A residents group opposing the current Twickenham train station redevelopment plans is taking their case to the Supreme Court on the basis the Court of Appeal “overstepped the mark.”

Twickenham Residents’ Action Group (Trag) has taken their objection against the approval of Solum Regeneration's station plans in December 2011 through the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was faced with the argument that a report on the station redevelopment from an advisory panel set up by council leader Lord True was ignored.

The Twickenham Advisory Panel (Tap), who produced the TAP report, believed its role was to comment on the regeneration of Twickenham, but the council did not want the station redevelopment included in that.

In a statement released this week Trag spokesman John Watson said: “We are hoping that permission to appeal to the Supreme Court might be granted on the basis that the Court of Appeal overstepped the mark by effectively putting itself in the shoes of the local planning authority in deciding that the Tap report would not have made any difference – especially given the fact that the planning committee vote for planning permission could not have been tighter – five in favour and four against.

“In spite of the damning email evidence linked to the TAP report during the appeal hearing, the three judges decided that, although the TAP report was material and should have been submitted to the council meeting, it was unlikely to have affected the outcome, as the Tap conclusions were covered in other areas of the papers submitted.

"In effect, in spite of the appalling behaviour of the council, there had been no error in law. This was a both a surprise and huge disappointment to all of us after a long and arduous campaign to overturn the council’s planning committee decision.”

Following an unsuccessful High Court appeal, Trag took their case to the Court of Appeal in April, but were refused an appeal of this decision at the Court of Appeal on May 15.

This was despite a report from Lord Justice Richards saying the way the report was handled was “highly unsatisfactory.”

An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was submitted on June 12.