report at such short notice.
Good Luck Mary.
The arrogance displayed by our Council is utterly astounding but it seems that’s what happens when there is no Opposition.
Were any adjustments made to the application?
I don’t have the right words this morning. This is shattering news for our area, our environment and community.
Enjoy the trees and the precious wildlife that relies on them while you can.
@CllrAlanHall spoke eloquently under standing orders. Resident Helen Kinsey passionately and our QC Richard Harwood was firm, thorough and clear in setting out the wrongs of this application and its process.
But despite all that, despite 211 and still counting objections and only one letter of support, despite the strong objections from the Council’s own consultees including the Conservation Officer and the Design Review Panel, despite powerful letters of objection from MPs Helen Hayes and Shadow Attorney General Ellie Reeves, only one Committee member - @CllrStephenPenfold - had the courage to try to do the right thing.
There was no debate. There were some questions, but just as I thought a Committee discussion was going to start, @CllrKevinBonavia moved a vote in favour. Having done so, he made a speech in support of the application. CllrStephenPenfold tried to explain why he wanted to vote against and this might have kicked off a discussion, but the Committe Chair John Paschoud wouldn’t let him speak, instead calling on Cllr Olurotimi Ogunbadewa who, in his first words in the meeting, seconded Cllr Bonavia’s motion
The vote 5:1 in favour. Only Stephen Penfold voted against.
An article on the other side of the fence for this development, but I felt it was worth sharing for the debate it may trigger around the many infill developments being considered in the area by Lewisham Council:
Thanks for sharing this, completely agree with the sentiment expressed. We have an affordable housing crisis and a desperate need for new affordable homes in this borough and across London. Where do we expect to make up the shortfall if not looking at in-fill development.
But of course, it’s not true what they’re claiming. It’s either deliberate mischief making (some might think it defamatory, as the campaigners are most emphatically NOT against an increase in social housing on the estate) or maybe it’s a product of sloppy research. Whatever the case, I’m not going to waste my time responding to these Yimbys (not of course that it is their backyard) as they have their own agenda.
As the Judge said:
“156. In my view, the submissions of the IP [Interested Party: that is the applicant, the City of London Corporation] lost sight of the fact that, in the main, the objectors were not opposed to the redevelopment of the Site in order to upgrade the existing social housing and increase the number of residential units. The Claimant’s objection related to the inappropriate height and scale of the new buildings, which would harm the setting of the Grade II Listed buildings and the Conservation Area."
For anyone interested, this is a balanced report:
And this is interesting:
I’m fairly sure that if the developers had continued with the plans for the 12-storey development of 145 units, Lewisham would have granted permission. I don’t personally think that this would have been appropriate for the site, but YIMBYs should have been opposing this development as not large enough! Instead they remain silent on backing the over-development they claim to favour and then criticise those who object to too developments that impact their quality of life.
But the bigger missed opportunity is not in these relatively small schemes, where local residents argue whether there should be 145 or 110 or 90 units, but in schemes such as Lewisham Gateway where 1,000 homes were built with no social housing.
Or another scheme was Churchwood Gardens (off Tyson Road), where the developer was able to argue (after planning approval and inspector’s report for a scheme that included 25% social housing) that there should be no social housing because it would not be profitable enough for them.
It is these failures of the planning system to deliver social housing over many years that now puts pressure on all amenity space in existing social housing (usually flats with no or little outside amenity space) to be built on. This won’t bother those YIMBYs who usually live in comfortable homes and possibly have nice allotments safe from the developers, but will impact the residents of social housing who they slur as NIMBYs for wanting adequate daylight and bit bit of useful amenity space for their families.
It may well be time to consider classifying allotments (and at least some small areas of Green Belt) as ‘brownfield’ spaces so that it is easier to develop housing on these sites rather than infill in existing social housing. Allotments benefit few people and are sometimes in places where some social housing could be built with less impact to local communities. And let’s not get started on former gas works that get turned into single storey retail warehouses rather than housing - what a waste.
Ooh @Michael don’t rattle my cage on allotments. I’m all in favour of allotments, but I believe they should be allocated to people who don’t have their own gardens.
I can understand that point of view but look at the description of Grange Lane allotments:
“The soil here is mostly heavy clay. In winter it can be waterlogged and in summer it can be baked and cracked. It takes lots of digging and organic matter to keep the soil workable and productive.”
Wouldn’t this site be better used for the community by building housing? For every individual who has the opportunity to grow their own fruit and veg, a family could have a home. I know allotments are lovely, but I’m not sure that public land in cities should be used for “hobby-farms” (I’ll probably get into trouble for using such a term).
Of course this is nothing compared to the land use of an 18-hole golf course - would a compulsory reduction to nine holes really be a disaster? The problem is that these are privately owned whereas allotments are public land (but with protecting legislation). I’m happy to be convinced otherwise but I think it is important to think creatively about opportunities to provide social (and non-social) housing in London and the surrounding area and recognising that if we are to build then we need to consider all possible options rather than just the easy options that impact the poorest Londoners most.
She completely omits that the ‘harm to buildings’ is to listed ones and basically decides that she doesn’t like them anyway so it’s not a great loss.
The situation is more complex than she’ll acknowledge and the article is very one sided imo.
She comes at it from a very ideological pov but when it’s people’s communities it’s more nuanced than that.
I agree we need to think more creatively about creating opportunities for housing and perhaps we should think about what is outside most of our doorsteps. We have 9,000 miles of roads in London and a cry from many people in large houses with wide roads/avenues to create LTNs where active traffic is promoted.
Once a wide road becomes an LTN and traffic ceases, the road no longer needs to be so wide to serve as a public highway with room to park cars on either side. We could repurpose the road for housing with a design that allows deliveries and accessibility requirements. We could change LTNs from being socially exclusive to being socially mixed if we used this opportunity for social housing. It is quite a complicated option, privacy and light amongst other requirements but we need to challenge ourselves.
The other option which you won’t like is to turn part of the LTN roads into allotments freeing up the existing allotments to build houses on.
Back to the Anya Martin article, I found it very unbalanced and the belittling of Lammas Green uncalled for. The photograph of it didn’t do it any justice.
I suspect she’s never stepped foot on the estate or spoken to the campaigners she has such strong opinions about
I think that’s a good idea. I love solutions that make urban spaces more green. A lot of LTN boundaries have planters as simple ways to block roads, but it makes sense to narrow roads and increase greenery. Once LTNs are introduced it may also be advantageous to make some of the roads one-way where possible - allowing for narrowing and wider pavements with grass and flowers and electric charging points (example roads that could be one-way would all the side roads off Garthorne and Grierson Roads).
I’m doubtful that there are many opportunities for building in the middle of roads - they would need to be very wide roads to provide adequate amenity space and prevent overlooking of existing residents’ homes.
Friends of Mais House report that:
“A claim has been issued in the High Court seeking a SECOND Judicial Review of Lewisham Council’s handling of planning approval for the proposed monster Mais House redevelopment on Sydenham Hill. The community is again asking the Court to quash Lewisham’s approval of the Corporation of the City of London’s plans.”
Thank you @Michael
Our full press release, including the saga so far, is here:
FRIENDS OF MAIS HOUSE - LATEST NEWS
COURT RULED COUNCIL ACTED ILLEGALLY – BUT LEWISHAM DETERMINED TO DRIVE MONSTER DEVELOPMENT THROUGH
Earlier this year your generosity helped fund a Judicial Review into Lewisham’s grant of planning permission for a massive build on the summit of Sydenham Hill.
Despite success in the High Court, with a Judge ruling that Lewisham Council had acted illegally and urging the Council and the applicant to work with the community on a more acceptable proposal, Lewisham Planners rushed the very same application back before a Planning Committee, which, in a tick box exercise, again granted permission.
Following further legal advice a claim for a SECOND Judicial Review has now been issued in the High Court and served on Lewisham Council and City of London.
The Friends are asking for contributions to their legal fund here:
Read our full press release here:
As followers of the Mais House saga probably know, despite the High Court quashing Lewisham’s previous grant of planning permission, Lewisham rushed the application back before another planning committee - on which some of the earlier PC members also sat - and they yet again approved the same application.
Following legal advice, a claim was lodged in the High Court and now it seems we’re heading for a “rolled up” hearing. This is one where a Judge hears arguments from both sides as to whether to grant a Judicial Review and, if he agrees, will proceed straight to into that JR … very likely on the same day. Different judge this time: Sir Duncan Ouseley.
The Friends of Mais House are immensely grateful for the community’s support and are asking for further contributions to the legal fund here:
Learn more and contact the Friends via
I’m sorry this is still dragging on. When I went to the planning consultation event for the Knapdale Close infill development I was shocked at how officials often talked to and treated residents of the estate who came with legitimate concerns about the impact on their lives and open spaces.
Did you see that people are getting organised across the border in Southwark about similar plans?
Thanks Hannah. I shall share and Tweet about that event.
“Rolled Up Hearing” set for 9th June. High Court Justice Sir Duncan Ouseley will then decide whether to grant and proceed straight to a Judicial Review. We fight on!
Huge thanks to Forest Hill Society and everyone else donating to the legal fund. Your support is amazing.
Friends of Mais House campaign now on FindOthers. High Court hearing fast approaching. Please donate/share/ask questions of FH local election candidates
Forest Hill: Anthony Bays (Con), Mark Bennett (Lib Dem), Peter Bernards (Lab), Krish Brown (Lib Dem), Martin Cox (Green), Sophie Davis (Lab), Billy Harding (Lab), Aimee Henderson (Con), Paul Mahoney (Con), Mike Peters (Green), Julia Rendall (Green), John Russell (Lib Dem).