| From: Jack
Betteridge 4
November
2003 Dear Sir, The Council is sending out mixed signals with respect to its plans for Twickenham Riverside. The Council's current policy and plan of action for the Twickenham riverside has the support of many within the community. It is for a development that has lots of public open space, is relatively low scale, has a significant public asset, fully recognises that it is a riverside site and is fully in accord with the Thames Landscape Strategy. But, there are signs of an emerging developer-friendly riverside policy that is hostile to the Thames Landscape Strategy. The clearest evidence of this, is in the changes to the UDP that the Council propose. They want to delete important conditions that exist within the current UDP. Collectively, these deletions amount to a significant repudiation of the guidelines contained within the Inspectors report of the 1991Planning Inquiry. The most obvious potential beneficiaries are developers such as Dawnay Day and St George. The practical effect of the deletions proposed by the Council will be to weaken the existing planning guidelines so as to encourage a development in the Dawnay Day style. As part of the normal process of public consultation the proposals for modification to the UDP were sent to local amenity groups for comment. Their representatives examined these carefully. It was thought there was good agreement about the overall strategic intentions, which have, after all, been discussed on anon-going basis over the last 20 years. However, changes in detail were being proposed that caused concern. The local groups recommended that, as at present, the UDP should state that any development of the Twickenham pool site should:
In the past, our suggestions have been dealt with amicably by an officer of the Council, and a mutually acceptable outcome has been agreed. This time, there was no attempt to reach agreement. Instead, the matter was put directly to the Planning Inspector in charge of the UDP Inquiry. I and three other members of the public were subjected to four and a half hours non-stop hostile interrogation by a barrister instructed by and paid for by our cash-strapped Council. It is more usual on these occasions for the barrister to assist members of the public to present their case. The Council also put forward documentary evidence that contained serious misrepresentations and errors of fact. Their was very strong opposition to the idea that the Embankment should be used for river related activities to be actively enjoyed by the public; such as hiring a rowing boat for an hour or so. All of this was so out of line with the Council's strong support of the Thames Landscape Strategy, that it makes one wonder what is going on. This Council's stated policy is very much in accord with the existing UDP, and it has the widespread support of the public. So why change it? Why change it so as to encourage the sort of over-development that has been repeatedly repudiated by the Leader of the Council? Will the author of Arbour Lights, as he navigates his vessel through the treacherous waters of the Twickenham Reach, please tell us which tack he is on, port or starboard? Yours sincerely, Jack Betteridge
These letters pages provide a platform for all members of the community to express their views. Online Communities Ltd and its agents neither endorse nor condemn the views expressed on these letters pages. All correspondents must provide their name, address and contact information. You can respond to these points by clicking on ed@twickenham-online.co.uk. And dont forget to include your postal address.
|