|
Letter from Ron Chappell
9 May 2003
Mr R Summers
Planning Department,
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames,
Civic Centre 44 York Street
Twickenham TW1 3BZ
Dear Mr Summers
Twickenham Riverside Planning Application 03/1141/FUL
and 03/1142/CAC
Please record my objections to the above applications. as follows:
-
By failing to make use of an existing buildings these proposals miss
a major opportunity to bring life and river related uses back to
the site in the immediate future.
As the UDP T1 Planning document for this site states "to promote
the use and enjoyment of the River and riverside through uses such
as open space, cafes and restaurants."
Full information is not available for what is proposed to build on
the site after demolition. Information that is required for such
proposals in a Conservation Area.
The current proposals have a 5 year duration only and will then be
destroyed.The Council should state what their long term plans are.
The site before being closed was in public use and should be returned
to public use.
It is incomprehensible that consideration has not been given to conservation
and refurbishment of the existing buildings. In terms of environment,cost
and sustainability. It is a profligate Council that having land and
buildings empty can afford to demolish these rentable facilities,without
considering refurbishment, for the use of community organisations
seeking accommodation. One community organisation is accommodated
at present.
The "Challenge" has identified the need for accommodation.
There is available approximately 1000 square metres of usable floor
space in the building proposed for demolition. A River Centre, Swimming
School, Scout accommodation, Martial arts and Youth award schemes
could all be happily accommodated on this site at a fraction of any
new building cost.
The cost benefits of making use of substantial existing buildings
as an alternative to demolition and future new build has not been
explored. An offer of refurbishment and conversion to small unit
apartments has been ignored. The existing site is being fenced in
and the possibility of recreational use not explored. The closure
of the Richmond Ice Skating Rink resulted in a serious loss of recreational
amenity in the Borough, no consideration has been given to the possibility
with present day technology of incorporating such a seasonal open
air facility.
This land was bought for public use and enjoyment in 1924 over the
years parts have gradually been sold off for commercial and housing
development. It is understood that further development for housing,
limited public benefit, and disposal of the existing public toilets
is planned but no information has been published.
This application is for a disappointingly mundane short term scheme
a stated life of 5 years which only enables the public to access
1/4 of the site, leaving the remainder to continue decaying The front
area proposals result in a unsatisfactory litter prone planted border
with a path and 2 benches overlooking parked cars. Behind this will
be a graffiti vulnerable retaining wall. This limited proposal for
the site appears to be a stop gap to gain time for a more lucrative
development schemes.
This provision for temporary public amenity consists of 8 benches,
6 in a children's playground at higher level to the Wharf Lane side
of the site. A lot of effort and cost is being put into the new defences
to keep out the public from the rest of the site by means of high
security screens. No open space is provided free of planted borders
or play equipment where the public can enjoy the Riverside. There
is no cafe or restaurant facility to bring life back to the River
side. In terms of public benefit it amounts to a very expensive piece
of landscaping both in its Capital cost and maintenance. It does
not, given its short life amount to value for money.
No consideration has been given to the Environment Agencies requirement
to protect and conserve the natural features and character of the
area. To reduce the impact of the proposed demolition and landscaping
on the wildlife habitat. Bird and Bat nesting and roosting sites
will be disturbed and facilities for these need to be built into
the proposals.
An important aspect of the site is the profusion of wild rare species
of riverside plant life which merit conservation. There has been
no official ecological survey to establish the known presence of
protected species plants and wildlife. The community undertook such
a survey which has been ignored by the Council. The alternative proposals
which have already been approved facilitated the provision of a educational
Bio diversity Garden on site. No details are given of the tree protection
orders and the method of ensuring their protection from damage during
site works.
There is no Demolition method statement provided for the scheme.
Sensible safety questions of structural stability for the retaining
wall after building demolition have not been addressed.
Since this planning procedure is the only public consultation allowed
by the Council questions of cost and viability need to be raised.
At present it is costing £50,000 per annum to keep the site
closed There are additional maintenance costs estimated as £6000
to 7500 per annum with a capital cost of £480,000 making this
a very expensive children's play area. Total costs of up to £1
million over 5 years for an area of approximately 1000 sq metres,
leaving the remainder of the site unused.
A community based proposal to landscape the site and retain some
of the existing buildings for river related and community use has
already obtained planning approval and is in keeping with the site
UDP Proposals. As has been demonstrated elsewhere its cost £650,000
will provide renovation, community use and access to the whole site.
Providing Cafes and Restaurant facilities on an elevated terrace.
where the ground floor is available for community use. It indicated
that the existing buildings could be used with sensitive renovation
and make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation
area, in harmony with adjoining properties.
In conclusion this site has now been closed for 20 years, the Public
deserves a better proposal than this after this time. This application
provides no information on long term plans, is minimal in terms of
public use, lacking in proper consideration of alternative conservation
possibilities and whole site use, rushed, ill conceived, and lacking
in vision.
Yours sincerely
Ron Chappell C Eng.F.IStruct E.
Copy to GOL
Audit Office
^top
|