The body leading objections to the redevelopment of Twickenham Riverside has been hijacked by a small faction of residents with special interests, it has been claimed.

The Twickenham Riverside Trust is fighting the design of £45m scheme put forward by Richmond Borough Council to create a new heart for the town on the banks of the Thames at a public planning inquiry.

However, a former Trustee of the organisation told the inquiry – Wednesday - that the Trust is putting the interests of a small group of objectors ahead of the wider community.

Public open space at centre of development (Credit RBC)

The Riverside development will include two apartment blocks providing 45 homes, together with new public open space, a children's play area, riverside promenade, pub, café, shops and some offices.

Details of in-fighting at the Trust were revealed by Sam Kamleh-Capman, who resigned from the organisation in protest over the way it has approached the development.

She was speaking to a Planning Inquiry investigating a Compulsory Purchase Order for land on the site. The CPO relates to the Diamond Jubilee Gardens, which is controlled by the Trust.

Ms Kamleh-Chapman, who is an architect, said the Trust had effectively been swayed by a small group of residents who live on Eel Pie Island, who will lose parking under the scheme.

Such are her concerns that she argued the current Trustees are failing to properly fulfil their legal duties and she has asked the Charity Commission to investigate.

It has emerged that three former Trustees of the organisation have made submissions to the Planning inquiry backing the Riverside development.

Former Treasurer to Twickenham Riverside Trust, Sam Kamleh-Chapman, gives evidence.

Ms Kamleh-Chapman claimed that a small group of people have effectively weaponised a number of other local groups, including the Twickenham Society and the York House Society, to amplify objections.

And she supplied a document to the Inquiry identifying a few named individuals who have allegedly used their influence to fight the development.

She told the Inquiry: "There is a very small group of people that seems to be – in different organisations – that are leading this opposition to development and regeneration of the Riverside.

"So, they make it look like (there is) a wider objection."

In a written submission to the Inquiry, she said: "30% of the Trustees are, or were until recently, residents of Eel Pie

Island.

"There are over 62,000 residents in Twickenham, 120 of whom live on Eel Pie Island. This represents under 0.2% of the residents of Twickenham as a whole."

Under questioning from the Inquiry inspector, Peter Rose, Ms Kamleh-Chapman, agreed with his summary of her views, saying: "There is a wider public interest that you think should be considered, and that wider public interest is not consistent with what you are hearing from the Trust."

Ms Kamleh-Chapman told the inquiry, which is being held at the Council's York House offices, that a number of Trustees had resigned in protest and there were attempts to silence others.

She said that she 'genuinely does not believe' that the Trust is acting within its remit by opposing the scheme.

"I also think they are acting contrary to professional advice that was paid for by the Council," she said.

Trust is represented at Inquiry by Celia Holman

Ms Kamleh-Chapman said that lawyers advising the Trust had warned they were leaving themselves open to criticism – regardless of whether they supported or opposed the scheme - and that they had a duty to consider what was best for the public.

She also accused the Trust of sitting on a surveyor's report which makes clear than an alternative site offered to the organisation as public open space is not inferior to the existing Diamond Jubilee Gardens.

The Trust is being represented at the inquiry by its Secretary, Celia Holman, who is a resident of Eel Pie Island.

She rejected the allegations that the Trustees were not operating according to their remit and pointed the Inquiry chairman to a rebuttal statement made by the Trust.

This states: "The fact is that the substantial majority of the Trust did not share those views."

Specifically, it insisted the majority of the Trustees took the view that the alternative land they have been offered by the Council to replace the Diamond Jubilee Gardens 'was of reduced amenity value'.