Approval was given for demolition of the old baths building at Twickenham Riverside by Richmond's Planning Committee on Thursday 31 July, and for proposals for a children's playground, landscaping and seating on part of the site.

Several local people, representing the major amenity groups in Twickenham, spoke against both aspects of the council's proposals for the short term on the key Thames side site. It is in a conservation area opposite Eel Pie Island and has a troubled history over more than 20 years, since the old baths were closed for good.

There was criticism of the proposal to demolish the building without anything in mind to replace it, and also criticism of a lack of vision for the whole site, with five-year plans for the playground and landscaping occupying only about a quarter of the area, and at the end furthest from the public focus near the slipway.

"The current application falls very short of sensible planning by leaving the greater amount of the site fenced off and not used for another five years," said local resident, Ken Elmes. "The application totally disregards the Government Office for London rules for demolition in a conversation area.

"Consent for demolition should not be given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans, and demolition should not take place unless plans for redevelopment have been made and planning permission for those works granted."

Martin Stearman, local resident and member of the Twickenham Riverside Terrace Group, which already has a permission for a community development using a substantial part of the current building and the whole site, called for more vision.

"Why do we have to wait five years for something to come out of the planning process?" he asked the committee. "I would like to see the scheme put forward by the Terrace Group and the site dealt with in a sensible and more complete way. Where is the Jubilee Gardens promised in the election pledges, with landscaping for the entire area? We are losing opportunities for community and leisure-related uses.

"You are going to blight the area for a further five years. There are no plans to clean up the service road as promised. This is a publicly open site and has been since 1924. Retain the useful parts of the buildings and get them put back into public and river-related uses."

This view was supported by Howard Vye, who also opposed demolition of the baths building which, he said, was a strong and useful structure. "I don't see that demolition of the buildings is particularly necessary to the proposal to increase open space on the riverside," he told the committee.

The staircase inside the old baths building, after 20 years of dereliction

"There is no detailed proposal for replacement and no real case has been made for its demolition other than it has sat empty for sometime. It is a building that is an asset to the council. It has much potential, it is a tough building, but it has sat there empty for 20 years. Temporary uses could be encouraged, it could be retained and refurbished to make use of resources. The council itself encourages reuse and recycling of buildings.

"There should be no demolition unless there is a comprehensive proposal for the whole site."

But there were few words of praise for the simple 1930s art deco building that once fronted Twickenham baths. English Heritage turned it down for listing and said it had little merit. Mr Vye, however, did not accept that view.

"Obviously the building is not of national significance," he said. "If it had continued in use as a pool, however, it would be part of the local scene and most probably a building of townscape merit. I can think of lots of ways in which it could become an attractive and useful building with simple modifications. It could achieve that kind of status. It's simply suffering from 20 years of dereliction. It has interesting 1930s features and it is not without merit. It has strength and character and it could be adapted in an imaginative way for new uses. Because there is no alternative proposal I see no reason why consent should be given for its demolition."

Other local people were disappointed too with the council's proposals for the site following demolition, and wanted to see a higher standard and quality for a scheme which, they felt, might well turn out to be for a term far longer than the stipulated short-term period of five years.

All those speaking at the committee were unhappy about development of the playground and landscaping area at the Wharf Lane end, when the public focus was at the Water Lane section of the site, close to the slipway, the island bridge and the bird-feeding. Local resident, Yvonne Hewett, was disappointed that so little of the site had been earmarked for use in the short term scheme.

"I was looking forward to the Jubilee Gardens, as were many others," she said. "High steel-mesh fencing around the play area and along the Thames frontage is quite out of keeping with the riverside. Railings would be far better, like those on the Eel Pie Island bridge.

"The plans before you tonight are barely adequate and they are not in line with public expectations. I would bin this scheme. It contributes nothing to the riverside." Ms Hewett called the 1.8m steel mesh fencing proposed around the play area reminiscent of Guantanamo Bay. On top of the embankment wall - which may require buttressing with the removal of the building behind it - the overall height of the fence will be 4.9m, or 16ft.

She also criticised the absence of public toilets in the area - a view supported by all those making submissions to the committee, who called for reinstatement of the toilet facilities recently closed by Richmond Council in an area that was planned to attract parents with young children.

The vandalised and derelict pool itself, behind the building that is to be demolished

River resident Bill Double also found fault with the placing of the public areas planned for the short term future of the site. "The landscaped areas are in the least interesting and most oppressive part of the site at Wharf Lane," he said. "That area should be used for housing or small commercial units. The Water Lane corner of the site must be secured in the best interest of the public, who want to see real commitment from the council in the short and long term."

Robin Walters said the plans were not worthy of an historic riverside site in a conservation area, even on a short term basis. Three benches and a wire fence presented a dismal scene, he said, and he too called for a scheme to deal with the site as a whole.

Some members of the planning committee agreed with the local petitioners on the provision of public toilets, though the planning officer, Roy Summers, said it would be unreasonable to expect them in this proposal.

He also refuted the case against demolition, saying that in cases where a conservation area could be said to be enhanced by removal of a building, demolition could be justified even though no firm plans were in place for a replacement.

Tom McKevitt, lead officer for the council on the old baths site, said that the proposal would bring a dramatic improvement to the conservation area. "We considered a wide range of options. It is only a year and a day since the council withdrew from the previous scheme with Dawnay Day," he said. "We considered the most sensible approach with costs for a short term scheme and concluded that the costs for a whole site redevelopment were prohibitive."

He added that alternatives, such as the Terrace Group's approved scheme, had not been found viable. The officers added that environmental considerations had been addressed. Assessments of wildlife on the site found no protected species and habitat loss would not be significant.

The short-term scheme for the old baths site was approved by a majority of the committee, in the event that Conservation Area Consent for demolition is ratified by the Government Office for London.

Friday, August 1, 2003