Opinion piece by guest writer Deon Lombard – a supporter of Richmond Council's plan to redevelop Twickenham Riverside

In December 2022 full planning permission was granted for a new riverside development that will provide a new heart and centre for Twickenham on the Thames. In 2018, following a 40 year hiatus, a thorough process was put in train by the then new administration. For the first time an independent body, the RIBA, was tasked with drawing up a detailed competition brief in response to input from local residents. Eleven resident stakeholder groups, including the Twickenham Riverside Trust (TRT,) participated in a briefing exercise from December 2018 to February 2019.

Further consultation followed with the appointment of a Design Panel, including a democratically elected representative from the stakeholder groups, working with the RIBA in refining the brief, setting up the competition and making recommendations as to the short-listed schemes for our Riverside. This well constructed competition deservedly attracted a high level of entries from 54 architectural firms of which 5 were short-listed. Following a public exhibition, the scheme by Hopkins Architects received overwhelming support from the public, and was endorsed by the resident stakeholder groups, including the TRT.

View along the riverside from the east

However, certain members of the TRT and their cohorts are now determined to oppose the Hopkins scheme. Their opportunity arose with the selection of new trustees at the end of 2020. Some of the trustees joined the trust with the clear intention of opposing the new scheme. Those who supported the proposal were eventually sidelined, the remaining two supporters resigning in early 2022. The position of the TRT had changed by 180 degrees, and they have mounted a campaign to stop the scheme being implemented.

A key principle encapsulated in the brief, the competition and the resultant scheme, is that a 'whole site' solution is necessary to maximise the potential of this beautiful riverside location. It is thus critical that disparate parts of the overall site be assimilated into a 'whole', including the area occupied by the Diamond Jubilee Gardens (DJG). Despite lengthy negotiations with the Council, the TRT have refused to allow this area to be included. The Council have thus resorted to a compulsory purchase order (CPO) for this land (ironically council owned) in order to bring about the scheme that most Twickenham residents' favour, and which has received full planning consent.

View looking up towards the new family cafe with the playground to the left

The CPO Hearing will take place at York House from 6th to 29th June. It will be conducted by the Planning Inspectorate acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Should the finding be in favour of the CPO, the scheme will proceed. If against, the scheme will be aborted – and the 40+ year hiatus will continue. This should simply not be allowed to happen.

The TRT have revamped their website and mounted a campaign in opposition to the new proposals. It can be seen at https://www.twickenhamriversidetrust.org.uk/riverside-development I belong to an informal group of Twickenham residents who support the Hopkins scheme, and thus the CPO to enable the approved scheme to be implemented. We would urge you to have a look at the claims made by the TRT with regards to the new proposals. They are eye-catching, selective and misleading - most notably for what is not said. For those who care about what will happen to our riverside, allow me to make some factual corrections, fill in the gaps and present an alternative view.

The 'Land Grab': This would not be 'grab' but an 'exchange' with the adjacent land offered being considerably larger and of no less quality than the current area. TRT's site covers 2,510 square metres, whereas the area being offered covers 3,811 square metres, an increase of over 50%.

The Public Open Space: This is described by the TRT as 'little more than spaces between buildings.'

View across the lower garden from the Water Lane side

In fact, this space forms the heart of the proposals, integrating the fragmented areas currently occupied by the DJG, the carpark and the redundant buildings, removing the many barriers in creating a large coherent fully accessible public open space with a strong relationship to the river and town centre, and accommodating a variety of uses as requested by Twickenham residents in their brief.

These include a town square/events space with tiered seating, a garden of gradually rising grassed and treed terraces with step-free pathways and seating, a mixed-use games area (including petanque courts and a chess table), a much larger children's play area (including a tree house), doubling the size of the existing from 187.5 to 377 square metres (safely separated from the service road by fencing, lawn, vegetation and trees), and a much larger family café overlooking the gardens rather than a carpark. The new public area, so much larger, greener, open and more accessible than the existing restricted, difficult to access DJG offers far greater amenity value for the residents of Twickenham and our many visitors, providing genuine improvements to our Riverside for future generations to enjoy.

The Flood Zone: Much is made of the fact that this riverside site will be subject to flooding. The Architects have worked very closely with the Environment Agency to ensure that the proposals are fit for purpose in response to climate change, working with nature to accommodate the reality of increased future flooding predictions. Provision is made for a once in a century flood, including a 35% allowance for climate change when the whole of the events area could potentially be flooded. The hard surfaced events area and beyond are designed to withstand flooding and to enable rapid clearing up of debris. It is only with spring tides that the lower part of the events space nearest the pedestrian bridge will have minor flooding (as is currently the case). As spring tides are predictable, taking place twice a month (and not only at weekends), this means that if planned around tidal timing, public events could take place on more than 26 weekends in a year – far more than have ever been achieved during the tenure of the TRT, and at a much larger scale if required. For the remainder of the time tidal flooding will not impact on the events space. Furthermore, smaller events such are currently hosted in the restricted DJG could still take place in the garden area above the events space.

Trees and Vegetation: A total of 72 trees or groups of trees have been identified on the development site and perimeter areas. 29 (40%) are sycamores that are largely self-seeded, some 80% of which are described as being of 'low vigour' and 'suppressed' with 'sparse canopies' by the arboriculturists, mainly due to being constricted within the concrete rubble on the site. The 9 pin oaks are also described as being of 'low vigour' and are dying back. Of the remaining 39 trees, 7 are listed as poor or dead and recommended for felling. The remaining 32 trees are classified as 'fair' to 'good'. Sadly 7 of these 'trees of value' will be removed to accommodate the new proposals. However, 12 will also be relocated. Thus, together with 35 selected new trees, a total of about 60 healthy 'trees of value' will be included on the site and its boundaries – almost double the current number. A wide variety of new tree species have been carefully selected to suit the different environmental conditions around the site, improving overall greening, amenity, ecological value and biodiversity net gain by 19% (exceeding the 10% requirement by the Council).

The Wharf Lane Building: This building is integral to the overall design of the site. It has not 'grown' in size or height since the Hopkins scheme was approved by the TRT and the other resident stakeholder groups in 2018. In fact, following further flood capacity requirements from the EA, the area occupied by the building has decreased in size. Its southern frontage has also been moved back from the riverside, thus also providing more riverside amenity access space for boating and other river activities. Calling it a 'high-rise building is a bit of a stretch. The favoured photo angle by the TRT shows only the highest part of the building taken from a low-level angle. The building is not a monolithic tower as the photograph implies, but should be viewed in context. The massing is broken into separate volumes that step down towards and complement the new public space, defining its western perimeter and ensuring that overshadowing is within acceptable limits, as confirmed by a detailed analysis; indeed, on hot summer afternoons the building together with the trees could provide welcome shade from the western sun. The choice of materials, detailing and openness of

the building at ground level provides an attractive human dimension and easy accessibility to the building. The Wharf Lane Building is of a scale, size and design quality befitting its location and importance as a stand-alone 'signifier' building that is integral to the urban quality of this scheme, and as a focus of our new riverside town centre.

The TRT Claim that £20m of public money will be used to fund the Wharf Lane Building. What they fail to mention is that the sale of the private apartments in the building will make a far greater financial contribution than that to the overall project, including the gardens and events space. The public realm generates no income to the Council. As the public realm is probably the largest cost in the scheme, the Wharf Lane building is subsidising the open space for the benefit of the public and residents of Twickenham. The Council is also obliged to meet its housing target by providing a mixed tenure of housing for the various residents of the borough, which the Wharf Lane building contributes towards, in addition to providing over 50% of much needed social housing on the site.

Unsurprisingly, the TRT also fail to mention the fact that a considerable amount of public money has been spent by the Council on the TRT directly as a result of their decision to change their mind and oppose the Hopkins scheme. The costs of the compulsory purchase order, the public hearing, legal fees on both sides and delays to implementing the scheme have and are incurring considerable costs. The public have the right to know what these costs are. This is money that could have contributed to this scheme.

A further example of these costs is what the Council was obliged to pay for a report by a firm of surveyors appointed by the TRT that they claim 'proves' that the current DJG are of a better quality than what is being proposed. Yet, despite the fact that public money was used, apparently on behalf of the public, the TRT refuse to place this report in the public domain. They also speak of 'award-winning' Gardens. It surely cannot refer to the plastic grass or the vegetation which is in such poor shape. Perhaps they could explain exactly what this over used term actually means as is not that obvious.

A crucial question is why the TRT have not submitted an alternative planning application that shows how they would better meet the objectives of the brief that was endorsed by them and all the resident stakeholder groups? Such a course of action would clearly meet one of their key objects which is "to preserve, protect and improve, for the benefit of the public, the riverside and its environs at Twickenham . . ." The key question Is whether the TRT there for the benefit of the public they claim to serve, or for a select few?

It is a complete nonsense to claim that the wide-ranging public amenities provided by the proposed scheme can be provided by retaining the DJG in their current form on this site. And if not in their current form, then why not fully integrate them into the scheme as is being proposed? The fact is that if the CPO fails, the planning consent will be worthless. The TRT and their cohorts will have succeeded in their quest to stop this development in the interests of a selfish minority. We will be back to square one, and will enter a fifth decade of hiatus on this site.

If like me you believe that we have a solution for our Riverside that has received planning consent, meets the requirements of the brief which reflects the requirements of a majority of residents, then please don't delay. Write a brief email in support of the CPO and thus the implementation of this excellent scheme to Joanna Vincent (Public Inquiry Manager) at [email protected]