RUSH, RUSH, RUSH The Council submitted their planning application for Twickenham Riverside (17/4213/FUL) just one day after publishing their less than favourable Autumn Consultation results. The application containing 68 documents (some very lengthy) and 44 images was validated in super quick time so that the Neighbour Consultation could be kicked off to coincide with the run up to the Christmas and New Year holiday period. You may well ask how they managed to produce so many documents in such a short period of time. Or maybe they were mostly completed before the results of the Autumn Consultation were known? Unlike other major planning applications submitted to the Council, that normally have an 8 week consultation period, our ‘listening’ Council has given us the bare statutory minimum of 21 days (including weekends and holidays). The Council also failed to put up on-site notices or to publish the planning application in the R&TTimes last week, thus giving residents even less response time. We think that this is nothing short of a disgrace for such an important and controversial application. So far, they‘ve given at least 6 different sets of dates and timescales for the consultation period and when representations can be accepted. We have asked the Council to clarify these. Ultimately, comments (Support, Observe or Object) to the planning application can be made until 2 days before the planning committee meeting is held to decide on the application. The Decision Due date given on the planning application is 07 March 2018. That is approximately when we expect the planning committee meeting to be held, but such dates tend to be indicative only. The Council are clearly rushing everything through planning in the minimum allowed time to try and get the application approved before the elections (because they may not be in power after the elections). The Council’s local election purdah period starts on 26 Mar 2018 after which the application can’t be heard. To be sure that your objections are included please submit them asap, either before or just after the holiday period (or both). The planning application is here: http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PlanData2/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=17/4213/FUL OBJECT, OBJECT, OBJECT We will be Objecting to the planning application both as an organisation and as individual residents. We obviously hope you will do likewise. We’d like to give you a few pointers on how to object to ensure that your Objections are as effective as possible: • You can Object multiple times, providing your objections cover different topics • Every member of your household can Object • If you belong to a Residents Association or Group or another Local Organisation they can Object separately. Group Objections will be given greater weight than individual objections • You can Object on-line or by email. On-line is simpler, but emailing Objections means that they will be better formatted and attachments can be submitted. Make sure you specify the planning app no. clearly, that you are Objecting, and give your name, address & postcode. Ideally do both. • If you are pushed for time to study all the documents and to complete a well researched Objection in the run up to Christmas, we suggest submitting a short initial Objection focused on just one aspect of the plans, followed up by a more comprehensive Objection after the holiday period. VALID REASONS FOR OBJECTIONS (aka Material Considerations) These are given in the images above. When you Object please state that you’re Objecting for on one or more of these reasons. We also strongly recommend taking a look at the key planning document for Twickenham Riverside called the TAAP (or Twickenham Area Action Plan). It’s a long document covering the whole town centre but is easy to read and you only need to look at p18-19 Vision, Objectives & Strategy, and p55-60 Riverside specific plans. There’s also Transport on p19-23. https://www.richmond.gov.uk/twickenham_area_action_plan Here are some examples from the TAAP, that you may wish to quote in your Objections: - ‘Improving the public realm and reducing the impact of traffic – creating an attractive and safe place which people will enjoy visiting’ - ‘Looking beyond retail to provide an extended range of activities to attract more people’ - 'To improve the pedestrian environment and reduce dominance of parked and moving traffic' - 'To improve the environment of the Embankment including reduction in car parking' - 'Rearrangement or possible reduction of on-street parking' in Water Lane - 'To enhance and extend Diamond Jubilee Gardens' - 'Design of new development to enhance the character of the conservation area' - ‘Any proposals will be required to meet key design principles to ensure they do not adversely impact on the character of the Riverside' Below are some of the potential AREAS FOR OBJECTIONS: • Lack of Public Amenity Space for events such as the farmers market or a seasonal ice rink • Increased Traffic and vehicle dominance on the Embankment due to closure of service road from Water Lane and increase car parking affecting pedestrian safety • The Steps from Embankment are on dangerous corner (junction of two roads and vehicle unloading area) • No Disabled Access alongside the steps to/from The Embankment. • Failure to remove/relocate parked vehicles from Water Lane or the Embankment (some of this parking IS included in the application). • This is purely a retail and residential development. Where are the other uses and/or attractions to draw people to the riverside? Lido? Riverside Park? Proper Boathouses? • Poor Architecture. Scale/massing of 4 storeys is inappropriate for Water Lane and the Embankment. • Poor Architecture. Utilitarian office block style is unsuitable and uncharacteristic of the Conservation Area and surroundings (Water Lane, Embankment and EPI). • Community Involvement – highly negative feedback from last two consultations has been ignored. The council have not listened to the majority of respondents. • Community Involvement – the council refuses to recognise the petitions from Twickenham Riverside Park and Twickenham Lido despite both of them having many times more supporters than any of the Council’s consultations have received. • Underground Car Park – why is this only used for new flat owners when public transport links are so good? Use it only to relocate parking from riverfront. • There are many more. VIABILITY The Council has at long last published viability details for their plan. The result is that their plans ARE NOT FINANCIALLY VIABLE. In fact, instead of being the ‘Nil Net Cost’ scheme that was promised to the Cabinet a few months ago, the Council have now written off their £6.84 million purchase of King Street as a loss, and despite cutting out developer costs will have to provide an additional unquantified subsidy on top of this huge loss. So, to conclude, the Council are now predicting a loss exceeding £7 million for a highly unpopular, poor quality plan. It’s hardly the Twickenham Rediscovered vision of opening up the Riverside that Lord True presented us with a few years ago. KEEP SHARING We will, of course, keep you updated with developments as they arise, but will try not to spoil your enjoyment of Christmas and the New Year in the way that the Council has cynically tried to. Please continue to Share our petition and encourage your contacts to enter their email so they can receive or updates.