It’s a simple question. If the answer is NO, you have just a few days to OBJECT to the Council’s planning application. The date of the planning committee meeting for the Council’s massively disappointing and unpopular Twickenham Riverside plans is expected to be on Wednesday 07 March. Yes, there’s only 12 days to go until D Day! You don’t need to submit a detailed objection, or one covering all aspects of the plans. Just submit a short simple objection focusing on the aspect(s) that concern you most. If possible use a quote or two from the TAAP, from the examples provided in previous petition updates. We’ve submitted a few detailed objections which you can see on our website at: http://parknotcarpark.wixsite.com/riversideparknotcars We’ve also submitted a list of all our amazing petition supporters (with no personal details) and a file with all your excellent comments. However, for your voice to be heard you also need to OBJECT to the planning application. You can do it online here. It really is pretty quick and simple. http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PlanData2/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=17/4213/FUL MYTHS, MYTHS and MORE MYTHS We’re particularly concerned about the number of myths being circulated by the Council and their small clique of EPI/DJG supporters. Here are just a few: • The scheme will be ‘Nil Net Cost’. Not true. This was what the Director of Environment, Paul Chadwick, told the Council’s Cabinet at two meetings last year. In other words, the profit from the development was expected to pay back the £6.8 million cost of purchasing the Santander block and car park. At last night’s Cabinet meeting he’d changed his tune. He 'stated that the scheme was EXPENSIVE for the Council'. At long last he admitted what we’ve known for a long time. It will cost approx. £15.9 million in total (minus any ‘developer profit’ the Council can recover by taking on this role, and the risk, itself). For this we get two ugly, overbearing blocks containing 39 flats, of which only 6 are ‘affordable’, and some retail units. We also get to keep all the riverfront parking plus 23 new parking spaces for owners of the new flats. The business users of the existing car park get no replacement spaces! Based on the Council’s past record of managing construction projects (eg the Russell School) we think it’s very unlikely a complex project like this will come in on budget. • The scheme provides a Town Square: Not true. As you can see from the Council’s own image above (we’ve added the outline of the usable space of the square), it provides a space smaller than the outline of 2 tennis courts, and is just 30% of the size of Richmond riverside’s Heron Square. It’s simple too small to host farmers’ markets or similar events (one of the key TAAP objectives). There’s no vehicle access for markets or events, the things you’d expect in a town square. The open public space will be fragmented by buildings rather than being unified. • The ‘Footprint of the Buildings has been Reduced’ in response to objections: Not true. The total footprint of the blocks is no smaller now than the last three proposals. The mass is greater, with 4 storeys overshadowing Water Lane. See our Building Footprint objection for details. • The Architecture reflects the riverside heritage of the site: Umm, hard to see, but, if anything, in height it’s more like London Docklands not the low-rise scale of the upper tidal Thames boatyards you see on Eel Pie Island or the buildings in nearby Church Street, Bell Lane and Water Lane. See our Architecture objections for details. • Water Lane, The Embankment and Wharf Lane are Vital to the Traffic Flow of Twickenham: Not true. Our Traffic Report disproves this and shows how the failure to keep open the service road behind King Street will increase traffic movements around the Embankment and is contrary to the Twickenham Area Action Plan. Pedestrianisation of the Embankment is the only way to significantly improve the Riverside and to attract residents and visitors to the town centre. This is a totally ridiculous claim by the Council. If it is so vital to the town centre traffic flow, why wasn't it included in the Highways Consultation in 2012-13. Why hasn't Phase 2 of this consultation for the Embankment, Water and Wharf Lanes been conducted as promised? • Parking Arrangements can be considered after the planning application to see if the parking can be reduced: Not true. Parking has to be considered as part of the scheme along with traffic movement. The opportunity to find creative solutions (e.g. undercover parking with access above the flood levels) is lost forever if these buildings go ahead. • The scheme Opens Up Views and Sightlines to the River: Not true. Sightlines from the top of Water Lane do not widen the vista of the river. The buildings replaced on King Street will dominate the river facing skyline. • River-Based Recreation is Encouraged by offering 'boathouses'. Umm, boathouses? Just a couple of metres deep, fronting parking spaces for some of the flats. Oh, so they are actually, ‘seasonal units'. We’ve no idea what these are either. Storage cupboards basically. • The Council Consulted and Listened: Well, it had a lot of events and surveys, but it tried to sell and persuade, not listen. It submitted its application documents the day after the final consultation closed, presumably produced without the 975 overwhelmingly negative consultation responses being taken into account. Why can’t we see the over 800 comments submitted to that consultation? See our Community Involvement objection for details. • The site can’t be Considered as a Whole because Royal Diamond Jubilee Gardens is tied down by a 125 year trust: Not true. Our dossier shows how this was set up and the legal ties that can be unlocked if the will is there and the Council appointed Twickenham Riverside Trust fulfils the obligation to promote the use of the riverside for public benefit. Please, please share this petition update with all your contacts and thanks again for your support. We really do appreciate it. The Twickenham Riverside Park Team