From: Judith Lovelace, Adam Brand, John Bell, Yvonne Hewett, Dan van der Vat, Angela Kidner.

To: The Editor, Twickenham Online

Dear Editor

POOLSITE REDEVELOPMENT- BENEFITS CLAIMED FOR THE PUBLIC

Sir David Williams has claimed benefits for the public to be gained from the proposed development of the Riverside site by Dawnay Day. We have been checking these against the planning application and have sought guidance from officers of the Council. Gillian Norton, the Chief Executive of the Council has made an additional claim. The claims, taken directly from Sir David's letter and our comments follow...

 

Sir David's
13 public benefits

Comment
1. Public use of the 25 metre swimming pool each day and at weekends Charges will be public swimming bath rates

Public benefit is a small fraction of cost of the Health & Fitness Centre

  • The pool is less than half the size of the pool which used to be on the site. It is shown as constant depth of over 2m, and is thus not suitable for children.
  • Hours of admission have not yet been agreed and cannot be guaranteed.
  • The rest of the club will not be open to the public
  • The Council will be paying an "opportunity cost" for use
2. A three screen Arts Cinema, one screen also having community arts use - with facilities to promote performance of the arts as well as cinema use

Minimal public benefit

  • It is being built underground to bring the height below the planning limit. This is a very costly exercise
  • No local arts group is claiming ownership
  • Programme of public events to become part of Council's existing Arts programme
  • An "opportunity cost" to be paid by Council for public use
  • Times of public use not specified.
  • Facilities for public arts use are two single toilets to be used as changing rooms and a small workshop which serves also as an access route to the toilet.
  • Cinema viewed by many independent experts as non-viable.
  • Despite Council's intent to place restrictions on the lease, it is likely to convert to a night club in near future. What better use for a hole in the ground?
3. A series of linked open spaces as "town squares" public open space, also available for external performances and markets such as the French centre and giving this part of Twickenham a distinctive feel.

River Use WP proposed this as a public benefit, and proposal gained widespread public support, but

  • These are mainly circulation space
  • The architects rejected the proposals for a piazza & town square within the development, preferring a balcony. This is not suitable for public events, and is likely to be colonised by cafes & bars.
  • Permission has been given for occasional markets on the Embankment, and these are taking place
4. Pedestrianising the road between the site and the river and providing disabled access, and improved signage.

How can the closure of a Public Highway be claimed as a public benefit to be credited to the adjacent development?

  • Architects claim piazza activities can be carried out on the closed Embankment. River Use WP conclude it is most unsuited for such activities.
  • It may not be possible to close the Embankment - it is vital for local businesses
5. 62 bicycle spaces in the development, and 32 more on the Embankment.
6. 19 replacement underground car parking spaces for those lost on the Embankment.

Factually incorrect

  • Secure undergroung parking is only for the new residents (1 per flat) & 19 businesses places lost to the private car park behind Abbey National
7. Constructing a mooring pontoon on the river bank by the site by agreement with the riverside community

This is not included in the proposal. It can not be classed as a benefit

  • Were it to be included in the proposal, the GLA could have called it in
  • The River Use WP was set up to review and make recommendations in respect of a pontoon
8. Environmental improvements and comprehensive landscaping for the whole area.

Not a benefit to be credited to the developer

  • It's long overdue but its dependent on "funds being identified" according to the application
  • River Use WP felt the proposals fell short of what is required
9. Council acquiring the freehold of the 20 per cent of the site not already owned.
  • Is this the private car park behind Abbey National?If so, the provision is to be made for the parking slots to be transferred to the secure under ground car park within the development subject to the terms of the 125-yr lease to the developer.
    Where's the benefit?
10. The Council keeping the freehold of the site in perpetuity
  • It already has it
11. Adding several million pounds of long-term value to the Council's property holdings
  • How?
  • A benefit to the public that may be realised in the year 2127 when the lease is up for renewal.
12. £750,000 surplus to be reinvested in Twickenham leisure projects.

A distinct, measurable benefit, but

  • Not commensurate with the scale of the development (£24m?).
  • "Up to £2m" was promised in Jan 2000. Where has the missing £1.25m gone?
13. New public toilets with disabled access
  • The existing spacious toilets are to be replaced with two automated thunderboxes, one of which is to be placed right on the edge of the river. Arguably a disbenefit
Additional from Gillian Norton (Chief Executive of the Council)Pedestrian link to King Street
  • When King St was owned by one developer and another was responsible for the pool site, there was a price to be paid to make the breakthrough. Now one developer, the breakthrough links two parts of his site.

Developer benefits more than the public.

 

Yours Sincerely

Judith Lovelace,(Twickenham Society) 30 Strawberry Hill Close,Twickenham, TW1 4PX
Adam Brand (York House Society)
John Bell (Friends of Twickenham Green),34, Albion Rd, TW2 6QT,
Yvonne Hewett, (Thames Eyot Residents), 32,Thames Eyot, Twickenham, TW1 4QL
Dan van der Vat,(Eel Pie Island Association) 8, Aquarius, Eel Pie Island, TW1 3EA
Angela Kidner (Richmond Environment Trust) 22, Riverdale Gardens, East Twickenham
TW1 2BZ

 

PRINT OUT THIS LETTER (pdf file 16k)