2021-09-30-accounts

TRUSTEES’ REPORT AND

UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

CHARITABLE INCORPORATED ORGANISATION CHARITY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1169079

THE RICHMOND SOCIETY CHARITY INFORMATION

PATRONS

Ms Anita Anand, Professor Ian Bruce CBE, Baroness Ronny Van Dedem, Mr Bamber Gascoigne CBE, Sir Trevor McDonald OBE, The Lord Watson of Richmond CBE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Chairman Barry May Hon Secretary Anne Koutsabeloulis Hon Treasurer Andrew Coleman

Simon Clarkson, Andy Dowding (co-opted December 2020) , Ginny Curry, Louise Fluker, Neil Maybin , Stephen Speak , Nicky Wood

HONORARY REPORTING ACCOUNTANT

Marian Williams ( appointed January 2021 )

COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS

PLANNING

Louise Fluker Chair , Tony Hall, David Izett

LANDSCAPING & RIVERSIDE

Nicky Wood Chair, Frances Bouchier, Judy Gibbons, Julia Stead, Carol Ward

MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS

Simon Clarkson, Ginny Curry (Membership), Andy Dowding (Events Organiser), Olivia Kursar (Graphic Design), Neil Maybin (Webmaster), Paul Velluet (Walks Organiser), Shimei Zhou (Social Media )

INFRASTRUCTURE & AIR QUALITY

Stephen Speak, William Collis, Richard Pender

TOWN CENTRE Stephen Speak LICENSING Ginny Curry, Judith Pearson, Christine Houston

POLICE LIAISON

Barry May

RICHMOND HEATHROW CAMPAIGN

Neil Maybin, representatives from The Kew Society and Friends of Richmond Green, and co-opted experts

MEMBERSHIP or AFFILIATION of the SOCIETY to OTHER BODIES

Arts Richmond, Habitats & Heritage, The London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies

The Richmond Society also nominates a member to serve on

Old Deer Park Working Group, Petersham Meadows Advisory Group, Richmond Parish Lands Charity, South Richmond Police Liaison Group, Thames Landscape Strategy Community Advisory Group

REGISTERED OFFICE

The Bridge Workspace, 7b Parkshot, Richmond TW9 2RD

BANKERS

Lloyds Bank PLC, Business Banking BX1 1LT

Teachers Building Society, Allenview House, Hanham Road, Wimbourne BH21 1AG United Trust Bank, One Ropemaker Street, London EC2Y 9AW

WEBSITE

www.richmondsociety.org.uk

1

Barry May

CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT

A year of challenge and change

It has been another unusual and eventful year with many challenges faced by The Society’s Executive Committee of Trustees.

Despite further difficulties caused by COVID-19 restrictions, which gradually eased as the year progressed, campaigning and casework across the planning, infrastructure, landscape and riverside, licensing and police liaison areas of the Society’s interests continued uninterrupted. Details are provided by individual Trustees who lead the Society’s work in those areas in our annual review on pages 3 to 10 in this Report.

At the close of the year ended 30 September, the Society’s membership was 1,106. This was lower than the previous year but unsurprising given that our meetings were held online and member recruiting opportunities such as the May Fair were cancelled. We are now beginning to hold "in person" events again and we hope that member recruitment will pick up. Please encourage your friends and neighbours to join the Society if they are not already members.

The Society’s finances remain healthy, as Andrew Coleman , Hon Treasurer, reports elsewhere in this Report, which is compiled by Anne Koutsabeloulis , Hon Secretary, to whom thanks.

A new visual identity designed by Olivia Kursar , a professional designer who volunteered her services, under the guidance of Simon Clarkson , our Marketing & Communications Trustee, was unveiled at the 2020 AGM and was implemented on our quarterly Newsletter, website, monthly Bulletin and social media accounts. It was the first major update of the face the Society presents to the world since its founding in 1957.

Our social media activity continued to attract a growing virtual following. We are lucky to have Shimei Zhou , a social media specialist, to lead our programme.

In addition to the Society’s quarterly Newsletter for members, we continued to publish our digital news Bulletin which was sent to nearly six hundred subscribers at monthly intervals.

The Executive Committee reviewed the Society’s strategic objectives during the year and carried out some member research. This led to a Manifesto as a positive statement of what we wish to see for Richmond. We see this as helpful to changing the perception that amenity societies like ours talk only about what they do not want. The Manifesto was launched at our recent Annual Awards event.

We were delighted that Anita Anand , member, local author and increasingly busy broadcaster, accepted our invitation to become a Patron of the Society.

An interpretation board provided by the Society to mark the 800th anniversary of St Mary Magdalene Church in the heart of the town was unveiled in the church grounds by the Mayor of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Cllr Geoff Acton . It was the first such board to be produced by the Society since 2004.

At the end of the year under review, Neil Maybin , Trustee in charge of administration, website and Heathrow Airport issues, decided to retire from the Executive Committee in December. We are extremely grateful for his contribution to the Society's work in many roles over the course of three decades.

Simon Clarkson , Marketing & Communications, who first became a Trustee in August 2020, and Andy Dowding , Events, who became a Trustee in December 2020, are not standing for election at the forthcoming AGM. We thank them for their service and for the fresh approach and insights they brought to the Society.

I thank all my fellow Trustees for serving so willingly to ensure the Society was able to continue to run efficiently in pursuit of its charitable objectives.

The entire Executive Committee is grateful to members for their loyal support throughout the year and we look forward to meeting as many as possible in person in the year ahead.

2

ANNUAL REVIEW FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

The members of the Executive Committee, in their capacity as Trustees, present their report on the activities of the Society for the year ended 30 September 2021.

PLANNING

Louise Fluker

The Planning Committee ’ s main activity is to review planning applications and appeals in the Richmond part of the borough (the wards of North and South Richmond and the relevant part of Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside). Where appropriate we make submissions to the local authority. Our focus is on proposals visible from the public domain. Our objective is to ensure that that which is beautiful or special is conserved and that which is ugly or overbearing is opposed. This does not mean we oppose good or radical modern designs!

Members of the Committee were: Louise Fluker (Chair), Tony Hall and David Izett. We have continued to meet online during COVID-19 restrictions which continued to affect public planning processes which have now become virtual with Planning Committee meetings being held online at both the Borough and GLA.

COVID-19 has also reduced major activity in the Richmond part of the borough.

House of Fraser site

Canadian & Arcadia has been stripping out the interior after which it will need to set up a Community Liaison Working Group which it promised to do. The site remains key to the future of the town centre and currently there are rumours of a major high street store being interested.

George Street and Town Centre

The position has not improved since last year even if individual properties may have changed. The trend to change retail or office space to residential continues and there have been various applications to convert office space above shops to flats. The Society has no objection where the design is appropriate and sympathetic to the surroundings but we have opposed those which we think are overly dense, unsuitably designed or poorly planned in relation to neighbours. The Richmond Society with the Kew Society, local councillors and residents successfully opposed an application to build maisonettes above London House, an unoccupied office block by Manor Circus.

Homebase Site, Manor Road

The previous Secretary of State declined to call in the Mayor of London’s decision to approve the amended application. There have been suggestions that the Mayor is having second thoughts but it is not clear how this would be translated into action.

5G Telephone Masts and telephony

This continues to be contentious: the government wants greater connectivity including to trains. This requires masts and the telephone operators want tall ones which are unsightly especially in conservation areas. The Society continues to oppose tall masts, for example in the vicinity of the Old Deer Park (2018, 2020) and Richmond Council has so far consistently refused the applications. There is yet another application (October 2021) which we are opposing. We also successfully opposed an inappropriate plan to change equipment on top of the old telephone exchange in Sheen Road.

Interference with the landscape

The famous view from Richmond Hill over the Thames and the riverside are most vulnerable to destruction from tall buildings or development creep.

3

Proposed mixed use buildings up to 17 storeys on Canbury Car Park, Kingston

No further news about this application to which we objected as the top of the development will be visible from behind the Petersham Hotel on Richmond Hill when viewed from the Terrace Gardens.

Ham Polo Club

We opposed (along with the National Trust and many local residents) two applications by the Club to replace first an existing fence along the boundary by the side of Ham House with a two-metre high metal one and second the existing all-weather track. Both would have been visible from Richmond Hill and were wholly inappropriate and insensitive to the setting. The Council refused the fence application whilst the second was withdrawn.

Boathouse adjacent to Gaucho

The Society successfully objected to a proposal to replace the current building, which is close to the towpath, with a dwelling house.

Richmond Landing Stage

Gaucho agreed to use half the landing stage as a temporary restaurant during the summer months and successfully relied on extended permitted development rights so they did not need planning permission. This was a difficult issue because there were strong arguments in favour of allowing the experiment especially after the effects of COVID-19 on hospitality businesses. On balance, we thought that this would be an encroachment on the riverside and on Metropolitan Open Land and undesirable as a precedent.

There are other examples of visual pollution from huge advertising hoards or ones which are illuminated with LEDs. A proposal to put four advertising panels on Manor Circus was fortunately rejected.

Planning Changes

Another day and another Secretary of State arrives. The Government was due to present a Bill relating to its radical reform of the planning system. The proposals are deeply unpopular so we wait to see what the new SoS will do. Major reforms will stretch council planning departments which already are under pressure to carry out current statutory duties.

INFRASTRUCTURE & AIR QUALITY

Stephen Speak

The Society is a member of the Council’s Town Centre Working Group where plans and ideas are discussed and developed. Those meetings continued during the year although lockdown shifted them online.

Air quality

We met the Council’s air quality officers in June and learned that, although NO2 concentrations across the Borough reduced during 2020 (in line with a London-wide trend and partly due to lockdowns), they remained stubbornly above legal limits in Richmond Town Centre. Some of this breach can be attributed to diesel-powered buses and delivery vehicles and, with TfL’s bus fleet becoming Euro VI compliant from February 2021, officers anticipate improvements.

Tiny air-borne particulates thrown off from vehicle brakes and tyres may prove to be the more insidious threat and electric vehicles do not resolve this problem. The best solution is to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Whether that is achieved by stick or carrot, the demand for more active travel should follow (i.e. walking, cycling or using public transport).

Ten-minute neighbourhood

The Society’s trustees gave substantial thought across several strategy sessions to the principles underlying the tenminute neighbourhood idea and elements have been adopted into the Society’s Manifesto. We therefore want residents to enjoy good access to arts, culture, entertainment, hospitality, sport, leisure and social facilities without having to venture far from home.

4

Defibrillators

During the year we have invested substantial time seeking to secure more defibrillators in the town. An approach to the Community Heartbeat Trust put us in contact with a potential sponsor and we have been refining ideas with them over several months. Discussions are still ongoing at the time of writing.

Phone kiosks

The iconic K6 phone kiosks on Richmond Green are separately owned by the Council and by a resident and are crying out for a future use. In May the Society solicited suggestions from members and received a diverse range of opinions in response. We are working with Friends of Richmond Green (FoRG) to develop ideas with the kiosk owners (which may include a defibrillator).

We are acutely aware that other K6 kiosks outside St Matthias and at the top of Vineyard Passage are falling into disrepair and are keen to try and arrest this. We are developing ideas with FoRG and others for all the K6 kiosks around the town - perhaps to create a heritage trail that connects the kiosks and for each one to provide information about their immediate vicinity.

E-Scooter and E-Bike hire consultation

The Council elected to join TfL’s trial of E-Scooters and in April consulted residents living closest to the proposed parking locations. In our response we observed that the trial’s measures for success had not been defined and that several of the parking proposals were poorly located (most especially those adjacent to Richmond Green and Terrace Gardens). These were subsequently withdrawn.

We opposed the proposal for Clarence Street because it would mean losing one of only three parking places which are particularly valued by less mobile people attending Parkshot Medical Centre and the Orange Tree Theatre. Clarence Street is also one-way with a compulsory left turn onto the A316 and we were concerned that many scooter riders (who pay by the minute) would ignore the rules and put themselves and other road users in danger.

The Council, however, went ahead with their Clarence Street plan, although our suggestion that Richmond Green be completely “ geo-fenced” to prevent E-scooters from being ridden there was adopted.

Kew Road cycle lane

Under an Experimental Traffic Order the Council further extended the Kew Road cycle lane towards Richmond Circus by removing parking and banning loading along most of the rest of the road. Kew Road residents without off street parking are now required to park in the surrounding roads. Stopping to make home deliveries is problematical and often leads to drivers blocking the cycle lane. Coaches with passengers for Royal Botanic Gardens Kew must drop off and pick up their passengers at Elizabeth Gate off Kew Green. This is a good walk from the main visitor entrance and the education centre for school children which eats into their learning time. The residents of Kew Green and Kew Road now face multiple large vehicle movements each day because coaches are sent to wait in the Old Deer Park car park before being summoned back. Unfortunately, this does not always happen because coaches can be seen waiting in the residential side roads with greater frequency.

Ironically part of the Phase 2 plans required that the pre-existing cycle lanes on both sides of Kew Road from Lion Gate to Stanmore Road be removed and this has created a new concern for the safety of cyclists under the revised layout.

The scheme seems to have led to more cyclists passing through the area and more people can be seen walking to Kew Gardens from Richmond, but the Council’s consultation to gauge residents’ views about the arrangements is not expected until eighteen months have elapsed. In the interim, we are liaising with the Kew Society.

5

Bikehangars

In April we responded to the Council’s Phase 2 consultation in relation to their proposals to install four on-street lockable units managed by Cyclehoop around Richmond. Each unit can store six bicycles and uses a vehicle parking space.

Our response expressed general concerns about the utilitarian design and manufacture of the Cyclehoop units and asked if they could be “ mellowed” in conservation areas using planters, for example. We also raised specific concerns about the units proposed for Richmond Hill and King’s Road being positioned close to schools because parking a bike involves blocking the pavement for a short period and this could lead to children walking in the road. The Council did not accept these concerns and the King’s Road unit installed during September was fully utilised within a month.

The Royal Parks (TRP) Movement Strategy

We responded to TRP’s Movement Strategy feedback consultation to observe that the trial road closures in Richmond Park had made the overall environment more pleasant in the north and east. We reiterated our comments expressed in the first consultation (before the trial measures) that future changes should not restrict blue light vehicles responding to an emergency - most especially ambulances going to/from Kingston Hospital. We advocated against making permanent changes until a “ new normal” was established following lockdown and subsequently Royal Parks extended the trial for a further twelve months.

Fly parking in surrounding streets remains a concern that can be expected to get worse once TRP implements parking charges.

Streetlights

The Council has a multi-year programme to replace the oldest streetlight columns and all light heads across the borough with an LED version. Only the cool bright white colour (4000 Kelvin) is offered and the scheme has met opposition from some residents. The Society, together with FoRG and other residents, participated in a series of discussions with the Council regarding the proposed replacement of “ Revo” columns around Richmond Green with taller “ Oxford” heritage columns.

The Society originally came together in 1957 to resist Council plans for concrete lamp posts around the Green and secured the cast iron Revo columns instead. It was therefore with some sadness that we learned that the Revos had reached the end of their service life, with some disintegrating below ground. We agreed that replacing all the Revos with Oxfords at a uniform height would achieve better consistency across the Green and these works were completed in March.

LANDSCAPING AND RIVERSIDE

Nicky Wood

Committee Members: Frances Bouchier , Judy Gibbons , Julia Stead , Carol Ward , Nicky Wood (Chair)

The number of visitors to our Parks and Open Spaces continued at unprecedented levels during the year, as did the amount of rubbish left behind by those visitors.

The Council did eventually provide some temporary public toilets on the Green and the Riverside: we would have preferred the latter to be in Whittaker Square, and both to be open for longer hours. As in previous years we continued to:

• Report public realm problems including damaged street furniture, overflowing bins, unauthorised parking on the towpath, blocked drains and leaking water mains

• Lobby the Council for the provision of public toilets in the town centre

• Respond to Events Consultations regarding applications for licences to use Parks and Open Spaces

• Report dead, damaged or diseased trees, damage to planting and lawns, and anti-social behaviour in Parks and Open Spaces

6

• Liaise with Council Officers over plans for new tree & other plantings.

The Society contributed to the cost of Council replacement of the railings on The Terrace overlooking the view from Richmond Hill.

Nicky Wood represents the Society on the Thames Landscape Strategy Community Advisory Group and the Old Deer Park Working Group.

Judy Gibbons represents the Society on the Petersham Meadows Advisory Group.

HEATHROW Neil Maybin

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign (RHC) combines the people and resources of The Richmond Society with those of The Kew Society and Friends of Richmond Green to campaign to reduce the negative impacts of Heathrow Airport.

We recognise the reality of a two-runway Heathrow, but believe that it should be better rather than bigger. We oppose new runways at Heathrow, are against any dilution of runway alternation, and seek an end to night flights.

Our activities in 2020-21

The impact of the pandemic on aviation has delayed Heathrow’s expansion plans by several years, to the extent that the design point for future airspace discussions is no longer based on there being a third runway. However, in December 2020, the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal’s decision against Heathrow’s expansion proposals on the basis that in past decisions the Secretary of State had exercised his power of discretion lawfully. The project to build a third runway is therefore still on the table, if not as imminent as it was.

During the year, we have continued to seek a reduction in the impact of Heathrow on the environment - including climate change, aircraft noise, air pollution and surface access congestion - and to oppose an additional runway on economic and environmental grounds.

We submitted detailed and technical responses to seven consultations. Two of these responses were to the Civil Aviation Authority on the subject of the economic regulation of Heathrow. We also submitted two responses to the Department for Transport (DfT) on sustainable aviation and decarbonisation. And we responded to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee.

2021 saw the five-yearly consultation on night flights. The consultation was split into two stages. Stage 1 (this year) covered an interim proposal to maintain the existing night flight restrictions for Heathrow (and other airports) from 2022 to 2024 and to ban the noisiest aircraft in the night period; it also sought views on night flight policy beyond 2024. Stage 2 (next year) will propose the future night flight policy beyond 2024.

The RHC was disappointed in the DfT’s subsequent decision to impose a three-year rollover of current night flight restrictions while consulting on a two-year rollover, and at the DfT’s failure to provide evidence supporting the economic benefits and costs of night flights. We have yet to see a compelling justification for Heathrow’s deviation from World Health Organization guidelines on night noise. Our campaigning continues.

Nevertheless, the RHC is one of a few organisations - all others (airlines, airports etc) are far bigger than us - to have stayed the course in consultation responses, and the feedback we receive indicates that we do have some influence.

All our responses are available on the Richmond Heathrow Campaign’s website at https://richmondheathrowcampaign.org.

Our plans for the coming year

In July, RHC Chair Peter Willan presented to the Heathrow Community Noise Forum on managing aviation demand and emissions. While there is some acceptance that there may have to be carbon pricing for aviation in order to meet carbon emissions targets, a rigorous quantitative analysis shows that on its own, carbon pricing will be insufficient. Any realistic solution will also have to incorporate full and fair air passenger duties and an airport quota scheme. Heathrow is responsible for more than 55% of the UK’s aviation-related carbon emissions - more emissions than the

7

total emissions of many individual countries - and is clearly an airport that will be affected one way or another by these constraints. We plan to publicise these findings further.

2022 will also see the second stage of the night flights consultation, and we shall continue to press for the elimination of all flights before 6am together with an ultimate ban for the full period from 11pm to 7am.

In addition, we shall continue to engage on Heathrow expansion and also on airspace modernisation as we have for the past few years.

LICENSING

Ginny Curry

The Society is well aware of the possible negative impact of the evening (and increasingly daytime) economy on residents, and we continue to receive reports on anti-social behaviour and noise disruption both in the town environs and in open spaces such as The Green and the Terrace Gardens.

In the past the Society has sought a balanced evening economy but in recent months we have had to consider in more detail the effect of applications for licences in shops and restaurants who wish to operate both during the day and into the evenings. The pandemic has resulted in the closure of many premises, and we keep a weather eye on the reopening of venues as they come up. All applications for new licences or extensions of licensing hours are investigated and opposed if necessary. Often the applicant and those who are opposing the licence have a conversation prior to the hearing where problems can be significantly reduced, and conditions amended.

The form that the applicants have to fill in to apply for a licence is more complicated than it should be. The Council is updating the procedure and it is hoped that this will help the Licensing Committee, those who object to the applications and the applicants themselves to present their requirements and arguments in an easier to understand format.

I would like to record my thanks to Judith Pearson and Christine Houston who have joined me on the vertical learning curve of licensing applications in the last six months.

CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Barry May

Still no police station, and none likely

The Richmond Society and other groups of residents as well as individuals continued to urge the authorities to establish a permanent police base in Richmond instead of relying on officers stationed in Twickenham. Richmond has been without an establishment since December 2017 when the station at Sovereign Gate on the corner of Kew and Church Roads closed. The police response has not changed: There are no plans to re-open the former police station or build a new one. Compared with the rest of Greater London, Richmond is a low crime area.

The Society was represented at regular virtual meetings of South Richmond Police Liaison Group and Richmond Green Working Group.

The former has been established for some years as a forum for police, local authority, Neighbourhood Watch and other residents to share information of interest.

The latter was formed in the Summer of 2020 by concerned residents in response to incidents of crime, anti-social behaviour and disorder on the Green and Riverside during lockdown.

As COVID-19 restrictions have eased, so too has much of the trouble in those areas, which have seen a decline of highrisk incidents. Residents remain disturbed by drug dealing and taking, street drinkers, amplified music from cars, graffiti, and increased theft from motor vehicles.

This Summer problems migrated to The Terrace and Terrace Gardens which attracted growing numbers of teenagers, predominantly on Friday and Saturday evenings. Robberies, assaults, use of nitrous oxide canisters, drug-taking and underage drinking were issues. Elsewhere, late night/early morning noise from groups, litter and drug paraphernalia, criminal damage, and noise nuisance were among issues reported.

8

Simon Clarkson

MARKETING

The new visual identity for the Society, developed by Olivia Kursar and announced at the AGM in 2020, has since been implemented across our website, membership leaflets, annual awards, event banners, social media channels and stationery.

A programme of member research was initiated with the overarching objective to embed member feedback mechanisms to inform the Executive Committee in developing the Society, and a specific objective to explore ways to improve the experience for members, in order to ensure a sustainable and engaged member base in future. The first phase of research took the form of qualitative interviews which were rich with valuable feedback. One overriding theme was an openness among members to feeling more involved in the Society, and for many this research was a good example. A second overriding theme was the need for the Society to articulate a more explicit vision for the future of Richmond - “a view of what we stand for, not just what we stand against”. As a result of this feedback, the Executive Committee committed to developing the first manifesto for the Society, which was launched at the Awards on 14 October.

Human resource is a key limiting factor of our marketing effort, with only a single ongoing volunteer in Shimei Zhou (social media). The vacancy was identified for a voluntary marketing manager, experienced in developing and executing a marketing plan of online and offline marketing activities. The role was advertised thoroughly to our membership base, also to subscribers of our Bulletin, in social media, and with Richmond CVS. Applications have been in very small volumes and relevant experience has been scarce. The search continues.

On a very positive note, our social media channels, expertly managed by Shimei Zhou , continue to form the backbone of our marketing communications to the broader public. Shimei has successfully grown our reach on each platform. Our Twitter followers now number some 1,987 (+20% year-on-year), Instagram 1,506 (+50%) and Facebook is rapidly catching up with 758 followers, a growth of some 250% year-on-year.

EVENTS

Andy Dowding

Most of the year’s talks were held via Zoom. In October 2020 we hosted a Forum at which leading figures in business, the Council and the culture sector discussed how the arts could help to revive Richmond. It was moderated by Anne Sebba , local author, biographer and broadcaster.

The 2020 AGM was also held via Zoom, a first for the Society. Meeting virtually meant that regrettably there could be no Christmas Party.

Speakers during the year were Jason Debney , Co-ordinator, Thames Landscape Strategy, on rewilding Arcadia; Chief Superintendent Elisabeth Chapple on policing Richmond; Matthew Syed , author, broadcaster and columnist, on the use of diverse thinking to change the world; Sir Peter Hendy , Chair, Network Rail, on fifty years in public transport; Dominic Palacio of Richmond Rugby on changing lives through the power and influence of sport; Manoj Badale , entrepreneur, on how the business of sport - cricket in particular - is changing; Richard Deverell , Director, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, on a new strategy for Kew Gardens; and Tom Jarvis , Director of Parks, The Royal Parks, on ecological diversity.

Three Heritage Walks organised by Paul Velluet with Adam Harrison in the Summer were as popular as ever, though numbers were limited by the need for COVID-19 counter-measures.

This year’s Summer Party - later in the season than usual because of the vagaries of COVID-19 - was attended by one hundred and thirty members and guests on a sunny Sunday afternoon in September at Trumpeters’ House, courtesy of our Patron Baroness Ronny Van Dedem .

The introduction of the Eventbrite platform for events management has been overall positively received. A few members have had difficulty migrating to online bookings and further encouragement and support is required. The use of a promotion code to provide for free tickets to members and chargeable ones to guests has not been ideal but it works.

9

The use of the Richmond & Hillcroft Adult Community College for face-to-face events restarted. It is an excellent venue but there is a need to speed up video processing there.

It was decided not to try to run hybrid events as it is technically complicated. Recording events and publishing the video soon afterwards is a more manageable solution to bring content to members who are unable to attend in person.

Marketing and data collection are opportunities for the Society to develop its membership and understand more about members and what they want from the Society.

During events, payments from attendees have been facilitated using a credit/debit card reader.

MEMBERSHIP

Ginny Curry

Membership of the Society has decreased over the last year but remains at an encouraging level of 1,106. With the absence of member recruiting opportunities and against a background of unprecedented social disruption we were not surprised to see this. The continued effort by the Committee to keep in touch with the membership and the residents of Richmond via the Newsletters, the Chairman’s letters, the Bulletins and active social media accounts have kept us in the public eye. A small but steady flow of applications to join the Society has been the result. Meetings held using the Zoom facility have gone well with numbers of members in attendance. We welcome the opportunity to have in person meetings again and we hope that our membership numbers will pick up during the year ahead.

There is still a significant amount of work to be done to complete the payment of subscriptions at the new rate into the right bank account and we still have a considerable number of members who pay the wrong amount into the wrong bank account, but this is work in progress. We manage to claim Gift Aid on a large percentage of subscriptions, and we aim to increase this amount over the next twelve months.

VOLUNTEERS

Ginny Curry

Our excellent band of volunteers have had a quieter time of it - the Newsletter Stuffing and Delivery Teams have been significantly under-used as we have moved to delivery of the newsletter by email rather than hard copies through the door. We will continue to do this for the foreseeable future although any member who wishes to receive a hard copy in the post will be able to do so on request. Volunteers have stepped up to assist with the Summer Party and our Autumn meetings are now conducted at our usual venue at the RHACC.

I would like to pay particular thanks to the newsletter stuffing team of Susie Judge , Jane Parkinson , Patricia Urch , Heather Edgar , Vala West , Iain Mulligan , Cary Clark , and Jill Steed who have turned up every quarter to put around 900 newsletters plus inserts into envelopes. Patricia and Heather have been assisting for the past twenty years.

The newsletter delivery team - most ably organised by Judith Becker - have had a quiet time of it recently but deserve acknowledgement and thanks for their stalwart work in hand-delivering over 500 newsletters every quarter, in some cases for many years. They are Janet Young , Derek Robinson , Caroline Walker , Cathy Thomas , Mary Rose RivettCarnac , David Garcia , Rose Constantine , Bella Hobson , Alwyn Wales , Pat Maynard , Ann Twinn , Margaret Walsh , Hazel Dunlop , Jacyntha Crawley , Jan Watson , James Turtle , Peter Newall , Adam Harrison , Rebecca Phelps , Iain Mulligan , Cary Clark , Elizabeth Velluet , Fenella Warden , Maxine Samuels , Linda Duffield and Christine Baines .

I should also add thanks to Alan and Margaret Laird , Corale Canard , Barbara Benemar , Elizabeth Danckwerts , Diane Harvey and Jane Mills for their willing assistance in various roles at events - most recently the Summer Party and the Awards evening.

The Society is most grateful to all of you for your willing assistance over the years.

Shortly before this report was compiled Elizabeth Danckwerts kindly agreed to become our Volunteers Coordinator. We are extremely grateful to her for taking on this important role.

10

TRUSTEES’ REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

The members of the Executive Committee, in their capacity as Trustees, present their report, together with the financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2021.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE SOCIETY

The Richmond Society is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO – registered charity number 1169079) governed by a Constitution dated 7 September 2016, revised on 29 September 2020. It was set up to take forward the work of the Unincorporated Association, The Richmond Society (registered charity number 285805). To distinguish the CIO, we refer to this as “NewRic” and the previous charity as “OldRic” where necessary in this report.

The activities and net assets of “OldRic” were transferred to “NewRic” in various stages with effect from 1 October 2016. Any membership subscriptions, donations and other income received by “OldRic”, are remitted to “NewRic”.

CHARITABLE OBJECTIVES AND PUBLIC BENEFIT

The charitable objects of the Society may be summarised to:

• campaign to preserve and enhance Richmond’s historic character, unique features and amenities

• promote high standards in planning, building and landscaping in or affecting Richmond

• protect the quality of life, balancing the interests of residents, business and visitors

• encourage civic pride, an active interest in Richmond and its community, and to provide a focus for members to meet and socialise.

In carrying out its work to make Richmond a better place in which to live, work and visit, the Trustees confirm that they have complied with the duty to have due regard to the Charity Commission’s guidance on providing public benefit.

ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY

The review of the activities of the Society is set out on pages 3 to 10.

FINANCIAL REVIEW FOR THE YEAR

Income for the year was £11,225 and expenditure £11,867 so the charity reported a deficit for the year of £642 before a gain on revaluation of investments to market value at the year-end. The net resulting surplus of £1,445 after the revaluation gain was taken to reserves.

Membership subscriptions and donations income (received directly or transferred from OldRic) increased by 28.9%. Primarily this was due to the increase in subscription rates for the first time since 1999. Income from events and walks was up year on year by 60.7% attributable to a change in the mix of activities between the two years due primarily to the impact of COVID. Investment income was 34.7% lower than the previous year primarily due to the continued decline in interest rates. Our thanks are due to our loyal members who support the Society through subscriptions, donations and attendance at our events.

Expenses are up 28.7% year on year reflecting substantially higher expenditure on projects - completion of the information board at St Mary’s and a grant to LBRuT towards the replacement of the railings at the Terrace, Richmond Hill. Excluding expenditure on projects and landscaping, expenditure was down 18.8%:

• 11.9% lower expenditure on events and walks reflecting the change in the mix of activities referred to above.

• ● 42.5% lower expenditure on communications as a result of the continued transition to the Society’s newsletters being distributed via email rather than hard copy.

• 3.0% lower administration costs. This reflects the absence of a charge for depreciation of fixed assets this year, offset by greater use of bought-in services for storage etc.

11

Because the Society’s finances are partially reflected in these financial statements and partially reflected in the financial statements of the predecessor, unincorporated charity (“OldRic”), we have for information purposes again included a pro-forma statement of the combined finances of the two charities as a supplement to these financial statements on page 20.

RESERVES POLICY

For the Society to function successfully, it must maintain an adequate financial position with sufficient reserves to finance its operations. At the end of the financial year, the Society’s reserves comprised:

The general fund comprises reserves necessary to support the Society’s normal recurring activities. It is now equivalent to 15.64 months of budgeted annual expenditure (2020:8.2 months) as a result of the impact of the increase in membership subscription rates with effect from 1 October 2020, the first increase since 1999. The ratio is expected to decrease in future years. The designated fund represents reserves set aside to put up information boards at points of interest in the town. The information board at St Mary’s was completed and erected during the year. Further information boards are planned.

The legacy fund represents legacies received by the Society set aside for transformational projects that would otherwise be unaffordable. During the year the Society made a grant of £3,600 towards the cost of LBRuT’s project to replace the railings on The Terrace, Richmond Hill. The Landscaping Fund represents the unspent balance of monies raised specifically for landscaping projects.

The Trustees are satisfied that the Society’s financial reserves are sufficient for it to continue at its current level of activities.

RISK MANAGEMENT

The major risks to which the Society is exposed, as identified by the Trustees, have been reviewed during the year and the Trustees are satisfied that action has been taken where appropriate to manage those risks.

INDEPENDENT EXAMINER

Marian Williams took over as Independent Examiner of the Society’s finances during the year following the retirement of Noel Flannery .

STATEMENT OF THE TRUSTEES’ RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Charity law requires the Trustees to prepare financial statements for each financial reporting period which give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Society and of the income and expenditure for the period then ended. In preparing those financial statements, the Trustees are required to select suitable accounting policies and apply them consistently, make judgments and estimates that are reasonable and prudent, and prepare the financial statements on a going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the Society will continue in business. The Trustees have responsibility for maintaining proper accounting records that disclose with reasonable accuracy the financial position of the Society and enable it to ensure that the financial statements comply with charity regulations. The Trustees also have responsibility for safeguarding the assets of the Society and for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

By Order of the Trustees Anne Koutsabeloulis, Secretary

9 November 2021

12

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT EXAMINER TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE RICHMOND SOCIETY

I report on the financial statements of The Richmond Society (Charitable Incorporated Organisation, registration number 1169079) for the year ended 30 September 2021, which are set out on pages 14 to 19.

Respective responsibilities of Trustees and Examiner

The charity's Trustees are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements. The charity’s Trustees consider that an audit is not required for this financial period under section 144 of the Charities Act 2011 (the Charities Act) and that an independent examination is needed.

It is my responsibility to:

• examine the financial statements under section 145 of the Charities Act,

• to follow the procedures laid down in the general Directions given by the Charity Commission under section 145(5)(b) of the Charities Act, and

• to state whether particular matters have come to my attention.

Basis of Independent Examiner’s report

My examination was carried out in accordance with the general Directions given by the Charity Commission. An examination includes a review of the accounting records kept by the charity and a comparison of the financial statements presented with those records. It also includes consideration of any unusual items or disclosures in the financial statements, and seeking explanations from the trustees concerning any such matters. The procedures undertaken do not provide all the evidence that would be required in an audit and consequently no opinion is given as to whether the financial statements present a ‘true and fair view’ and the report is limited to those matters set out in the statement below.

Independent Examiner’s statement

In connection with my examination, no matter has come to my attention

1. which gives me reasonable cause to believe that, in any material respect, the requirements:

2. to keep accounting records in accordance with section 130 of the Charities Act; and

3. to prepare financial statements which accord with the accounting records and comply with the accounting requirements of the Charities Act

4. have not been met; or

5. to which, in my opinion, attention should be drawn in order to enable a proper understanding of the financial statements to be reached.

Marian Williams ACA Richmond 9 November 2021

13

The llchmond Society ststementof flnanclal actlvllle$ for the year ended 30 September ZOZI General L￿d$CapIng Funds Fund 2021 2020 Total Total Incoming resources Incomefrom donor1￿$ Subscriptions and donations Le8acies Transfer of net assets from 7.379 7.379 3.620 unincorpor3ted charity Incomefrom charitable artivities Events and walk5 Investmentincome Total incoming resources 186 186 2.306 2.536 669 455 2.991 669 1,861 1,024 455 Resources expended Expendlrure on thorftoble O￿VItIeS Projects 2nd 13ndsEapin8 Events 2nd walks Communications 5.649 3.145 1.305 1.681 11.780 5,649 3.145 1.305 1.768 11.867 1,563 3.568 2.270 1,823 9,224 Administration costs Total expenditure 87 87 Net Incomlngl(outgdngl res￿r¢e$ before Investment galnsl<losses) G3ins/lLossesl on investments Net incomingl{outgoin8l resources Transfers between funds Net movernent of funds the period li.oiol 2.087 1.077 368 16421 2.087 1.445 14131 546 368 133 1.077 368 1.445 133 Recon¢lllatlon of fvnds Opening fund balances Closlng fvnd balanee$ 66.674 2.517 69.191 67,746 The statement of financral xtivities includes all gains and losses iecoenised in the year. All income and expend iture derives from continuing ￿tIvitieS_ 14

Approved by the Trustees

on 9 November 2021

BJ May - Chairman

AM Coleman - Treasurer

15

The Richmond Society Notes to the financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2021

1. Accounting policies

The accounting period covered by these financial statements is for the year ended 30 September 2021. The comparative financial information is for the year ended 30 September 2020.

The principal accounting policies adopted, judgements and key sources of estimation uncertainty in the preparation of the financial statements are as follows:

a Basis of accounting

The accounts have been prepared in accordance with “Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of Recommended Practice applicable to charities preparing their accounts in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland (Charities SORP FRS 102)”, the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland (FRS 102), and the Charities Act 2011. The charity constitutes a public benefit entity as defined by FRS 102 and the trustees are satisfied that the financial statements should be prepared on a going concern basis.

Assets and liabilities are initially recognised at historical cost or transaction value unless otherwise stated in the relevant accounting policy notes. There are no assumptions about the future that the trustees have been required to make that have a significant risk of causing material adjustment to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next reporting period.

b Income and expenditure

Income is brought into the financial statements when received or when there is certainty of receipt. Expenditure is accounted for on an accruals basis. No provision is made for any tax on the charity’s net income as the charity is exempt from tax as all its income and expenditure relates to its charitable objectives.

c Fund accounting

The General Funds are unrestricted and can be used for any aspect of the Society's work. They comprise the General Fund and two designated funds, which the trustees have decided at their discretion to set aside to use for a specific purpose. The Landscaping & Tree Fund is for income received from members and other donors and is restricted to funding these activities.

d Subscriptions and donations

Subscriptions are recognised when received. The membership year runs from 1 October. Subscriptions received in the period from May to September are deemed to cover the period up to the end of the following subscription year and are treated as payments in advance. Life memberships are recognised in income on a straight-line basis over periods of 17 years.

Donations are recognised when received or when the charity is entitled to the amounts received. Subscriptions and donations include the recovery of Gift Aid where applicable.

e Services provided

The Society benefits from the provision, without charge, of a variety of skills and other services by its members. The benefit is not reflected in these financial statements since it is not regarded as practicable to estimate its monetary value.

f Stock

Stock of plaques and stock of drinks are stated at cost or realizable value if lower.

g Fixed assets – equipment

Tangible assets are stated at cost less depreciation. Depreciation is computed at rates calculated to spread the cost of the assets over their expected useful lives. The annual rate of depreciation is 25% on the cost of equipment.

h Fixed assets - investments

Investments are stated at market value.

16

The Richmond Society

Notes to the financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2021 (continued)

2. Transfer of assets from unincorporated charity

The net assets transferred from the unincorporated charity, The Richmond Society (charity registration number 285805) (“OldRic”) during the year amounted to £186 (prior year £2,306) comprising cash. With effect from 1[st] October 2020 any membership subscriptions received by OldRic are accounted for as income of NewRic as membership activities are conducted by NewRic.

3. Expenditure on charitable activities

The trustees believe that all the expenditure incurred relates to charitable activities. During the period:

• There were no employees.

• The trustees were not paid nor did they receive any benefits from employment or payment for any services rendered to the charity. The trustees did not receive any reimbursement of expenses other than for expenditure incurred as agent for the Society. There are no related party transactions that require disclosure.

• The trustees are covered by insurance that is part of the charity’s insurance policy and that part related to the cover for trustees cannot be separately identified. The total cost of the insurance policy was £385 (2020: £389).

• The independent examiner did not charge a fee for her services.

4. Fixed assets – equipment

5. Investments

17

The Richmond Society Notes to the financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2021 (continued)

6. Stock

7. Deferred subscription income

8. Reserves (a) General Funds comprise:

The general fund comprises reserves necessary to support the Society’s normal recurring activities. It is now equivalent to 15.64 months of budgeted annual expenditure (2020:8.2 months) as a result of the impact of the increase in membership subscription rates. The ratio is expected to decrease in future years.

The designated fund represents reserves set aside to put up information boards at points of interest in the town. The information board at St Mary’s was completed and erected during the year. Further information boards are planned.

The legacy fund represents legacies received by the Society set aside for transformational projects that would otherwise be unaffordable. During the year the Society made a grant of £3,600 towards the cost of LBRuT’s project to replace the railings on The Terrace, Richmond Hill.

18

The Richmond Society

Notes to the financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2021 (continued)

(b) Landscaping fund

The landscaping fund represents the unspent balance of monies raised specifically for landscaping projects. The movement on the Landscaping fund are fully disclosed in the Statement of Financial Activities.

(c) Overall adequacy of reserves

The trustees are satisfied that the Society’s financial reserves are sufficient for it to continue at its current level of activities.

9. Commitments

The Society had outstanding commitments of £2,800 at 30 September 2021 (2020: £4,349).

19

The Richmond Society Pro-fcyrna combined financial aatements of -OldRrf and"NewR for the financial year ended 30 September 202 1 Thi5 i5 rovidqt for inforMat￿n on d does not forni of the fornial financia statunents 2021 Totsl 2020 T(rta OkHc ststemert rf ffiwial ti¥i15 IrKiqnins leslu￿$ 5ubscTiPtKTrns and un restricted th)￿M)n5 Income from e¥￿ts and wak5 Investm￿t ino)me 7379 2991 669 IIM39 7.379 2.991 669 11.039 5.725 1861 1,159 8.745 Oitgcins re5w￿$ ProjLxts land5C4)ing Evwts ￿dwak5 Communication5 Administrats"on costs 5ffj49 3.145 1305 1,768 11867 5.649 3.145 1,305 1.768 11,867 1563 3A20 2270 1,971 9224 Net IrK(ThinyJl4xtyxnd res￿￿5 fixe irNernent Sqn5 Gans on investma)ts {8281 2￿87 1259 18281 2.087 1.259 14791 546 67 TransfEr of net assets from ohj to Ne￿iC Opening fund a(v￿f￿d I￿￿e5 11861 67,746 69.191 67.932 69.191 67065 67.932 Bal￿ sheet at ao Se￿ernI￿r 2021 F￿ed Equipment Inve5tma 15831 15031 15,831 15,831 13,506 13506 Cuffert assets 5to(k Cbt0￿ and prep￿rnents tkp051t ￿0)U nts Cash * bank and in h￿d 426 2,610 47A)19 8911 426 2,610 47.019 8,911 219 1,4Q3 51.923 7863 61,414 Cu rrent li&ilittie5fallingdue wtthin l ythr 1.656 2.6 N(t curra)t as5&s 57310 57.310 58814 Total assrt5 CUrr￿t lilrtie5 73.141 73,141 72320 Lthiliibe5 falling due morE th￿ I 39 3.950 4388 Net a5sets- d(vrufurnl Imlwres 69.191 69,191 67332 20