Twickenham Riverside FAQ

10.02.00am BST (GMT +0100) Wed 6th May 2009

• Video of the architect's 3D visualisation of proposed scheme: http://tinyurl.com/rb2h5u

1: WHAT'S happened? Cabinet decided its meeting on 27 April that the scheme submitted by Countryside Properties best met the Council's development brief and should be taken forward.

The three schemes submitted to the Council in response to its Invitation to Tender were considered by the Cabinet. A report to the meeting provided a detailed evaluation of the three schemes and, having considered it and received direct representations from 10 speakers, Cabinet decided that the scheme submitted by Countryside Properties best met the Council's development brief and should be taken forward. This is the culmination of the Twickenham Challenge initiated by the Conservatives in 2005 . The aim was to involve local people and organisations in better use of the Riverside site. The only modification by the Lib Dems was to decide that the enabling development should fund the provision of the shell of the building.

2: IS this decision legitimate?

• It was quite in order: the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), produced while the Tories were in office (2005), provided for the enhancement of the riverside, leisure use including public open space, housing (including affordable housing), possible retail and public toilets; therefore, the present proposals follow what they proposed. The Tories have argued that the UDP was drafted before 2002 by the former Lib Dem administration: however they had 3 years to change it before adoption and did nothing.

3: WHAT are the benefits to Twickenham?

• Our scheme will bring more people to the centre of Twickenham, and revitalise the area by providing an innovative building celebrating the River Thames. Twickenham needs regeneration, and never more so than in the current financial climate with businesses coming under great pressure; given the pressure on public finances, if this opportunity is lost, and there will be little prospect of development for years to come. This scheme represents a great opportunity to develop the site in line with our environmental objectives; visually it will screen off the ugly back side of the unattractive King Street buildings and provide a far more attractive setting for the public open space and the riverside.

4: THE site has historic leisure use. Why is the Council stealing leisure land for commercial development?

• Rubbish! J M Lee's 'The Making of Modern Twickenham' [Historical Publications, 2005; in the public library] describes [pp. 72-75] how the then Municipal Council came to buy Richmond House in 1922-4 'for the construction of public buildings' and to widen King Street for trolley buses. The front of the site was sold off for commercial development and the remnant lay unused until it was developed as a swimming pool in 1935.

5: WAS there a covenant on Richmond House requiring the site to be used for leisure purposes?

• No, there was no such covenant. It was a straightforward purchase for traffic improvement.

****************************************************

6: WHY assist the Environment Trust at all? This is not what the Twickenham Challenge envisaged.

• Without Council provision of the shell no development by a charity or voluntary local organisation would be feasible; fund raising would take years, and the site would lie unused. The Environment Trust was one of the three voluntary bodies that entered the Twickenham Challenge and was the only one to come up with a river related project. The other two schemes were for an activity centre for young people and for a martial arts centre.

In addition, the UDP envisaged housing on the Riverside; transferring the affordable housing contribution to other sites (the Friars Lane car park affordable housing contribution is also transferred elsewhere), means housing development is minimised, and the Council's financial returns are maximised.

7: CAN we believe the Environment Trust's business plans?

• The Trust is well advised; it has assembled a well qualified support team, led by Jenny Pearce and Sir David Attenborough. The business plan is still in draft form, and will be fleshed out further; plans of this nature are never wholly completed as they need to cater for changing circumstances.

8: WHY is the business plan confidential?

• Because it contains matters of commercial confidentiality. There is also evidence that the Tories have approached organisations named in the plan and tried to persuade them not to fund the river centre.

****************************************************

9: WHY is there no affordable housing on the site?

• Because providing affordable housing is at the expense of the developer, and in order to make a profit, more development would be needed, reducing the amount of public space available. The linked site policy has enabled the council to provide twice as much social housing from a range of sites as is required by planning policies.

10: THE site is large enough to qualify for the provision of affordable housing. Is it justifiable not to have affordable housing on site?

• Again the UDP, approved by the Tories, makes this possible; government planning rules allow, in exceptional cases, affordable housing contributions to come from other sites owned by the same developer. In this case the "Developer" is the Council, and the sites it is offering instead are sites which would have been too small to require affordable housing built on them. The Council is offering a collection of such sites exclusively for affordable housing which, in total, provides twice as much affordable housing as could have been provided on the Riverside.

11: WHY finance this through development? Why not pay for it from the large reserves inherited from the Tories?

• Because the reserves are all spoken for: we have a large school expansion programme [specially the primary school programme which the Tories refused to tackle] and we are rebuilding Teddington School. In any event, it is clear that the national financial situation will reduce the amount of money available to the Council.

****************************************************

12: WHY are the Lib Dems not listening to local residents and to the Richmond United Group [RUG] in particular?

• We have actually carried out a lot of consultation. The UDP, which is the basis of the Council's planning strategy, was consulted on widely as are all UDPs. Amenity Societies, interested parties, and individuals had an opportunity to comment and the plan was approved by the Government Inspector. Several public consultations, including the Twickenham Challenge, have taken place. The present schemes take full note of the need to replace the playground, the public toilets, café, and open space, as well as providing the River Centre, all matters raised in consultations.

13: WHY are local plans, such as those produced by RUG, not supported?

• Because: (1) they are at odds with the UDP, which is the Council's approved strategy, and (2) they are uncosted, unfunded, and would leave rate payers with an open ended commitment. Some local ideas could themselves be controversial, and could result in opposition from other local interests (e.g. the plan to site the Environment Trust on the Sculpture Garden). The RUG position is that they have promoted six widely differing schemes; they know they oppose our scheme but have not expressed a preference for any of the others. From their website they link to the Save our Riverside and Twickenham Riverside Terrace Groups.

14: IS it right for the Lib Dems to ignore the wishes of local people?

• The scheme is supported by the town's leading amenity society, the Twickenham Society, and the Town Centre Management Committee representing local businesses. The Society states:

' . . [At a meeting on March 25] following discussions, the members were asked to complete a questionnaire that would inform the Committee's report to the Council. Of the 28 valid forms received, 18 favoured development and 10 were against. Of those 10, none of the five who had joined the Society in the previous month commented on the qualitative issues such as the River Centre, the playground, parking, open space, and extra housing. Conclusions drawn from the results of the questionnaires are:

• A clear majority of Society members are in favour of development.

• Countryside is a clear favourite, with Quad second. Many people registered only a first choice.

• Members want to go ahead with the development and get on with it.

• Though there is apprehension about the effects of the credit crunch, there is a desire to continue

• The River Centre, the playground, and maintaining the proportion of open space are extremely important.'

15: WHY not allow a referendum on the subject?

• Because those in opposition are more likely to vote than the generality of residents, a referendum is not as "democratic" as it would seem. What would the question have been? Something at odds with the UDP which had already been consulted on and been approved? There has already been extensive consultation. The Councillors are the residents' elected representatives. They are acting in line with established policy - the UDP - and in what they believe is the wider interests of Twickenham. If residents are unhappy, they will no doubt make their views known through the ballot box.

****************************************************

16: WHAT is the Conservatives' attitude to the scheme?

• The Tories have repeatedly tried to delay the scheme; they have attacked the Environment Trust's business plans; and they have tried, and in part succeeded, to scare off possible developers and charitable funders by writing to them threatening to pull the plug on the project if they get into power in 2010. They attack the lack of guaranteed funding raised by the Environment Trust; many funders will not confirm support until planning permission is gained; the important point at the pre-planning application stage is to have spoken to funders and obtained support in principle. They have proposed an uncosted and unfunded scheme of their own.

****************************************************

17: WHAT planning policies apply to the site?

• The main one is the 'T1' policy, which s set out on page 10 of the Twickenham Riverside Development Brief, May 2008:

'Enhancement of riverside, leisure use including public open space, housing, cafes and possible retail, toilets available for public use; possible temporary uses including public open space.

Justification: The site is of importance to the future of Twickenham and any scheme should be compatible with the improvement of the wider area including the King Street frontage. Development should enhance the conservation area and Thames Policy Area by maintaining the scale and character of this part of the riverside, taking account of the vehicular and other access needs of river users, local residents and businesses and making a significant contribution to achieving the strategic policies of the Thames Landscape Strategy.

An objective should be to promote the use and enjoyment of the river and riverside through uses such as public open space, cafés and restaurants. It is envisaged that public open space would form an important element of the scheme. Housing provision should include a substantial element of small units and affordable housing. The service road to the rear of King Street should continue to be the primary vehicular access to the site and should continue to service premises in King Street. If practicable, the opportunity should be taken to make limited improvements to servicing these premises. Important trees should be retained. In the short term, pending a suitable and viable scheme, a mix of temporary uses, including public open spaces could be acceptable.'

Other policies which apply to the site: BLT 2 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas ; ENV 1 Metropolitan Open Land ; ENV 26 Thames Policy Area ; ENV 34 Protection of the Floodplain and Urban Washlands ; HSG 11 Residential Density and Mix ; HSG 6 Affordable Housing ; IMP 2 Mixed Uses; and TRN 1-4, 9 and 11 Transport Policies towards Development, Pedestrians and Cycling.

Twickenham Riverside FAQ

Related Links:

Related News Stories: