Twickenham Riverside consultation

This is the text of the report published on the LBRuT website on Friday January 29 and removed on the 30th. I have not reformatted it as it is for temporary use only and will be removed as soon as the official version is republished.

……………………………………………….

A New Town Square for Twickenham

January 2016

Report prepared by Snap Surveys

CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

1.

2.

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………. 4

  1. 1.1.  Background and objectives ………………………………………………………………… 4
  2. 1.2.  Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
  3. 1.3.  Analysis of results……………………………………………………………………………… 4

RESPONDENT PROFILE………………………………………………………………………… 6

  1. 2.1.  Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
  2. 2.2.  Gender ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
  3. 2.3.  Age …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
  4. 2.4.  Disability ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
  5. 2.5.  Ethnicity …………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
  6. 2.6.  Respondent relationship to consultation ……………………………………………….. 8

Create a new space for the community………………………………………………………. 9

  1. 3.1.  Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
  2. 3.2.  Positive comments about a new space for the community ………………………. 9
  3. 3.3.  Negative comments about a new space for the community …………………… 12

LINKING THE TOWN TO THE RIVER……………………………………………………… 16

  1. 4.1.  Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
  2. 4.2.  Positive comments about linking to the town to the river ……………………….. 16
  3. 4.3.  Negative comments about linking the town to the river …………………………. 19

LINKING TO THE DIAMOND JUBILEE GARDENS …………………………………… 23 5.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 5.2. Positive comments about linking to Diamond Jubilee Gardens ………………. 23 5.3. Negative comments about linking to Diamond Jubilee Gardens …………….. 26

Mix of space …………………………………………………………………………………………. 30 6.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 30 6.2. Positive comments about mix of space ………………………………………………. 30 6.3. Negative comments about mix of space……………………………………………… 33

MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ……………………………………. 36 7.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 36

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

  1. 7.2.  Positive comments about materials and architectural features……………….. 36
  2. 7.3.  Negative comments about materials and architectural features ……………… 39

ACCESS AND PARKING……………………………………………………………………….. 42

  1. 8.1.  Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
  2. 8.2.  Positive comments about access and parking……………………………………… 42
  3. 8.3.  Negative comments about access and parking ……………………………………. 45

ANY OTHER COMMENTS …………………………………………………………………….. 48

  1. 9.1.  Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
  2. 9.2.  Positive comments ………………………………………………………………………….. 48
  3. 9.3.  Negative comments…………………………………………………………………………. 50

1. INTRODUCTION

London Borough of Richmond commissioned Snap Surveys to conduct their ‘A New Town Square for Twickenham’ survey. This report contains the research findings.

Snap Surveys certify that this research was conducted in accordance with ISO 20252:2012 and ISO 9001:2008.

1.1. Background and objectives

The Council has purchased properties on King Street and Water Lane with the intention of demolishing run-down, dated buildings, an underused car park and old pool house to create a stunning community space and fulfil the vision of linking the town centre to the river and Diamond Jubilee Gardens. To deliver this the Council are working with one of the country’s top architects, Quinlan and Francis Terry, who are responsible for the famous riverfront in Richmond.

1.2. Methodology

The consultation was open from 9 November 2015 to 11 December 2015. The survey was available on the London Borough of Richmond website. Question and answer sessions with architects from Quinlan and Francis Terry were also held throughout the consultation period.

778 responses were received in total. The consultation was open to all who wished to take part – therefore we cannot be sure how representative the feedback is.

The principal contacts for the survey were Catherine Pierce at London Borough of Richmond and Margaret Reed at Snap Surveys.

1.3. Analysis of results

With the exception of the questions relating to respondent profile, all questions were open-ended. This means that it is not possible to categorically state proportions of people who are in favour or against the plans. There were no questions designed to measure support or opposition – all questions were designed to gauge people’s reactions to the ideas.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 4

In addition, respondents were not asked what aspects they liked or disliked, only their general views about individual elements of the proposals. We have coded these views into general themes and attempted to distinguish between negative comments and positive comments. We have charted these codes in the following report, however categorising comments in this way is subjective and open to interpretation. In order to give a flavour of the sorts of things people were saying and how mixed views were we have included free-text comments to give the results context.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 5

2. RESPONDENT PROFILE

2.1. Introduction

This section of the report profiles respondents. As mentioned in the introduction, this was an open consultation, and as such we do not know how representative the data is.

2.2. Gender

There was a fairly even split when looking at the profile of respondents by gender. 51% of respondents to this question were male and 49% were female.

Q10. Are you:

Male 51%

Female 49%

Base: All respondents (738)

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 6

2.3. Age

The age profile of the sample can be seen in the table below. As is often the case with consultations of this nature there was a lower response from younger age groups. It is important to bear in mind that very few people under the age of 35 took part in this survey, and therefore the views of younger people are under-represented.

Q11. What was your age last birthday?

Under 18 18-24

25-34 4% 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74

75+ 9% Base: All respondents (734)

17% 24%

23% 22%

2.4. Disability

4% of the respondents to this question considered themselves as having a disability.

Q12. Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

Yes 4%

No 96%

Base: All respondents (722)

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 7

2.5. Ethnicity

The vast majority of respondents to this question described themselves as White (95%), while 2% were from mixed/multiple ethnic groups, 1% Asian or Asian British and 2% from other ethnic groups.

Q13. How would you describe your ethnic group?

White Mixed/multiple ethnic groups Asian or Asian British Black/African/Caribbean/Black British Other ethnic group

Base: All respondents (706)

95%

2% 1%

2%

2.6. Respondent relationship to consultation

95% of respondents to this question said they live in the borough, 16% work or study in the borough and 3% are visitors to the borough.

Q8. In what capacity are you responding to this consultation?

Live in the borough

Work/study in the borough

Visitor to the borough

95%

16%

3%

Base: All respondents (764)

Other 2%

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 8

3. Create a new space for the community

3.1. Introduction

Respondents were reminded in the questionnaire that the proposal will create a new space for the community, which includes an amphitheatre, covered colonnade and public gardens. They were then asked how well they thought this met local people’s needs and aspirations for the area, including for activities based around the river.

Results were mixed. Not all respondents commented on how the plans meet local needs and aspirations – or about activities based around the river. For example, while some agreed that the plans would benefit the local community, others felt that the plans were a missed opportunity.

Similarly, some people felt that the plans would open up views of the river or improve access to it, while others said the new buildings would obscure views of the river or not improve access to it. And while some thought the plans for the amphitheatre were attractive, others were not so positive.

3.2. Positive comments about a new space for the community

We have charted the top 10 positive themes from 754 respondents below.

Q1. Local needs and aspirations (positive)

Meets the needs/ works well

Public gardens lovely

Amphitheatre

Open space

River

Architecture

Colonnade

Removal of parking spaces / new underground parking

Encourage walking, cycling and bus transport

Better shopping and quality of shops

93

26

23

20

16

13

13

35

49

3

We can see from the chart above, 93 of the comments were in support of the view that the plans would meet the needs of the local community. 49 People

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 9

made positive comments about the public gardens and 35 were positive about the amphitheatre.

We have selected a few of the positive comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Meets the needs / works well”

I think it will meet the aspirations of local people very well.
Overall this is a good proposal and to be encouraged – it is a disgrace that this area has been

left derelict and to decline for so very many years.
It will give Twickenham a heart which it currently lacks.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Public gardens”

The gardens however will likely attract a lot of people and works well. A public garden is a must for the river frontage
The public gardens do meet the needs of the community

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Amphitheatre’

I think it is a splendid addition to the area and be uplifting and inspiring. It will really open the riverside up to the high street and the amphitheatre will be a focus for Twickenham .

I love the idea of the amphitheatre and colonnade, I think that would be very popular. With some more green area, I imagine it working very well as a centre of our community with open air theatre and concerts, it would bring the whole Riverside walk a bit closer and more into focus.

I like the amphitheater on the river and the gardens

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 10

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Open space’

The new designs will meet peoples needs for an open square and somewhere to meet and relax

The design for the open space in front of jubilee gardens looks very good.

Based on the artists impressions of the proposed development it appears that real thought has gone into designing a new community space that focuses on the riverside in Twickenham. I imagine that if given the go ahead this space will become a focal point for community activities and community arts projects.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘River’

I really like the proposal, much better than could have hoped for. The design meets the needs by preserving the feel of the riverside as a peaceful haven, but provides more open space. I’m glad it doesn’t turn the riverside into a busy retail area like in Richmond or Kingston.

An improved riverside area with parking moved away from where it is now is an improvement.

I think it works. The river does need a bit more community around it so i think this would encourage it.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 11

3.3. Negative comments about a new space for the community

Not all respondents were in agreement that the proposal will meet local people’s needs and aspirations for the area, including for activities based around the river.

The chart below shows the top 10 negative coded themes, with 189 people making negative comments about the impact on the riverside or access to it, 174 people not feeling that the plans meet local people’s needs and 154 making negative comments about the plans for the amphitheatre. A further 142 people made negative comments about the design and 117 about the height of the proposed new buildings.

Q1. Local needs and aspirations (negative)

River

Does not meet needs

Amphitheatre

Architecture

Building height

Town square

Colonnade

Shops

Development

Open space

189

103

94

93

92

90

117

154

142

174

We have selected a few of the negative comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 12

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘River’

I don’t think that the proposal does anything meaningful to “open up” access to the river or re- connect the town to the Thames.

Not in the slightest – where is the direct sight of the river?

Additionally the council kept saying it wanted to open up the river view, whereas this is totally blocked by a new building. The river front building is lovely, but too grand for its surroundings, plus only provides a small terrace, which already there on the embankment?

Not well. It will not open the town to the river but will have the opposite effect

Great idea although still hard to see the river

It doesn’t meet the needs entirety as fundamentally the plan to open up the riverside and connect to the town has failed. People should be able to see the river and be drawn into the space from the Main Street

Badly because the building facing the river in scale and appearance is a completely inappropriate use of the land and contributes nothing to “activities around the river”.

There are no views of the river from the town centre, the proposal does not open up vistas – there is no’space’ – everything is enclosed until you get to the riverside

Does this plan really open up views to the river from the town? Feels like it is filling up space rather than opening new space up and bringing the river closer to the high street.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Does not meet needs’

It doesn’t meet people’s needs at all.

I don’t think it meets the needs at all. I am quite a positive person and the place does need an upgrade, however these plans leave me underwhelmed.

The widened embankment will be no substitute for a proper square off King St. We were told that this redevelopment would open up the town to the river and provide space for things like markets, the embankment ‘amphitheatre’ will not do; so no I do not think it will meet local peoples needs

Having a huge building on the riverside in no way meets local people’s needs or aspirations. It would be completely and utterly out of sync with the riverside area and must not go ahead. It is ridiculous that this design is being proposed by the council.

This meets virtually none of the public’s wishes for the area. It does not provide the promised town square on King Street, nor a square by the river. It does not open up the town to the river and cuts off the river related activities by putting a loading bay across the slipway which is used to launch many activities. It removes facilities needed by Eel Pie Island for its day to day running..

I don’t think this meets the needs of residents – it seems designed to provide the Council with tax income. Calling this a ‘community space’ is misleading when most of it is residential.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 13

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Amphitheatre’

The amphitheatre is a redundant folly

The ‘amphitheatre’ area looks very small. In what way would the community be able to ‘use’ this space? It doesn’t look big enough to house the Farmer’s Market for example or any events

I don’t recall anyone asking for an amphitheatre or covered colonnade full of retail units. I don’t believe this meets local people’s needs or aspirations for the area.

Why on earth would we either need or want an amphitheatre in Twickenham?

A public garden is a must for the river frontage, but the colonnades and amphitheater strike me as absurd pieces of poorly considered neoclassical whimsy that are totally inappropriate for the site and the local area.

An ‘amphitheatre’ or a few curved benches does not constitute a proper community facility. The design is crude pastiche.

I really don’t think Twickenham needs an amphitheatre as York House gardens seems perfectly adequate for open air theatre in the town.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Architecture’

Not very well at all – the whole building is horribly overblown and overbearing, and the provision of yet more retail space in Twickenham is hardly necessary.

Very badly. The architecture is derivative and out of scale, and of no relevance to anything existing in Twickenham, the arcade adds more shops and restaurants when existing ones need regeneration, and the colonnade will be a magnet for street drinkers.

More shops, more parking, more characterless public space? The architecture is regressive not progressive. We are not leaving in the Regency period. That period provided some remarkable architecture but this was a progressive architecture.

I think the intention to revitalise the area is excellent but the design is too grand and overbearing for the location. There will need to be controls to make sure of the right profile of shops.

Very badly. Horrible design, a pastiche of Richmond riverside. Blocks river view. All aspects poorly considered. A blot on Twickenham. Please reconsider all aspects.

Totally out of character with surroundings buildings. Regency style may have worked in Richmond but it doesn’t work ,on a smaller scale in Twickenham

The new space is ludicrously pretentious and out of keeping with the rest of Twickenham.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 14

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Building height’

The oversized building looks just a way of the council getting its money back (flats) from buying the previous building rather than doing anything to appropriately enhance the area?

The proposed development is too high and enclosed along side the embankment. The building is completely out of context and out of scale with its surroundings.

Also the building is far too imposing and completely out of keeping with the little cottages, Chorch Street, Barmy Arms etc of the current Riverside.

Due to the size of the building, it wouldn’t improve the view of the river from King Street, nor produce the open vistas down to the river from the town the consultation document suggests.

The proposed building with its size and height threatens to dominate Twickenham Riverside’s intimate and unique atmosphere, overshadowing Eel Pie bridge. Stylistically the building is beautiful but appears to be more suitable for a commercial riverside setting such as Kingston or Richmond.

It is a hugely intrusive building from the river side. Completely out of character.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 15

4. LINKING THE TOWN TO THE RIVER

4.1. Introduction

Respondents were reminded in the questionnaire that the proposal aims to link the town to the river, reflecting residents’ views in earlier consultations. They were then asked their views on how well this was achieved by the proposal which includes a colonnade through the development giving a view to the river from King Street and improved river access.

Again, proposals were mixed with some agreeing that the proposal meets these aims, and others saying that the proposal isn’t ‘what we asked for’ or doesn’t provide the link that it aims to. Many respondents commented on specific aspects of the design, in particular the colonnade, but again there was no overall theme in terms of overwhelming support or objection – just a broadly even split of views.

4.2. Positive comments about linking to the town to the river

We have charted the top 10 positive themes from 734 respondents below. We can see from the chart that of those who had positive comments to make about this aspect of the proposal, 63 were supportive in general terms, 34 were specifically positive about the colonnade and 32 made positive comments about the improved access. A further 26 mentioned the design favourably and 15 commented positively on the impact on the view.

Q2. The aim is to link the town to the river,how well do you think this is achieved by the proposal (positive)

Good idea / approve

Colonnade

Access/ link

Design

View

Arcade

Draw more visitors to the area

Pedestrian

Traffic

Negative

63

6

4

3

2

15

13

34

32

26

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 16

We have selected a few of the positive comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Good idea / approve”

I think it does it exceptionally well.
I think it does it as well as can be expected, given the limitations of the site. I believe the proposal meets these objectives.
A significant improvement
The proposals are generally an improvement with regards to this issue. This seems well conceived.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Colonnade”

I like the idea of the colonnade and this should be good for small shops The colonnade is a good idea to help link the town to the river

I think that the colonnade is an excellent solution to connecting the town centre to the river. It will create a beautiful focus to the centre of Twickenham.

The amphitheatre and colonnade looks beautiful.

Definitely improves on what is there now, a nice idea to have the colonnade linking King St through to the river.

The colonnade permitting the view is an interesting idea but could also provide a covered haven for less salubrious activities and be problematic both for the police and locals.

Colonnade and general idea is very good. No significant buildings are lost.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Access/ link”

It’s a first rate proposal. Architecturally tasteful, up market and opening up access to the river. 10/10

River access is great but why do we need a neo-classical way of doing it?

By providing easy pedestrian access to the river and a view from the main road I think these two areas of Twickenham will be much better connected.

I think that the proposal should achieve the idea of a view of the river from King Street, and it will definitely improve access to the river. Hopefully it will “pull” people down there.

Quite well. The road to the river is in need of improvement and the feeling of accessibility, as well as a reminder to locals how lovely it is down at the river, is much needed. There is an

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 17

opportunity to let the river be a part of this community, rather than secluded away from the busiest street in the town.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Design’

Reasonably well – it’s one of the more attractive ideas in the proposal.

This would work well and improve the aesthetics of this area

Definitely improves on what is there now, a nice idea to have the colonnade linking King St through to the river. Like the architecture in keeping with the Georgian buildings on Church St and around the older parts of Twickenham

The view from King Street looks OK and better proportioned than the 3 storeys building overlooking the river. A building of that design or similar could, indeed, enhance that corner of King Street as the main street of our town

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘View’

I think it will draw people down. A simple space would be too cavernous in that setting, but I do think it will draw people down to the river and provide more imposing views.

Agree with this. Currently, the riverside – Twickenham’s best feature – is hidden from view.. The river is very low so hard to see but this will be a great improvement
Reasonably well to provide view of river, which can already be seen from Water Lane

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 18

4.3. Negative comments about linking the town to the river

Not all respondents were in agreement that the proposal will link the town to the river. The chart below shows the top 10 negative coded themes, with 275 criticising the impact of the design on the view, and 227 questioning whether access would be improved or a link achieved.

191 respondents disliked the general design that is proposed with 167 people specifically criticising the proposed colonnade.

Q2. The aim is to link the town to the river,how well do you think this is achieved by the proposal (negative)

View

Access/ link

Design

Colonnade

Not what we asked for

Arcade

Traffic

Space

Negative

Housing

275

37

36

36

64

60

58

167

191

227

We have selected a few of the negative comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘View’

You will not see the river.

It hasn’t been achieved at all. You still can’t see the river!!!

It does not achieve this at all. What we want is an open and visible link, not tunnel vision

I highly doubt there will be a view from King Street, there won’t be a view of the river unless a much larger space with no buildings was made, with shops on either side.

The view to the river from King Street will be largely obscured by the colonnade and regency building.

A view through a “tunnel” is not what was expected, an open vista of the river was what residents would have expected

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 19

It fails significantly. The view will be no better than the present one. To create a view the design should follow the slope of the river bank and not have buildings in the centre.

How can they provide a proper view of the river? We already have a view of the river from Water Lane – Unless the buildings were made completely of glass on all sides I dont see how this new development will offer much more of a view.

Visual connection pie in the sky. River will not be visible through the tunnel of the arcade River across not improved due to service road and dangerous crossing outweighing elimination of traffic on riverside

River views blocked by an inappropriate pile of pastiche buildings that do not relate in any way to Twickenham, or to it its lovely, informal riverside setting..

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Access / link’

It does not provide the necessary link. If that was the aim then the proposal fails completely This proposal will make King Street feel more cut off from the river, not less.

The town has not really been linked to the river. The town has been linked to a big chunk of shops and expensive flats.

It doesn’t link the town to the river any more than Water Lane does now – in fact less so,

As mentioned I belive the proposal is poor in reflecting the vision of linking the river to the town. Much more could be made of this. The size, mass and footprint of the proposed development means that the opportunity to visually open up the river to the centre of town will be lost.

The aim is not achieved by the proposal. There is no improved river access, since the main road access by Water Lane is proposed to become a two-way road. It is dubious if it is wide enough for that purpose, so pedestrian use would have to be reduced.

The aim to link the town to the river is not enhanced by this proposal.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Design’

Not very well at all and the building is ugly – we don’t want Twickenham to look as ugly as Richmond does

The design of the colonnade is ostentatious and not in keeping with area.

This proposed development is overwhelmed by the pretentious and overpowering buildings.

It fails significantly. The view will be no better than the present one. To create a view the design should follow the slope of the river bank and not have buildings in the centre. Take a look at Kingston Riverside for how it fails to link to the town. One can stand in the Market Square and not know that the river is so close. This design will fail

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 20

Judged from the artistic impression of the Arcade and the View from King Street in the consultation documents, the proposed colonnade completely fails in its aim to link the town to the river visually. The possibility of even spotting the river at the end of the arcade looks remote! As stated under item 1 above, the main building proposed is too large, too grand and too tall for its surroundings

As indicated above, the design completely fails to meet the stated aim to “link the town to the river”. Water lane remains the narrow, unpossessing street it has always been.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Colonnade’

It does not. Colonnade looks very narrow and I would be surprised if a view was possible.

The colonnade through the development serves no purpose.

This appears to place a barrier between the town centre and the river. I use the town centre mostly at weekends, particularly sunday afternoons, and I can see that at that time of the week the colonnade would comprise wind-blown litter and skateboarders, neither of which is an attraction.

Not really. The colonnade is too narrow and tunnel like and appears most unlikely to provide a view through to the river. It should be significantly wider to provide a better pedestrian space.

A colonnade does not give free view to the river – in fact the size & position of the proposed building obscures both light & views

Could be more open. Colonnade looks narrow and dark. Natural light would improve it.

Poorly. The colonnade, within a bulky building widely misses a fantastic opportunity to widen the space from King Street to the river

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 21

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Not what we asked for’

How will this link to the river, the view will be blocked by 2 massive buildings? So therefore how is this reflecting residents views?

This does not reflect residents views as it fails to connect King street to the river except in a very minor way and provides no real view of the river as the best view will still be the limited view down Water lane which will be slightly reduced by the buildings not increased.

I don’t think this plan does reflect the residents views at all. Certainly not me and not any one of the fellow residents I have spoken with.

This proposal in no way reflects residents views. Where is the open view to the river and the town square we were promised? This is a rehash of what Twickenham residents fought over 30 years to avoid.

I don’t think it does take into consideration the residents consultation very well. The view from the high street does not open up onto the river. It is tunneled to the river and mostly blocked by the significant residential development. It is too much like the river front in Richmond. It looks good but it doesn’t really open up the river front. It is too high, the massing is too much

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 22

5. LINKING TO THE DIAMOND JUBILEE GARDENS

5.1. Introduction

Respondents were reminded in the questionnaire that the proposal links to the Diamond Jubilee Gardens, providing a restaurant/café, improving access to the gardens and opening up the riverside. They were then asked their views on this aspect of the proposal.

Results were very mixed – while many could see benefits, they also at the same time saw issues with this aspect of the proposal. Others questioned the need to create a link at all, while agreeing that it did improve access. Some respondents took the opportunity to comment on other aspects of the proposal, such as the design and look of the plans, as opposed to responding about the link.

5.2. Positive comments about linking to Diamond Jubilee Gardens

We have charted the top 10 positive themes from 734 respondents below. We can see from the chart that of those who had positive comments to make about this aspect of the proposal, 70 people recognised the value of the link and improved access, while 47 were favourable about the café and 44 mentioned the gardens in their response.

Q3. What are your views on the proposal to link to the Diamond Jubilee Gardens? (positive)

All ok/good

Improved access/ link

Cafe

Gardens

Opening up the riverside

Necessary/ essential/ supported

Will attract people/ events

Parking

Only good feature of the proposal/ like this part

More open space/ green space

85

30

23

18

14

10

47

44

42

70

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 23

We have selected a few of the positive comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘All OK/ Good”

I think it is a very good idea. It works well.
I like it very much.
No problem with this

This aspect of the proposal is good in my view. I think this sounds very effective

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Improved access/link”

Linking the gardens & opening up the riverside works well & is a key part of the proposal.

This is probably the best aspect of the proposal as it does provide additional access to the riverside. In particular, I am pleased to see the removal and the road and associated parking in what should be one of the prime spots for residents to enjoy.

A link between the areas is very necessary as is a place for visitors and residents to sit and enjoy a coffee and refreshment.

Access to the riverside is essential and a revenue stream is needed for the gardens so this important.

This works better than the connection to King Street. The proposal does link the two areas well.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Café’

I have lived in the area for just over a year and it has never occurred to me to visit the Jubilee gardens. If they were more open with good cafés I would be far more likely to spend time there.

Diamond Jubilee Gardens is a hidden gem in Twickenham. My kids love it and it’s a great, safe place for them to play. The café is also great and provides a valuable public service employing people with special needs. It’s also one of the few reasonably priced places to eat out during the day in Twickenham. I’d hope that these factors would be retained. A restaurant may encourage visitors but it would price out locals who visit the café throughout the year.

A restaurant and café would be lovely but access will be a problem. Yes the link access and café are along the right lines.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 24

The proposal of a restaurant/café/gardens are mostly very viable and could really add to the area if done in an unassuming way. Bigger, is not always better.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Gardens’

I like this a lot. Jubilee gardens are lovely but it is a shame they are bound on three sides by roads albeit quiet ones and expanding the space for pedestrians is good.

I think that these are good ideas. The riverside is a lovely spot to sit and have a coffee/lunch, presently at the Sunshine Café. If more facilities are offered, then I think this would be a welcome addition to Twickenham riverside. Also it is an excellent idea to have a more graduated walk/terrace gardens from the Diamond Jubilee Gardens down to the riverside. Some people are not aware, looking from the riverside, that the gardens are there up above the wall.

Again a good idea. Jubilee gardens is well used and will probably get more use by expanding the area and making it safer. The current road and parking by the river leads to some anxious moments if you have small children

The gardens are good and cafés/bars are good on the riverside

This i like. The gardens are underused because they are hidden.

The public garden section is good. Removing the car park to underground is good. If only there was enough space to have a French market overspill from Church St down toward the river.

The Diamond Jubilee Gardens is currently a well kept secret. One just drives past it! So opening it up would benefit everyone in the community to use it

The gardens should be on the riverside and café facilities would be welcome.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Opening up the riverside’

I support these proposals, particularly opening up the riverside by removing parking spaces. The scheme should allow the Diamond Jubilee Gardens to be refreshed with more imaginative planting, coordinated with the gardens along the riverside.- this is an opportunity to create really attractive garden schemes.

Opening up more of the river is great!
Opening up the area is the right idea.
I’m pleased that the riverside is being opened up
The main improvement seems to be the extension of the gardens towards the river.
It will be good to open up the riverside and improve access to Diamond Jubilee Gardens.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 25

5.3. Negative comments about linking to Diamond Jubilee Gardens

Not all respondents were in agreement that the proposal will improve access, and many respondents took the opportunity to use this part of the questionnaire to criticise other aspects of the proposal or the gardens. The chart below shows the top 10 negative coded themes

127 people took the opportunity to criticise the design of the plans, while 110 disagreed that the plans will improve access to Jubilee Gardens. 103 respondents were not convinced about the size of the development and 86 mentioned here that the planned café is not required. A further 86 people had negative comments to make about the plans to open up the riverside.

Q3. What are your views on the proposal to link to the Diamond Jubilee Gardens? (negative)

Dislike the design

Does not improve access/ link

Size of development

New cafe not required

Opening up the riverside

Will make no difference/ no improvement/ not necessary

Housing

Parking

More open space/ green space

View

127

36

30

28

27

48

86

86

110

103

We have selected a few of the negative comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Dislike the design’

The design has a large, ugly building that it is out of character with the surroundings in the way of the riverside.

Great aims not realised by terrible plans.
Unsympathetic / inappropriate design on this side too though.

My objection is to the design and size of the proposed buildings which would dominate not only the river but the gardens also.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 26

The proposed amphitheatre will not be much used and is just a device to justify the large riverside building and to embellish the already inappropriate building design.

It really doesn’t need such a huge development which dwarfs the whole area and is nowhere in keeping with what is already there.

The design looks incongruous alongside the gardens.

The only thing that lets it down is your proposal for a huge out of style building at the Water Lane end.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Does not improve access / link’

I do not see how access will be improved. One would still have to go up stairs as the levels are different.

I don’t see how adding more buildings improves links to the Gardens.

I don’t think this is achieved very well because the amphitheatre does not connect to the jubilee gardens. It is a small space, separated from both King Street and Jubilee gardens.

The link is neither direct, nor ideal. It’s not clear that there’s any direct link from the proposal to the higher, eastern portion of Diamond Jubilee Gardens. An opportunity likely to be missed. It appears that pedestrians will need to descend to the current embankment level, in order to climb to the gardens further to the west. Can they not be better integrated?

This proposal doesn’t seem to improve the access. A walk through a colonnade doesn’t open up the riverside in my view.

Access to the Jubilee Gardens is barely improved by the colonnade. The excessively high new building certainly does not open up the riverside.

The road behind the King Street shops is too narrow for access, and it can only be made better by taking out the row of trees.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 27

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Size of development’

The scale of the development is overpowering. At the very least it needs to be scaled down to two storeys along Water Lane and towards the river and Water Lane widened (scrap the ‘arcade’).

Building a 4 storey block on the edge of the Embankment will overshadow and close off views of the river. It is far too large and close to the river. As a minimum it must be reduced in height to a maximum of 3 storeys (1=carpark, 2=retail and 3=residential). It should also be reduced in width to open up the views and access from King Street.

I am afraid again I don’t like the amphitheatre which sits ill along the riverside completely dominating and detracting from the beauty of the river. I believe there must be ways of providing restaurants/cafés within a riverside and garden area without this type of structure. “Less is More”

The riverside could be opened up but unfortunately this overbearing over-development will close it down.

I agree that the development should link and enhance the gardens, but as proposed I do not think the development would do that. It is too big and would dwarf the rest of the area. The amphitheatre is too big. Twickenham (around the river) has a village feel and it would be a real shame to lose that.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘New café not required’

A restaurant/café already exists

We do not need any more restaurants or cafes. There is already one café on Twickenham riverside.

Another café?! We have tons already, often closing fairly quickly because there’s more than are needed.

The last thing Twickenham needs is more cafés/restaurants. You risk driving the current Sunshine Café out of business, which is a valuable social enterprise.

We already have a café/restaurant in the Diamond Jubilee Gardens and I can’t see how the new development would improve access to the Gardens.

It already has a café; how many more does Twickenham need to add to its enormous tally of eating facilities

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Opening up the riverside’

You keep talking about opening up the riverside, but actually you are closing it off even more than it is already?

You cannot “open up” the riverside with such a building, there’s not the room.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 28

I don’t think the riverside would be “opened up” by this proposal. The buildings are too tall and will dominate the riverside.

Not sure how open the riverside will be with big block of new flats.

Contrary to the question, Diamond Jubilee Gardens actually appears to be cut off from the site by the erection of the large shopping mall/residential block. In the same way it does not appear to open up the riverside

As noted above the proposal does not open up the riverside – in fact it significantly reduces the space that should be made available to residents by building two unnecessary and out of scale buildings on the site.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 29

6. Mix of space

6.1. Introduction

Respondents were asked how they felt about the mix of open space, shops, restaurants/cafes, space for creative and craft activities and residential provision that is being proposed.

Again, there was no overall theme to report in terms of support (or objections) to this aspect of the plans. A high proportion of those with positive things to say about this aspect of the proposal thought that the plans to create a mixed development were beneficial, while those with negative things to say about the mixed use of space tended to focus on particular aspects, such as whether shops or a cafe would be sustainable or required and residential provision was appropriate for the site.

6.2. Positive comments about mix of space

We have charted the top 10 positive themes from 730 respondents below. We can see that 93 of the comments were positive about the proposed mix in fairly general terms, while 12 people specifically mentioned the idea of introducing shops to the development as a good idea and 12 people were positive about the plans for residential provision.

Q4. Views on open space, shops, restaurants/cafes, space for creative/craft activities and residential provision to be delivered by the proposal? (positive)

Good idea / approve

Shops

Residential

Open space

Restaurants/ cafes

Other

Opportunity for talented people to display work

Leisure/sport option needed

Amphitheatre

Affordable housing

93

12

12

9

8

8

3

2

2

1

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 30

We have selected a few of the positive comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Good idea / approve”

Seems like a good balance

I am of the view that delivering a project like this will benefit the community and hopefully will be primarily funded by the private sector. Have mixed use space makes sense and ultimately the make up of businesses in the development are what will drive visitors to this area in Twickenham supporting local trade and jobs.

It is an improvement on what exists currently, and the mix seems to have been well thought out

in general like the mixed use.
there is a good balance between shops, restaurants and residential provision Not a bad mix, all things considered

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Shops’

This is a good idea, and I think you need some retail/creative space to bring life to the development (otherwise risk it would become a ghost area).

I welcome new shops to improve the shopping choices in Twickenham.
I think it is a sensible attempt to provide a good looking shopping area with open spaces. Opportunity to offer the residents boutique shopping

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Residential’

Approve- Jubilee Gardens is a large open space area, and much needed housing will be a boost for Twickenham

The residential aspect is obviously necessary to help to pay for all of this, let’s be realistic. However, I think that it is a good thing to have people living in the town centre.

I’m in favour of homes being incorporated into the mix. Good to have some residential

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 31

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Open space”

I think the open space is good but could do with being increased in the King Street area and the area around the amphitheatre looks like it could be far too large, I think this area should be used for something else.

There is the right amount of open space – too much would just be wasted – here in the centre of town, there should be amenities for people. We have space in Strawberry Hill, Crane Park, Marble Hill Park, etc., but here in the centre of town we want shops, offices, walks, playgrounds, areas for fairs and places to sit for picnics or building snowmen. The design encompasses all this, but also provides a modern slant on a classical design.

Yes, the mix of open space with some shops, restaurants and cafes is a good idea. My views on open spaces, shops, restaurants/cafes are positive.

.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Restaurants / cafes’

Restaurants and cafes with river views would also be very welcome and an asset to the town. A cafe/restaurant on the riverside would be wonderful.
we are becoming more of a cafe society so eating places and suchlike would be welcome.
A restaurant/cafe would certainly be an asset (as the present one indeed is).

I think having more cafes and restaurants with a riverside view would be nice especially in the summer evenings.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 32

6.3. Negative comments about mix of space

Not all respondents were in agreement that the proposal will provide a mix of open space, shops, restaurants / cafes, space for creative and craft activities and residential provision.

The chart below shows the top 10 negative coded themes. Predominantly the question the wisdom or demand for shops (210 respondents) and residential accommodation (191 responses) and restaurants/.cafes (103 comments). 164 people felt that there was not enough open space in the place.

Q4. Views on open space, shops, restaurants/cafes, space for creative/craft activities and residential provision to be delivered by the proposal? ( negative)

Shops

Residential

Open space needed

Restaurants/ cafes

Too high rise

Affordable housing

Other

Architecture

Profit driven

Parking

210

191

41

39

34

65

60

103

98

164

We have selected a few of the negative comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Shops’

We don’t need more shops or restaurants or cafes in Twickenham – there are too many already.

How many more coffee shops and restaurants does Twickenham need? New businesses come and go every six months and many retail units remain empty. The old DSS building redevelopment has not let a single unit since it ‘opened’ three years ago.

We do not need any more shops and restaurants / cafes – there are too many empty shops now, and far too many eating places. Regeneration of what is already here would be far better.

There is no need for more shops – there are many standing vacant or occupied by charity shops already.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 33

The mix is inappropriate. We don’t need shops or pricey residential properties and people did not seek such a development.

Doesn’t the town have enough cafes and shops? Would small independent businesss be able to afford the rents? If not we will end up with large chain shops – as has happened in Covent Garden.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Residential’

There is also plenty of residential provision on the table with the station development etc. No need for the shops or residential provision.

The Embankment does not need more residential provision, this is just a capital investment return concept.

Too much emphasis on residential provision and not enough on creative/craft space as well as care/retail. A leisure option is also needed: swimming/sailing/boating. A lido possibly?

Far too much residential provision – this is NOT something that came out of the public consultation but presumably only necessary to fund the inappropriate and excessive building the council have chosen!

Don’t need more flats. Plenty of new ones being built by the station (instead of a free school)

Residential provision on public land should be avoided. This has happened along the Richmond Riverside (Cambridge Gardens); the effect is ugly and over-bearing and provides exclusive accommodation for wealthy residents. Similarly the proposed Twickenham flats will do nothing to help with local housing shortages as they will be unaffordable to local people.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Open space needed’

Not enough open space.

There should be an area where there can be gatherings for entertainment but it needs to be more open. It should be able to incorporate a market or open air exhibitions.

Too much emphasis on residential. Not enough open space.
The mix of shops and restaurants is all right, but there is not enough open space.
More open space. Less building!!!
Far less open space than expected and less of a village feel that Twickenham should have. Too much emphasis on residential. Not enough open space.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘restaurants / cafes’

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 34

We don’t need more shops or restaurants or cafes in Twickenham – there are too many already.

How many more coffee shops and restaurants does Twickenham need? .
We do not need any more shops and restaurants / cafes – there are too many empty shops

now, and far too many eating places.

Twickenham needs more shops that are of a practical nature (butchers, bakers, greengrocers) not small gift shops which is all I suspect that will be attracted to rent the new shops. The town already has an abundance of cafes

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Too high rise’

From your sketches all you are aware of is the closterphobic environment that is being created by the overpowering buildings

The whole development is oversized and too bulky.
I think too heavy a lump of building
building too large and in appropriate to the surroundings
I think the open space will feel completely overshadowed by the building.

The proposed scheme is too big. Visually, the mass is too great. The over-large enabling residential element would mean pressure on local amenities and more demand for residential parking.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 35

7. MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES

7.1. Introduction

Respondents were reminded in the questionnaire that the proposed design gave details of materials and architectural features. They were then asked their views on these or any other aspects of the design.

Again, results were missed, with similar numbers of people disliking the design, as approving of it.

7.2. Positive comments about materials and architectural features

We have charted the top 10 positive themes from 717 responses below. We can see from the chart that of those who had positive comments to make about this aspect of the proposal 77 were generally positive about the proposed design, and 43 were comments offering support for the plans. 23 respondents specifically commented on the materials used in favourable terms.

Q5. Please give your views on any aspect of the proposed design. (positive)

Design

Good / in favour

Materials

Similar to Richmond

Space

No view

Amphitheatre

More emphasis on river

Architects

Should be modern/ creative

77

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

23

43

We have selected a few of the positive comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 36

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Design”

Nice looking but will look like Richmond riverside, but elegant .
I like the materials & architectural features – appreciate the attempt to match the local church

stone choice

The materials and design seems in keeping with the area but the scale of the building is not in proportion with the rest of the area.

I was surprised by the designs, in my view (esp based on station proposal) developers just want to put up the cheapest buildings they can. The designs are very distinctive but classically beautiful.

Traditional is a fair approach as we want something to stand the test of time and not date.

The period architectural style suits Twickenham and is on keeping with the area. I like what the same company built at Richmond riverside..

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Good / in favour”

No real complaints – everything is a matter of personal taste and what is currently fashionable.

I like it. I know there’s been lots of negative comment online but I think it will be a landmark building as was the ambition and could attract people to Twickenham.

These look good and seem to be more in keeping than the current buildings. I am broadly in agreement with these.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Materials”

Like the traditional materials and similarity to Richmond riverside and Poundbury in Dorchester

No objection to the materials.

The materials and design seems in keeping with the area but the scale of the building is not in proportion with the rest of the area

I think the materials look to be of high quality and very appropriate.

Given the success of Richmond riverside I think that the mix of materials works well and will raise the game.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Similar to Richmond’

This looks like a smaller version of the development at Richmond riverside,

Similar to the Richmond riverside developments style and use of materials, it will look great and well overdue

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 37

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Space’

There should be more open space and a proper, wide, view from King Street to the river. Conservative design but it will be a great social space

However I do appreciate the idea of a colonnade and all the open space in advance to the river.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 38

7.3. Negative comments about materials and architectural features

Not all respondents were in agreement with proposed materials and architectural features. The chart below shows the top 10 negative coded themes, with 352 people making criticism of the design in general, and 230 saying that the plans were out of character, and a further 96 saying that the design should be more modern. 214 respondents felt that the scale of the plans were simply too large, and 134 felt that the plans were too similar to those in Richmond.

Q5. Please give your views on any aspect of the proposed design. (negative)

Design

Out of character

Size

We are not Richmond

Should be modern/ creative

Materials

Not suitable

Architects

More emphasis on river

Amphitheatre

352

69

49

45

34

29

96

134

230

214

We have selected a sample of the negative comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Design’

Where in Twickenham is there any Georgian or Regency architecture (aside from Marble Hill, which surely is not appropriate for a busy city centre) ? The whole proposal looks like an 18th century water colour. Look, truthfully, I can understand the reticence of getting involved with modern architecture, most of it is unbelievably bland and self referential but there are good ones out there it is the council’s duty to understand that and participate with them. This is a chintzy building out of scale. At a certain level I can’t help feeling it’s such a lazy response.

The design is derivative – think Royal Crescent Bath / Burlington Arcade / Terry’s pastiche in Richmond. None have any place in Twickenham. The scale is completely out of place, and does not appear to reflect the variety of styles in Twickenham. It needs to be more vernacular, less grand.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 39

Again, I like many others find the style all wrong. It will look completely out of place and tower over the riverside. A much more open and simple space will create a more magical feel, which is what this entire operation should achieve

The architectural style is at odds with the architecture of Twickenham. It is too massive and rather hostile .

I really question the proposed design which I find to be totally incongruous with the surrounding buildings. There is no fit for a building like this in Twickenham. It looks false and contrived.

The proposal is too grand, monolithic and sterile looking. It is no where in keeping with the surrounding riverside architecture. Just take a look at George Street or the riverside properties and St Mary’s church. The small theatre, museum etc etc. This is what should reflected surely.

The buildings have the air of a mausoleum. Georgian architecture is not typical of this part of Twickenham and that if the architecture was to be pastiche, Victorian or Edwardian would have been more appropriate. It looks totally out of context with the adjacent buildings. Also, the similarity to the development in Richmond fails to give Twickenham its own distinct identity.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Out of character’

Twickenham has its own character and its a unique design, not just a curved version of what these architects did in Richmond. The proposed design is completely out of character with the surrounding buildings and bears no connection to anything else in Twickenham.

The design, materials and architectural features are completely out of keeping with the local area. It looks like a smaller scale version of Richmond Riverside. Completely lacking in imagination and boring.

The problem I have with these proposals is that they are completely overbearing for their location. This kind of architecture (arguably) works in Richmond where the river is wider and the location grander. Twickenham Riverside is much smaller with a completely different character. It has been poorly judged.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Size’

The main area seems to be very large – perhaps this is just the Artist’s view

The overall development looks too large, too high. Stylistically it’s a bit overblown and pompous and doesn’t feel like Twickenham to me

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 40

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘We are not Richmond’

Twickenham has its own character and its a unique design, not just a curved version of what these architects did in Richmond. The proposed design is completely out of character with the surrounding buildings and bears no connection to anything else in Twickenham

The design, materials and architectural features are completely out of keeping with the local area. It looks like a smaller scale version of Richmond Riverside. Completely lacking in imagination and boring.

I think this development does not fit in with Twickenham at all. It is fine in Richmond, but I think something much more modern and streamline would be suitable.

The height and positioning of the buildings is too dominant and does not respect the character of Twickenham. The proposal is an imitation of Richmond Riverside, which does not sit with the architecture of Twickenham

Twickenham is not Richmond. The design does not fit in with the area.

I do not like this style of architecture – we should be doing something more contemporary that compliments the existing architectural style of Twickenham. It just looks like the riverside development at Richmond.

From the riverside the apartments look awful. Please to not inflict this Richmond riverside style development on Twickenham

Awful. What is good for Richmond is not necessarily good for Twickenham. Residents should have been given alternative designs to consider

This is Twickenham, why don’t we do something original instead of trying to replicate Richmond?

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Should be modern / creative’

As I mentioned before, I would prefer a more modern but sympathetic approach:

Why can’t we have an inspiring piece of modern architecture to be proud of?

Why must the buildings be in a pastiche “Regency” style? A more modest two storey development in a contemporary style which reflects the surrounding buildings would be more appropriate.

Let’s have some good modern architecture. At least the abandoned river cwentre idea gave us that.

Regency has worked OK on Richmond riverside but it doesn’t work for me on Twickenham riverside. Would like to see something more contemporary.

The proposed design is a Regency pastiche. I would suggest a modern building would be more appropriate

Too old. More inspirational, daring and modern.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 41

8. ACCESS AND PARKING

8.1. Introduction

Respondents were asked their views on the proposed access and parking arrangements.

The provision of underground parking was perhaps the proposal that received the most support of all in the entire questionnaire and many were content with the proposed pedestrianisation. However, there were concerns on the impact on the traffic situation and also for those living on Eel Pie Island, and some felt that there should be more than the proposed number of parking spaces.

8.2. Positive comments about access and parking

We have charted the top 10 positive themes from 695 responses below. As mentioned, there were many residents who were positive about the plans for underground parking, with 69 people saying that it was a good idea. 64 people made general statements in support of the proposed changes to access and parking and 56 were pleased with the plans for pedestrianisation.

Q6. What are your views on the proposed access and parking arrangements? (positive)

Underground parking good idea

Fine / okay

Stop cars driving/parking at Riverside/ pedestrian only

Access and parking fine

Less parking needed / spaces

Should encourage cycling

Need more parking

Comments re. specific area

Provide a fully pedestrianised water frontage

Eel Pie islanders should be considered

69

64

13

10

5

4

4

4

3

56

We have selected a few of the positive comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 42

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Underground parking good idea”

It will make things busier at key clash point but underground parking is a good idea and is probably the only bit of the scheme that I see truly makes sense

The underground car park seems a good idea and I like the idea not to have traffic on the Riverside, makes it much more “person friendly”

Keeping the parking underground is good, however I feel there may be too much strain on Water Lane having an increase in traffic heading that way

I am in favour of the idea of underground parking. The road layout looks odd but I think it’s important to free up the riverside area from cars..

Underground parking good idea accepting all won’t be able to access by foot bike or train. Being disabled there is no obvious areas highlighting accessibility.

Underground parking is great. There should be minimal or no parking on the riverside, An underground car park beneath a genuine open “Town Square” is a sensible idea Fine – makes sense to have underground parking.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Fine / okay”

Fine
Adequate for the design
These are sensible
In principal ok
Satisfactory in view of the limited space These seem reasonable
These seem to be fine to me.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Pedestrianise”

Pedestrianizing the Riverside, i.e. car free is a good idea so long as parking re-provided for the Island, Water Lane etc – perhaps underground.

Pedestrianizing the riverside is good but there needs to be parking for Eel Pie residents so they can live their lives without being inconvenienced by any development . Residents of any new development should be denied rights to parking / permits

Pedestrianisation is a great idea but not at the cost of one of Twickenham’s treasured communities on Eel Pie Island. How will vehicular deliveries, drop off of the elderly and disabled be achieved with no vehicular access

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 43

I think not having cars along the river would be aesthetically pleasing. I never drive in to Twickenham so parking is not an issue for me.

Excellent to remove the car parking/road access by the river – this key to opening the space up

Pedestrianisation and open space are to be welcomed

Removing public parking on the embankment is welcomed. This should be a space for pedestrians and cyclists. Some of the proposed parking and delivery arrangements do not appear to work very well in terms of pedestrian/cycle access so should be changed.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Access and parking fine’

Access arrangements seem OK and underground parking a good option
Access and parking is fine
The access arrangements are fine, the loss of ground level parking to be regretted. Whatever you do the parking will be insufficient. The access seems sufficient. parking good, as we need to rid the riverside of cars

Access looks OK. Ideally there would be a larger underground car-park which together with residents spaces and Eel Pie island parking would provide more public parking in the town centre.

I feel they are adequate. My impression is that many will come to this facility on foot or bike, so the parking situation seems fine.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Less parking needed / spaces

The removal of most of the car parking next to the river is welcome, however, all car parking next to the river should be removed and re-provided elsewhere..

Fine and good to get rid of parking by the riverside.

I cannot see the lower part of Wharf Lane safely accommodating two way traffic – the present pavements cannot be made any narrower and what is to happen to cyclists? It would be good to see the car parking relegated away from the river edge – a prime location for people and not vehicles

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 44

8.3. Negative comments about access and parking

Not all respondents were in agreement with the proposed access and parking arrangements. The chart below shows the top 10 negative coded themes, with 113 people concerned about the possible impact on traffic and 108 people feeling that those living on Eel Pie Island need to be considered. 93 people felt that there would be insufficient provision of parking spaces under the proposed plans and 51 were concerned about possible floods particularly in relation to the underground car park.

Q6. What are your views on the proposed access and parking arrangements? (negative)

Traffic chaos/ access

Eel Pie islanders should be considered

Need more parking

Flooding

Discourage cycling

Underground parking disruptive

Comments re. specific area

Negative

Roads should be widened/ better visibility

Stop cars driving/parking at Riverside/ pedestrian only

113

108

93

51

33

33

25

21

20

16

We have selected a few of the negative comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Traffic chaos / access’

It will make things busier at key clash point

I think they will cause traffic chaos in Twickenham

Difficult to tell, but they will probably cause traffic chaos

I feel there may be too much strain on Water Lane having an increase in traffic heading that way

On the plus side, it is good to see that the madness of having the Embankment given over to parked cars will be remedied with an underground car park. However, the increased density and commercial use is likely to attract substantial traffic and deliveries into the zone.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 45

You have not yet got that most people pass through Twickenham and see it as a bottle neck that adds delay and frustration to their journey and thus their lives..

Deliveries to shops by large vehicles is likely to impede traffic on the slip way road. The loading bays for Eel Pie Island have been moved away from the island’s bridge to an area which floods regularly. I would be concerned especially given the additional up to 40 residential units that overall parking spaces for Eel Pie Island residents, businesses and visitors to the island and to shops, restaurants in Twickenham would be reduced.

allowing traffic to the bottom ends of wharfe lane & water lane. thy were cause huge jams/snarl ups other than a possible parking area for eel pie island residents keep traffic behind the new development as far as possible

The road in front of the Diamond Jubilee Gardens is an essential life line to the area and cutting it off is not an option.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Eel Pie islanders should be considered’

I don’t think the flats should get any parking- all parking needs to be allocated to the Eel pie residents as they are losing out and we don’t need another 40 people parking here. Ridiculous squeezing flats in here at all.

Access to Eel Pie Island is clearly totally inadequate. It is essential for the businesses on the Island to be able to receive deliveries. This aspect of the plans must be completely revised.

Personally the change to the parking arrangements will have little impact on me, however I feel it unfair on the residents of Eel Pie Island to largely remove their local parking potentially placing it underground.

It is all very well to say you will remove parking from the frontage – but it is essential that residents of Eel Pie Island are considered. They have already problems with deliveries and removals.

The residents of Eel Pie Island appear to be penalised by the reduction in parking provision. This acts against the sustainability of this element of the community.

Eel pie residents should have adequate parking. If they don’t it will mean parking congestion for the rest

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 46

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Need more parking’

This is not good. Parking spaces are being removed and 40 underground spaces provided – but also there will be 20-40 flats so the underground parking will be needed by the new residents. If you want to attract more visitors to Twickenham you need to provide more parking spaces

We need more parking, not less. Otherwise you won’t encourage more people to visit this ‘opened up’

Totally inadequate. It looks like 90 parking spaces will be removed and only 17 new spaces provided other than those in the underground car park which will be reserved for new residents, shop and cafe owners. Where will 70+ displaced cars go?

The significant loss of parking for local residents and businesses is totally unacceptable. Ill-thought out, totally inadequate, and misleadingly presented.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Flooding’

Inadequate flooding not accounted for.

An underground car park is hugely expensive and unnecessary. I understand a flood risk assessment is still to be carried out and likewise an environmental statement on removal of trees and other landscaping and the recently installed paving.

Some of the new spaces along The Embankment are within an area that floods probably once a week on average – they will never be used.

Let’s hope underground parking won’t flood or leak. .
Seems silly to put underground parking in an area subject to flooding

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Discourage cycling’

Access for cyclists and bike storage sounds quite vague in these plans and should be more prominent

Twickenham has a problem with too many cars and insufficient access to buses or safe cycling, and this scheme worsens that. Cycling provision is paid lip service to, but not included in any meaningful way; while the development features car parking unnecessarily. The provision of safe cycling spaces is a problem all over the borough (evidenced by the far smaller number of cyclists despite the large number of green spaces). But it is doubly important for a riverside development, given that hundreds of people would like to cycle by the river.

FIne, but we need more cycling lanes .

It seems overly oriented around people arriving by car. The development should be oriented around those arriving by foot and by bike. .

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 47

9. ANY OTHER COMMENTS

9.1. Introduction

Respondents were asked for any other comments about the proposals.

9.2. Positive comments

We have charted the top 10 positive themes from 658 responses below. 59 people made generally supportive comments about the proposal at this point in the questionnaire.

Q7. Please tell us if you have any other comments about the proposals: positive

Good ideas / in favour

Public space/facilities

Open up the view/space/access

Housing

Parking

Proper consultation/ listen to public

Design – ugly/brutal/bland

Negative

Architects

Better link to town/river

59

4

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

We have selected a few of the positive comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Good ideas / in favour”

This is a good step forward, with lots of positive aspects

Please ignore all the moaning minnies who will say it is ‘out of character’ by building this you will give Twickenham more character! I wish this was happening in Teddington!

I think this is a development that residents can be proud of. This feels like a once in a generation opportunity to reshape the riverside area and if we can deliver the plans then it will last a long time.

I like the basic scheme. Please persevere. Let’s start asap

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 48

I love the idea and think it’s just what we need. It will bring some atmosphere to the area and with some better shops it will also bring more revenue into the area. There are too many charity shops around and nothing apart from Church St that is nice to look at or venue to. Twickenham needs this

This is a very strong proposal that is in keeping with the place and history of the town. It finally makes Twickenham a place to be proud of instead of ashamed of its shabby town centre

The whole scheme is well thought out and complements the existing townscape.

This proposal seems likely to improve the riverside environment, but does little to open up the riverside from the town centre.

Overall, some good ideas, but the main building proposal is all wrong!

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Public space / facilities”

I agree that the space would well as a more open community space opening access to the rive, but this whopping column building goes directly against this proposal

Gardens – yes.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Open up the view / space / access”

I support the regeneration of Twickenham and opening up access to the river Overall, I support the opening of the riverside
Overall is good I think.

It would be lovely, for residents and visitors alike, to open up this part of the town and provide greater access to the river. Some aspects of this plan are quite positive in that regard

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Housing”

I support housing with an adequate amount of low cost provision

I think there is the need for more housing throughout the UK, but I would like to see this pay attention to more affordable housing/compact flats for younger people, and less parking spaces.

A selection of comments that were coded as ‘Parking”

Support the removal of car parking on the riverside Reduced riverside parking – yes

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 49

9.3. Negative comments

Various negative comments were also recorded, some of which picked up on themes already captured in the coding above (relating to the design, size or mix of use). However, 115 people mentioned the need for more consultation and to listen or respond to the views of the public.

Q7. Please tell us if you have any other comments about the proposals: negative

Proper consultation/ listen to public

Architects

Design – ugly/brutal/bland

Size

Want public space/facilities

Open up the view/space/access

Out of keeping/ inappropriate

Housing

Disappointed / against

Better link to town/river

115

96

90

86

82

70

69

61

52

43

We have selected a few of the negative comments to highlight the sorts of things that some people were writing in their response below to the top five themes.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Proper consultation / listen to public’

As a resident of Twickenham I am continually dismayed by the Councils disregard for the local residents opinions, we are only really consulted to rubber stamp the Councils view.

I have a weary sense of deja vu.

It would have been more sensible to let the public judge a range of possible designs from several architectural practices, rather than present us with a take-it-or-leave-it single proposal.

No resident wanted this horrible out of keeping build. How dare the council be spending out money trying to push this through. Also where are the other dieigns which we also paid for?

The Council should have listened properly to the people during the consultation process.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 50

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Architects’

I was not aware of the architectural competition and have not seen any of the other proposals. How much has the Council already paid by way of fees to consultants and the architects?

Who chose to use these architects? Was there a competition?

We need some other options from other architects. Perhaps 5 or 6 designs which could be voted on. Different styles. Mostly they should focus on the river and not on the actual building.

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Design’

I find the whole design totally inappropriate for the site and defeats the object of opening up the river.

It dominates the area with an inappropriate design.

This proposal should be scrapped before it goes any further. It is the wrong design in the wrong place.

I think the overall design of the proposal .should be simpler

Please do not go ahead with this design. I think it would look alien and ridiculous on the riverside.

It is too much for the site, the building is ugly for the riverside, and needs rethinking

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Size’

This is another project which is about vanity – out of proportion, with elements that are not needed

How can such an increase in scale and area of buildings all the way from King Street down to the embankment be anything other than gross over development.

Just that the building proposed is ugly and far, far too large
Totally out of scale in size and proportion
Overdevelopment of the riverside and sadly still no view of the river from King Street..

Selection of comments that were coded as ‘Want public space / facilities’

Not good use of community space

This is a valuable public space which should be preserved as such..not given up to a grandiose and heavily commercialised scheme which is likely to increase pressure on central Twickenham ,not reduce it.

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 51

This is space is a public space and should be to the benefit of the people of Twickenham. We don’t want more house development to pay for this. Increase the Council tax by 2-3% to reclaim money spent on this project and leave out the house and shop development. Where are the other proposals? Why are we only shown one version when we know there are other examples out there.

Has insufficient open space, particularly in Water Lane and King Street

Snap Surveys Report – LB Richmond (5130R-HW / V2) 52

• Webcast and Minutes of the Council debate on the barge house, November 25 2014

http://www.richmond.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/153502/start_time/7380000

Debate starts at 01:34.

From the Minutes:

55. Debate on Opposition Priority Business: “The Gloriana barge house project”.

“Cllr Knight introduced his call for a debate, saying that the matter was topical and had resulted in significant amounts of Council expenditure. He stated that the expenditure had taken place without consultation, debate, scrutiny, or announcement, adding that the Gloriana project had only became known to Cllrs on both sides of the chamber because the Leader had mentioned it during a dinner event.  The Leader of the Opposition felt that the project had been pursued in secrecy without any desire for openness or accountability, particularly at the ballot box, as emphasised by a lack of published decisions and public awareness until after the election.  Cllr Knight said that the breakdown of costs that had been provided did not take account of the time Council officers had spent on the project.  He concluded by saying that he hoped the Leader would apologise and offer reassurances that there would not be any future abuse of process.

Cllr Fleming said that she felt the opposition were “miserable” and against any improvements being made in Twickenham.  She said it would have been an honour for the borough to host the work of a local master boat builder and that it would be of great benefit to local people.  She accused the opposition of lauding misinformation which scuppered any chance of the project coming to fruition.  Cllr Fleming felt that a majority of local people wanted the Gloriana to be housed locally.

Cllr Ehmann stated that Lord True had had over a year to prepare for a debate on Gloriana, but instead worked in secrecy.  Cllr Ehmann noted the results of the consultation which showed that around 8/10 people were against the Gloriana being housed on the Orleans Park riverside.  He accused the administration of being “covert”, with the Leader having made plans prior to the election, but choosing to keep any knowledge of them away from the public and the Conservative Group.

Cllr Samuel said that the sum of money that had been spent on Gloriana was insignificant when compared to that spent on the failed Twickeham Riverside project, led by the then Liberal Democrat administration in 2010.  He stated that it was correct to seek various ecological and financial reports before any firm proposal was formulated, especially as Gloriana’s operators had set out a detailed specification for any boatyard.  He concluded by saying that the Administration took account of consultation results, which was something he accused the opposition of not doing in 2010.

Cllr Roberts stated that the feasibility study had been completed during 2013 and so believed that Gloriana should have been public knowledge in time for the election.  He said that residents were disappointed Gloriana was now not going to be hosted in the borough, stating that this was the result of the Administration’s mishandling of the project.

Lord True said that he had ambition for Twickenham, after it had suffered many years of neglect as a town.  Lord True felt that Gloriana would become part of the nation’s heritage, so chose to use what influence was available to him to try house it in Twickenham.  He said that the operators of Gloriana had specified very particular needs for housing the vessel and as a result, a feasibility study was undertaken prior to a consultation which rejected the proposed site.  The Leader believed that apologies should be made by the opposition for circulating disinformation.  Lord True concluded by saying that he will continue to put forward creative ideas for Twickenham.”

• Gloriana Consultation: Final Report September 2014

Screen shot 2014-09-21 at 11.07.22‘ . . 6. Conclusion

6.1. A total of 3,025 people responded to the consultation .

6.2. The vast majority of respondents to the consultation were local residents (TW postcodes) (93%).

6.3. A clear majority of respondents (77% (2,071 people) felt the proposed location for the permanent home of the Gloriana was not appropriate or not appropriate at all. While around a fifth (20% (553 people)) of respondents felt it was appropriate.

6.4. The main comments on the proposed site plan and design related to the location and access.

6.5. The results from this consultation will be used to inform the Council’s, and the Gloriana Trustees, decision on if and how to proceed further with this project.’

Borough home for Gloriana will not proceed: ‘Following a consultation with local residents on proposals to find a permanent home in Twickenham for Her Majesty The Queen’s Royal Rowbarge, it has been decided by Richmond Council not to proceed.’ [Sep 18 2014]

Gloriana Consultation: Final Report September 2014

Gloriana Boathouse Plan Dropped [Twickerati Sep 12]

• Press statement

Potential borough home for Gloriana NOT to proceed

Earlier this year, following a feasibility study which considered various sites in the Borough, Richmond Council opened a consultation on a possible site for a home for The Queen’s Rowbarge, Gloriana, on the site of the former Orleans House boatyard and dock.

Though results of the consultation have not yet been fully analysed it is clear a substantial majority of respondents were opposed to Gloriana’s permanent home at this site.

It has therefore been agreed between the Council and the Gloriana trustees not to proceed any further with this project. The Heritage Lottery Fund application has been withdrawn. No planning application will be presented by either party. No other site is being offered or considered by the Council.

Speaking after the announcement, Cllr Pamela Fleming, Cabinet Member for the Environment, said: “It is a pity that this beautiful craft, which was conceived on our river, will not find a home here. She could have been a great asset to future generations in Twickenham and the whole Borough. However, as the Cabinet Report in July showed, we always acknowledged the significant issues to address on this site, notably in terms of preservation of character, access and the construction period. While we believe that with goodwill most, if not all, of those could have been addressed in a pre-planning and planning phase, the controversy that has been aroused does not create the conditions in which that could be done. We have decided therefore to let the matter rest.”

Cllr Lord True, Leader of the Council, added: “Gloriana deserves to – and I am sure will – find a home where she is welcome and can be cherished for what she is, a working vessel serving charitable causes, a triumph of Borough craftsmanship, a future part of our national heritage and a tangible monument in centuries to come to the Diamond Jubilee of a great Queen. We wish her well.

“Given that our own master boat builder, Mark Edwards, created her, it was natural to explore the possibility of a home here in the Borough. I would like to thank Lord Sterling, Foster + Partners, the Gloriana team and all those who worked to bring forward an idea for public discussion and consultation. Many local people did support the idea of Gloriana’s coming to the Borough, but, sadly, in hosting such a unique and specialised craft, a number of technical issues arise, which limit the number of practical sites and require compromise. The Council has no current plans to conduct any further studies.”

Speaking on behalf of Gloriana Lord Sterling stated: “We were kindly invited to work with Richmond Council on a study to assess the feasibility of building a permanent home for The Queen’s Rowbarge, Gloriana, in Richmond. Sadly, the consultation carried out following the feasibility study showed that there is opposition to using this particular site. We have therefore decided to explore further locations along the river.”

• Potential borough home for Gloriana NOT to proceed [Council 11/09/2014]

• Shed scrapped!

[9:45am Friday 12th September 2014] Laura Proto, RTT Chief Reporter:  A permanent home for the Gloriana will no longer be built in the borough after a u-turn by Richmond Council. A consultation on proposals for a boathouse at Orleans Park for the Queen’s Rowbarge ended on August 31 and a report on the findings was due to be presented at a cabinet meeting next week.

This morning, the council announced that though the results of the consultation have not been fully analysed, it was clear a “substantial majority” of people were opposed to a permanent home at this site. The council and the Gloriana trustees have agreed not to proceed any further with the project and the Heritage Lottery Fund application has been withdrawn. No planning application for the boathouse will be presented by either party and no other site is being offered or considered by the council.

Lord True, leader of Richmond Council, said: “Gloriana deserves to, and I am sure will, find a home where she is welcome and can be cherished for what she is; a working vessel serving charitable causes, a triumph of borough craftsmanship, a future part of our national heritage and a tangible monument in centuries to come to the Diamond Jubilee of a great Queen.

“Many local people did support the idea of Gloriana’s coming to the borough, but, sadly, in hosting such a unique and specialised craft, a number of technical issues arise, which limit the number of practical sites and require compromise. The council has no current plans to conduct any further studies.”

Councillor Pamela Fleming, cabinet member for the environment, said the Gloriana would have been a “great asset to future generations” in Twickenham and the rest of the borough.

She said: “As the cabinet report in July showed, we always acknowledged the significant issues to address on this site, notably in terms of preservation of character, access and the construction period. While we believe that with goodwill most, if not all, of those could have been addressed in a pre-planning and planning phase, the controversy that has been aroused does not create the conditions in which that could be done. We have decided therefore to let the matter rest.”

Gloriana boathouse proposals withdrawn in council u-turn

• Letter to the RTT

Sir – The Richmond, Petersham and Ham Open Spaces Act, 1902, is on the council website and in the Local Studies collection. I’ve been right through its 29 pages and checked that its name and the description given on the first page [An Act to confirm agreements for vesting common and other lands in the local authorities of the districts of Richmond, Ham and Kingston as public open spaces] are both accurate and complete. There’s nothing whatever in it about the Middlesex side. So the notion that it has some talismanic power to keep the barge shed out of Orleans Gardens seems to be wishful thinking, a fairy story for grownups.

Also in the Local Studies folder [32/03/30] are the 1902 LCC General Powers Act and a covenant. The Act is a mixed bag of powers, whose ‘Section IV Purchase of the Marble Hill Estate, Twickenham’ allows the LCC to purchase Marble Hill and adjacent land ‘to preserve the view’ – but only by agreement. Also, ominously, to provide boat houses. This power has now passed, via the GLC, to the borough council.

The covenant forbids development of the Haversham Lodge site; the council web site says: ‘a Deed of Covenant was entered into by Richmond and Twickenham Councils and Surrey, Middlesex and London County Councils in 1930. The terms of the deed were designed as far as possible to preserve the view from Richmond Hill by restricting the future development of the land to certain limited areas only. Compensation was paid to the then owners of the land for granting the right to enforce these restrictions.’

The terms of the purchase of the Gardens by the Council in 1926-7 were reported in the Times of October 29 1926. Nothing is said about further covenants for the Gardens but there were to be new ones for the House and Grounds which were to be purchased after the gravel had all been dug up by a ’lady of large means . . for her private use’ – Mrs Ionides of blessed memory – ‘to preserve the view’.

So the only special protection the Gardens have comes from the restrictive covenant imposed by the Cunard executors in 1925, described by Ron Berryman [Letters August 29]. The Council planning committee has to agree that its new barge shed counts as a boat house and is therefore to be permitted, even if it is many times larger and uglier than the Victorian original.

Yours, etc.

Christopher J Squire

Can’t keep out barge [RTT Sep 05 p. 23]

__________________________________________________________

See also on this website:

‘Orleans Garden is protected from development by Act of Parliament’