|
Letter from Ron Chappell to Government Office
for London
23/6/03
Letter to Secretary of State
Government Office For London
Planning Casework N,S and W
9th Floor
Riverwalk House
157-161 Millbank London SW1 P 4RR
Dear Mr J Pierce
Twickenham Riverside Swimming Pool
Planning application 03/1142/CAC 03/1141/FUL
The Twickenham Riverside Terrace Group TRTG has already obtained
planning permission to utilise existing buildings on this riverside
conservation area site. Our scheme is for the whole site and involves
community use of the existing buildings after refurbishment, the
provision of a garden, cafés and restaurant facilities on
site, with river related uses to the ground floor of the existing
changing rooms. The first floor becomes a terrace overlooking the
river.
It is evident from the Report submitted to the Cabinet, Richmond
Council in February that expressions of support from local amenity
societies/individuals for reuse of the existing buildings and expressions
of interest from individuals willing to promote such schemes together
with objections to the Council's short term scheme appear to have
been carefully excised from the reported summaries of the letters
received by the Council from the public.
We assume the Council have made this Report (Cabinet 25/2/03) and
correspondence available to you but suffice to say that on the
strength of the Council's own environment, conservation and sustainability
policies the correspondence and the 3 sample letters listed below,
consideration should have been given to alternative use of the
existing buildings all in accordance with for instance UDP STG3.
The 3 example letters:
- Letter from Andreas O Sarhage:
This is an offer to develop the present buildings
3.2.21. The opposition to this is based on previous unspecified
advice that it is "virtually inconceivable that the existing
building would be retained in the context of a long term scheme".
It speaks of apparent public aspirations, the expressed view
of the administration to pursue a long term scheme. The thrust
of planning policies for the site. This is an offer for a long
term scheme which has been ignored and not investigated, which
complies with paragraphs 2.3 of the Report Principal Enabling
Uses for the long term scheme will be Residential, A3 (eg restaurant/cafe
uses) A1 Retail and 2.4 Further Features. Piazza and/or square
Other public Benefit within the scheme.
- Letter from the Strawberry Hill Residents' Association is self
explanatory. The summary 3.2.6 completely ignores the objections
to the short term scheme.
- Letter from Mr Vie Critical of the Council's short term scheme
and supportive of the TRTG scheme has not even merited a summary.
From the foregoing you will understand our concern that alternative
proposals using the whole site have not been properly considered.
The irony is that the Council has embarked on a competitive process
funded from the rates involving organisations needing to raise large
sums of money in competition with each other for the prize of public
asset on this site when there is ample accommodation for several
organisations in a refurbished building on site.
For the Council to spend £1/2 million to promote its own short term
option for 5 years with no guarantee for the future, the majority
of the site closed to the public with a security fence is a stopgap
measure and has nothing to do with public aspirations for the site.
The Council has appointed advisors and could spend up to another £1.4
million on preliminary work for the next 5 years to put in place
a developer on the apparent understanding that this will be funded
from the profit from the sale, fails to provide any benefit from
an existing site.for at least 5 Years, and has no guarantee then
of a successful outcome.
Conservation renovation, sustainability, ethical policies, environmentally
friendly are all phrases in the vocabulary of the Council ignored
when expedient. No consideration been taken of the huge cost of new
building on this site relative to the refurbishment cost of the existing
buildings.
Advising the present administration are the same advisors who co-operated
for years with the previous Council administration to promote the
massive development schemes with Council backing of Alsop Zogolovitch
and Dawnay Day. They have advised the Council on our proposals and
there appears to be a conflict of interest in the fact that they
are also responsible for the Councils short term scheme 03/1141/FUL.
We are currently seeking detailed planning permission which will
enable use of facilities such as a cafe and restaurant on site. The
use by the community of the open space and the use of the existing
refurbished buildings.
The possibility of renovation and use of the existing buildings has
not been considered in any report over the last two decades despite
the Council's own planning policies to encourage this. We therefore
ask that the Secretary of State requests Richmond Council to properly
address and independently report on the feasibility of a return to
public use of this existing Riverside amenity site together with
community use of its existing buildings and open space.
Yours sincerely
Ron Chappell
For and on behalf of the Twickenham Riverside Terrace Group.
^top
|