This is an independent record of the meeting of the Richmond upon Thames Development Control Committee held on Thursday 28 February 2002 in Clarendon Hall. York House, Twickenham.

To consider applications 02/2584/FUL; for demolition and development of former Swimming Baths, car park, 15 King Street and Wharf Lane, the Embankment, Twickenham

To consider application 01/2583/CAC; for conservation areas consent to demolish the former Swimming Baths site, the Embankment, Twickenham.

Online Communities Ltd have created this verbatim report of the six and a half hour meeting as far as is possible. Where the submissions from those speaking for and against the application have been provided to us they are included. Every effort has been made by Online Communities Ltd to secure every submission. Some are still awaited and will be placed online when received.

The meeting was opened by chairman Cllr Brian Miller, who presented planning officers Mr David Barnes and Mr Roy Summers who had been responsible for the preparation of the application.

He then asked if there was anyone on the committee to declare an interest, which there was not.

Mr Barnes, Head of Planning, Richmond Council, pointed out a matter that had arisen since the report had been prepared: a letter from Government Office of London on behalf of the Secretary of State. This stated that in the exercise of his powers, under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1995, the Secretary of State was directing the council not to grant planning permission on this application, with specific authorisation to consider whether or not he should direct that the application should be referred to him for determination. (see explantion of Article 14 from Govt Office for London)

Mr Barnes explained that it was a holding direction from the Secretary of State that the council, if it was minded to issue planning permission, it was to refer the whole of the matter to the Secretary of State and wait for him to see whether he wished to call the application in.

Cllr Elengorn asked if Article 14 meant that in effect the only meaningful decision that evening was to reject the application.

Mr Barnes said that the planning authority was still required to make a decision on what it would wish to do. He noted a further submission of letters and extra items opposing the application since the report had been published. There were two letters of support.

A submission from the Metropolitan police was summed up and they had advised that the large A3 presence of cafes and pubs with the space in front could attract large crowds and would need crime prevention measures.

A submission from Mainline Pictures on small scale cinemas via the applicants' planning consultants advise they are confident cinemas will serve a commercial demand and provide service for community screenings.

Mr Barnes referred to a disagreement between two parties on the accuracy of the perspectives. There had been no opportunity to verify either submission so he would leave the point there.

New images had been submitted showing views. These were a reasonable and the correct thing to do by the applicant. Officers had considered the application from all views and not just those presented by the applicant and it was necessary for members to have done the same thing.

Mr Barnes went through the form of the report setting out basic features of policies, professional comments, traffic and parking analysis carried out by the consultants' engineers working for the applicants. He commented it would have been helpful to have had more information in terms of some of the work they had done. Nevertheless with the information submitted and the work the council's own engineers had done, the officers felt they had enough information to make a proper recommendation to members.
The chairman then called upon members of the public to make their submissions.

SUBMISSIONS AGAINST THE APPLICATION

Martin Stearman, local resident

Clive Chapman, Eel Pie Island Association, Conservation Committee

Derek Plummer, Twickenham Society

Angela Kidner, Richmond Environment Trust

Helen Montgomery Smith, Eel Pie Island Association

John Bell, Friends of Twickenham Green

Robin Walters, Strawberry Hill Residents Association

Ron Chappell, Twickenham Terrace Garden Group

Adam Brand, York House Society

Phillip Chart, Richmond Yacht Club

Mr Vernall, local resident

James Kirby, local resident

There was applause and cheering from the floor. The chairman addressed the meeting and said the committee did not vote on party lines. They voted on planning policies.

Mr Witzenfeld, local resident

Judy Maciejowska, Richmond and Twickenham Green Party

Ian Tyson, local resident

Mr Howard Vie, local resident

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE APPLICATION

Howard Greenwood, Richmond upon Thames Arts Council

Mr Jeremy Sandle, Twickenham Town Centre Management Board

John Austin, Resident, Ex-acting Twickenham Town Centre Manager

John Coombs

Mr David O'Neill, Head of Property Development at Dawnay Day

Toby Johnson, MacCormac Jamieson Prichard Architects

John Egan, Traffic Engineer for the applicants

Richard Lesley, Development consultant and letting agents

Dalia Lichfield, Planning Consultant to Dawnay Day

There then followed submissions from three local councillors.

Cllr Michael Gold

Cllr Doug Orchard

Cllr David Porter (to follow)

Mr David Barnes, Head of Planning, addressed points arising.

The committee then debated the issue.

Cllr Elengorn asked if it was a good enough scheme. Twickenham was the major place on that side of the borough and for many years it had failed as a town centre. Pluses, in his opinion, just about outweighed the other issues and he thought it was good enough with the benefits. There was need for change and for improvement and it seemed the application was a balance. No-one disputed that the building was different in size and scale and out of character. Even the applicants suggested this. It was the entire application, the whole building that was under consideration and this was the last chance saloon.

Cllr Mann said the application had to be looked at as a whole and it the decision could not be taken on the basis of a final judgment. That would be a serious mistake. He referred to the balance of community use and the design issue, policy T1 contained contradictions. He said he was not inspired about the design.

Cllr Lamb said it was not the only deal in town and Twickenham was in the heart of one of the richest parts of the country. To refer the application did not preclude other options coming to the authority in the future.

Cllr Carthew said English Heritage could be conservative about buildings, and those on the riverside. This was an exciting and an interesting design, it complemented the town centre and King Street.

Cllr Langford said the inspector had been scathing in the past and the authority usually paid regard to inspectors' reports on this committee. The current application was larger than that rejected. It was also a fact that the council's own UDP was its starting point and that said development of the riverside would be small scale and in harmony. Did this proposal enhance or conserve? No one had seriously made an argument that this conserved let alone enhanced this area.

Cllr Butler said there had been pressure on the committee. It was nonsense to support the application. It was too big, too much mass, the community benefits did not outweigh this.

Other matters agreed: legal agreements on the layout of the cinema and design of the pool; revision of conditions relating to the flooding and high tide concerns; recycling facilities; details of kiosks in pedestrian road; in the event of insoluble difficulties over a pontoon, river use facilities of equal value. A further proposal was made by Cllr Carthew for access to the site to be limited to 8am to 10pm because of law and order difficulties, and a curfew between 10pm and 8am but this was defeated.

The committee voted on the application. Six were in favour: Cllrs Elengorn, Mann, Miller, Weber, Carthew and Mollett. Three were against: Cllrs Lamb, Butler and Langford.

The Application 02/2584/FUL was APPROVED

The conservation areas application 01/2583/CAC for demolition was also APPROVED.

From the audience Mr Ron Harvey asked the committee if they had voted on party lines as he thought the public would like to know.

There was no response from the chair.

The meeting ended.