Gloriana Twickenham boathouse plans unveiled after early mention sparks "wild rumours"

Here they are: The Gloriana plans

Beautiful boat: The Gloriana needs a home

Here they are: The Gloriana plans

First published in News by , Reporter

Lord True moved to ease fears over the proposed Gloriana boat house in Twickenham and criticised the spreading of "wild rumours".

Richmond Council launched its online consultation this week, outlining plans for a new boathouse at Orleans House for the Queen's Royal Row Barge.

Some are .angry about the plans with concerns over the environmental impact on the area and the loss of facilities such as a children's playground and café.

But the council leader hoped people would view the plans with an open mind.

He said: "Residents can now see the facts - we don’t have any intention of removing the playground.

"In fact our plans should improve the play facilities already there and we will work with parents on this - the café will also be retained.

"We hope that instead the unattractive building currently onsite, we can deliver a better local facility. Gloriana, as well as being a working craft, is an extraordinary work of local design, art and craftsmanship.

"It will also be one of the few tangible remains of the national celebrations of the Queen's historic Diamond Jubilee, an event that has occurred only three times in English history."

He added that he has made no secret of his desire to bring the Gloriana to Richmond but admitted he should have "kept mum" until the consultation was ready to be launched.

Other boroughs had expressed an interest in providing a permanent home for Gloriana, such as Greenwich, but Richmond was chosen for its location and links to the boat.

A feasibility study was carried out, exploring sites at in Buccleuch Gardens, the Gothic site in Petersham Road, Marble Hill Park/Orleans Gardens and existing Richmond boatyards.

Only Orleans Gardens was considered suitable.

The project is still subject to funding and planning permission.

Twickenham MP Vince Cable said: "We do not want to lose the playground - it is well-liked and well-supported in the area. Surely it can be organised in a way that does not have major negative effects."

The council confirmed the area would not be covered in concrete, but ome trees would likely be removed.

International architects Foster and Partners designed a potential modern boat house, visitors' centre, enhanced new cafe and play area, with work possibly starting early next year.

St Margarets and North Twickenham Councillor Alexander Ehmann said: "While it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the specific proposals at such an early stage in the consultation, if Coun True is concerned about 'wild rumours', he only has himself to blame.

"The furtive manner in which he has handled this project so far, including, we understand, keeping it secret from his own cabinet colleagues, has allowed what could be an exciting opportunity for the borough to become mired in controversy."

The council's consultation will be available on its website until July 29.

People can also have their say at drop-in sessions, held between 10am to 4pm at Orleans House Gallery Octagon Room on July 18 and at the same time in July 19 and 20, in the Stables.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:05pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ms H Jackson says...

I don't know why the opponents of the scheme started circulating a lot of unfounded rumours about it before knowing the facts. I think Gloriana is a wonderful boat and if the playground and cafe are retained could only enhance the area.
I don't know why the opponents of the scheme started circulating a lot of unfounded rumours about it before knowing the facts. I think Gloriana is a wonderful boat and if the playground and cafe are retained could only enhance the area. Ms H Jackson
  • Score: 8

3:33pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Susan Burningham says...

The whole concept of the project should have been placed before the electorate in May 2014 it was after all known of in 2013. Lord True has breached the rule of First Principle: the concept should have been placed before the residents of Twickenham prior to the election.
To have reached a stage where £30K of tax payers money has already been spent on feasability and surveyors costs is extremely questionable.
To place this out as a consultation is to admit this is a plan residents might wish to consider.
Lord True, Cllr Pamela Fleming (who was incapable at Thursday's meeting of speaking about the detail of the plan without the aid of paid Officers) and all three of the Twickenham Riverside Councillors must answer to the public for the manner in which they have operated.
The whole concept of the project should have been placed before the electorate in May 2014 it was after all known of in 2013. Lord True has breached the rule of First Principle: the concept should have been placed before the residents of Twickenham prior to the election. To have reached a stage where £30K of tax payers money has already been spent on feasability and surveyors costs is extremely questionable. To place this out as a consultation is to admit this is a plan residents might wish to consider. Lord True, Cllr Pamela Fleming (who was incapable at Thursday's meeting of speaking about the detail of the plan without the aid of paid Officers) and all three of the Twickenham Riverside Councillors must answer to the public for the manner in which they have operated. Susan Burningham
  • Score: -16

4:24pm Fri 4 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

Ms H Jackson wrote:
I don't know why the opponents of the scheme started circulating a lot of unfounded rumours about it before knowing the facts. I think Gloriana is a wonderful boat and if the playground and cafe are retained could only enhance the area.
the best way stop unfounded rumours is to give out all the facts.
the council website steers us neatly around unanswered questions;
The gloriana was returned to lord stirling and the marine heritage trust by HM the Queen, why are they passing it on.
other boroughs were interested why were they not chosen.
what other richmond borough sites were looked and what were the reasons for rejection.
how is the plant and machinery capable of shifting about 1000 cubic metres of spoil on to the site and themselves and spoil off the site.
if feasibility plans have been done why no actual costing amounts.
we need to told the initial and ongoing costs to make a reasoned judgement on this matter.
[quote][p][bold]Ms H Jackson[/bold] wrote: I don't know why the opponents of the scheme started circulating a lot of unfounded rumours about it before knowing the facts. I think Gloriana is a wonderful boat and if the playground and cafe are retained could only enhance the area.[/p][/quote]the best way stop unfounded rumours is to give out all the facts. the council website steers us neatly around unanswered questions; The gloriana was returned to lord stirling and the marine heritage trust by HM the Queen, why are they passing it on. other boroughs were interested why were they not chosen. what other richmond borough sites were looked and what were the reasons for rejection. how is the plant and machinery capable of shifting about 1000 cubic metres of spoil on to the site and themselves and spoil off the site. if feasibility plans have been done why no actual costing amounts. we need to told the initial and ongoing costs to make a reasoned judgement on this matter. dellboy twick.
  • Score: 1

4:28pm Fri 4 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

Post Script
whats all this about bats? do they roost in and around the gardens, surely they are a protected species and can't be disturbed.
Post Script whats all this about bats? do they roost in and around the gardens, surely they are a protected species and can't be disturbed. dellboy twick.
  • Score: -1

6:30pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ms H Jackson says...

I quite agree that we should be given the facts before we can make a judgement and Lord True spoke out of turn. That does not mean it is a bad scheme, just that the initial stages have been mishandled. Why was information circulated saying the cafe and play area would be removed, if that is not the case? I see there are concerns to be addressed but do not understand why the opponents are so outright opposed to it from the outset as to circulate false rumours about the detail before it has been released. And Richmond has long Royal associations and is an entirely suitable borough. My children played in the play area and I often walk down there and have eaten in the cafe and indeed it is very pleasant but I do not see how that will be "destroyed" by parking Gloriana there, rather it will add interest.
I quite agree that we should be given the facts before we can make a judgement and Lord True spoke out of turn. That does not mean it is a bad scheme, just that the initial stages have been mishandled. Why was information circulated saying the cafe and play area would be removed, if that is not the case? I see there are concerns to be addressed but do not understand why the opponents are so outright opposed to it from the outset as to circulate false rumours about the detail before it has been released. And Richmond has long Royal associations and is an entirely suitable borough. My children played in the play area and I often walk down there and have eaten in the cafe and indeed it is very pleasant but I do not see how that will be "destroyed" by parking Gloriana there, rather it will add interest. Ms H Jackson
  • Score: -1

6:33pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ms H Jackson says...

I quite agree that we should be given the facts before we can make a judgement and Lord True spoke out of turn. That does not mean it is a bad scheme, just that the initial stages of consultation have been mishandled. Why was information circulated by the opponents saying the cafe and play area would be removed, if that is not the case? I see there are concerns to be addressed but do not understand why the opponents are so outright opposed to it as to circulate false rumours without knowing the detail. The complaint should have been about not knowing the detail, not inventing false information. Richmond has long Royal associations and is an entirely suitable borough for the Gloriana. My children played in the play area and I often walk down there and indeed it is very pleasant but I do not see how that will be "destroyed" by parking Gloriana there, rather it will add interest.
I quite agree that we should be given the facts before we can make a judgement and Lord True spoke out of turn. That does not mean it is a bad scheme, just that the initial stages of consultation have been mishandled. Why was information circulated by the opponents saying the cafe and play area would be removed, if that is not the case? I see there are concerns to be addressed but do not understand why the opponents are so outright opposed to it as to circulate false rumours without knowing the detail. The complaint should have been about not knowing the detail, not inventing false information. Richmond has long Royal associations and is an entirely suitable borough for the Gloriana. My children played in the play area and I often walk down there and indeed it is very pleasant but I do not see how that will be "destroyed" by parking Gloriana there, rather it will add interest. Ms H Jackson
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Fri 4 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

Decades ago this borough signed us up to refurbish richmond theatre,we have only just finished paying off the debt, it cost millions.
gloriana is a wooden boat, they are high maintenance, not a quick polish and a dab here and there, and this is a royal barge!! it will cost a fortune to maintain.
This is why stirling et al want rid of it, otherwise if funding were in place to deal with, it would negate the need to ask others to take it on.
It's not a PR foul up, they want the right to dip their hand into our pockets for decades to come.
I don't care which party is in charge I want them to be more circumspect in the use of our money
Decades ago this borough signed us up to refurbish richmond theatre,we have only just finished paying off the debt, it cost millions. gloriana is a wooden boat, they are high maintenance, not a quick polish and a dab here and there, and this is a royal barge!! it will cost a fortune to maintain. This is why stirling et al want rid of it, otherwise if funding were in place to deal with, it would negate the need to ask others to take it on. It's not a PR foul up, they want the right to dip their hand into our pockets for decades to come. I don't care which party is in charge I want them to be more circumspect in the use of our money dellboy twick.
  • Score: 4

11:53pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ms H Jackson says...

I don't mind some of my taxes being invested in local culture. Anyway do we know if there will be an entry charge to look round Gloriana?
I don't mind some of my taxes being invested in local culture. Anyway do we know if there will be an entry charge to look round Gloriana? Ms H Jackson
  • Score: -2

10:24am Sat 5 Jul 14

Copthall resident says...

For many of us this is a very simple issue, and politics and allegations of misinformation are irrelevant. The site is much valued green space where we walk and play, it remaining undeveloped is important to our amenity and part of the reason we chose to live here. All the existing planning frameworks make much of the importance of preserving that amenity. From what we are told (and we are also told that it could change) the plan is to tear up that policy and excavate a site to place a 27 ft by 100 feet wooden structure right in the middle of the green space, cutting down and damaging trees that are the subject of TPOs. The fact there may have been a small classically designed boat house that housed punts there in the past is no precedent, this is public land that was to have been preserved as part of Arcadia for us all, not put at the service of a trio of Lords, and it is outrageous it is even being considered let alone money being sunk into finding ways to get around both the planning framework and public opinion. There are other more suitable sites, there is absolutely no need to inflict this on our park.
For many of us this is a very simple issue, and politics and allegations of misinformation are irrelevant. The site is much valued green space where we walk and play, it remaining undeveloped is important to our amenity and part of the reason we chose to live here. All the existing planning frameworks make much of the importance of preserving that amenity. From what we are told (and we are also told that it could change) the plan is to tear up that policy and excavate a site to place a 27 ft by 100 feet wooden structure right in the middle of the green space, cutting down and damaging trees that are the subject of TPOs. The fact there may have been a small classically designed boat house that housed punts there in the past is no precedent, this is public land that was to have been preserved as part of Arcadia for us all, not put at the service of a trio of Lords, and it is outrageous it is even being considered let alone money being sunk into finding ways to get around both the planning framework and public opinion. There are other more suitable sites, there is absolutely no need to inflict this on our park. Copthall resident
  • Score: 10

10:39am Sat 5 Jul 14

Amanda Bringans says...

I began by opposing this, but having seen the plans, I'm in favour. My remaining worry is parking and increased foot fall disturbing locals, so I hope that is fully considered in the ongoing consultation. The enhancements to the playground and the existing (revolting) cafe would be great.
I began by opposing this, but having seen the plans, I'm in favour. My remaining worry is parking and increased foot fall disturbing locals, so I hope that is fully considered in the ongoing consultation. The enhancements to the playground and the existing (revolting) cafe would be great. Amanda Bringans
  • Score: 6

2:18pm Sat 5 Jul 14

mike hine says...

Many of the comments here seem oblivious to the uniquely tranquil and ad hoc nature of the site. (Whether it's a nice boat or not is irrelevant. It will continue to be a nice boat ,if a little heavy on the gilt, wherever it ends up). I have often walked in that area with friends visiting from outside the area. All have remarked on its beauty and unspoilt nature. None has ever said 'what you need to make it better is a tourist attraction, coach park, visitor centre and a few hundred gawping camera-wielders'. The boat is not 'real' but a beautifully-made pastiche of styles taken from old paintings. The boat-house is no more in keeping with the site's history than digging new gravel pits there would be (check the history). There are plenty of examples of the Disneyfication of our environment in London. This site is uniquely what it is. We're lucky to have been bequeathed it. Leave it alone.
Many of the comments here seem oblivious to the uniquely tranquil and ad hoc nature of the site. (Whether it's a nice boat or not is irrelevant. It will continue to be a nice boat ,if a little heavy on the gilt, wherever it ends up). I have often walked in that area with friends visiting from outside the area. All have remarked on its beauty and unspoilt nature. None has ever said 'what you need to make it better is a tourist attraction, coach park, visitor centre and a few hundred gawping camera-wielders'. The boat is not 'real' but a beautifully-made pastiche of styles taken from old paintings. The boat-house is no more in keeping with the site's history than digging new gravel pits there would be (check the history). There are plenty of examples of the Disneyfication of our environment in London. This site is uniquely what it is. We're lucky to have been bequeathed it. Leave it alone. mike hine
  • Score: 6

3:22pm Sat 5 Jul 14

robin.c.rowe says...

Glorious Gloriana. I think it would be a wonderful idea to house this beautiful barge in our Borough and I cannot think of a better place to house it. The proposed site is in a scruffy , neglected part of Orleans Park in desperate need of an upgrade. The paths need attention, the childrens playground could do with better equipment and the least said about the architecture of the café the better. We are promised a new café and a new playground so it would appear to be a win, win situation. If you asked the children who use the area whether they would like a new playground and new café alongside the Queen's Rowbarge I wonder what they would say- I think I know !
Glorious Gloriana. I think it would be a wonderful idea to house this beautiful barge in our Borough and I cannot think of a better place to house it. The proposed site is in a scruffy , neglected part of Orleans Park in desperate need of an upgrade. The paths need attention, the childrens playground could do with better equipment and the least said about the architecture of the café the better. We are promised a new café and a new playground so it would appear to be a win, win situation. If you asked the children who use the area whether they would like a new playground and new café alongside the Queen's Rowbarge I wonder what they would say- I think I know ! robin.c.rowe
  • Score: -2

7:01pm Sat 5 Jul 14

mike hine says...

robin.c.rowe wrote:
Glorious Gloriana. I think it would be a wonderful idea to house this beautiful barge in our Borough and I cannot think of a better place to house it. The proposed site is in a scruffy , neglected part of Orleans Park in desperate need of an upgrade. The paths need attention, the childrens playground could do with better equipment and the least said about the architecture of the café the better. We are promised a new café and a new playground so it would appear to be a win, win situation. If you asked the children who use the area whether they would like a new playground and new café alongside the Queen's Rowbarge I wonder what they would say- I think I know !
Yes. I'm sure a child's view of what's best in this situation would be as sweetly innocent as yours.
[quote][p][bold]robin.c.rowe[/bold] wrote: Glorious Gloriana. I think it would be a wonderful idea to house this beautiful barge in our Borough and I cannot think of a better place to house it. The proposed site is in a scruffy , neglected part of Orleans Park in desperate need of an upgrade. The paths need attention, the childrens playground could do with better equipment and the least said about the architecture of the café the better. We are promised a new café and a new playground so it would appear to be a win, win situation. If you asked the children who use the area whether they would like a new playground and new café alongside the Queen's Rowbarge I wonder what they would say- I think I know ![/p][/quote]Yes. I'm sure a child's view of what's best in this situation would be as sweetly innocent as yours. mike hine
  • Score: 1

7:12pm Sat 5 Jul 14

jeremyhm says...

What a very patronising and rude comment, Mr Hine. Mr Rowe is as entitled to his opinion as you are
What a very patronising and rude comment, Mr Hine. Mr Rowe is as entitled to his opinion as you are jeremyhm
  • Score: 8

8:52pm Sat 5 Jul 14

robin.c.rowe says...

My point , which maybe Jeremy could not grasp , is that the beneficiaries of this plan are your kids, not you. If we have to go through the usual hoopla of protests and planning enquiries which we usually go through in this Borough it will be well past his bedtime before Gloriana finds a safe haven.
My point , which maybe Jeremy could not grasp , is that the beneficiaries of this plan are your kids, not you. If we have to go through the usual hoopla of protests and planning enquiries which we usually go through in this Borough it will be well past his bedtime before Gloriana finds a safe haven. robin.c.rowe
  • Score: 2

9:08pm Sat 5 Jul 14

robin.c.rowe says...

I am sorry Jeremy , my remarks were intended for Mike Hines.
I am sorry Jeremy , my remarks were intended for Mike Hines. robin.c.rowe
  • Score: 1

9:38pm Sat 5 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

jeremyhm wrote:
What a very patronising and rude comment, Mr Hine. Mr Rowe is as entitled to his opinion as you are
so is Mr. Hine, as also you. We should all be aware that our words and actions have consequences and accept what follows.
Robin c rowe either by accident or design portrayed a somewhat idyllic and naive opinion, what follows is the consequence of his words not Mr. Hine
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: What a very patronising and rude comment, Mr Hine. Mr Rowe is as entitled to his opinion as you are[/p][/quote]so is Mr. Hine, as also you. We should all be aware that our words and actions have consequences and accept what follows. Robin c rowe either by accident or design portrayed a somewhat idyllic and naive opinion, what follows is the consequence of his words not Mr. Hine dellboy twick.
  • Score: -6

10:51pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Copthall resident says...

Robin, here's a novel idea, upgrade the playground and cafe without inflicting the bulk of a row of three storey houses that will be needed to house the boat on the park. I am not opposed to a home being found for the Gloriana somewhere where it will not dominate and overwhelm an important and undeveloped part of our green riverside that is very well used and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Before this ludicrous project received publicity I simply would not have believed anyone would even conceive of any development on the site, let alone something of this size.
Robin, here's a novel idea, upgrade the playground and cafe without inflicting the bulk of a row of three storey houses that will be needed to house the boat on the park. I am not opposed to a home being found for the Gloriana somewhere where it will not dominate and overwhelm an important and undeveloped part of our green riverside that is very well used and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Before this ludicrous project received publicity I simply would not have believed anyone would even conceive of any development on the site, let alone something of this size. Copthall resident
  • Score: 1

11:58pm Sat 5 Jul 14

mike hine says...

dellboy twick. wrote:
jeremyhm wrote:
What a very patronising and rude comment, Mr Hine. Mr Rowe is as entitled to his opinion as you are
so is Mr. Hine, as also you. We should all be aware that our words and actions have consequences and accept what follows.
Robin c rowe either by accident or design portrayed a somewhat idyllic and naive opinion, what follows is the consequence of his words not Mr. Hine
Thanks, Dellboy. Precisely. When the children Mr Rowe refers to are grown up they are likely to be very grateful that the adults around them were responsible enough not to let their childish desires determine what, as adults, they have to inherit.
[quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: What a very patronising and rude comment, Mr Hine. Mr Rowe is as entitled to his opinion as you are[/p][/quote]so is Mr. Hine, as also you. We should all be aware that our words and actions have consequences and accept what follows. Robin c rowe either by accident or design portrayed a somewhat idyllic and naive opinion, what follows is the consequence of his words not Mr. Hine[/p][/quote]Thanks, Dellboy. Precisely. When the children Mr Rowe refers to are grown up they are likely to be very grateful that the adults around them were responsible enough not to let their childish desires determine what, as adults, they have to inherit. mike hine
  • Score: 0

12:06am Sun 6 Jul 14

mike hine says...

Copthall resident wrote:
Robin, here's a novel idea, upgrade the playground and cafe without inflicting the bulk of a row of three storey houses that will be needed to house the boat on the park. I am not opposed to a home being found for the Gloriana somewhere where it will not dominate and overwhelm an important and undeveloped part of our green riverside that is very well used and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Before this ludicrous project received publicity I simply would not have believed anyone would even conceive of any development on the site, let alone something of this size.
Final sentence: absolutely! Even to have suggested this crass 'development' reveals a total insensitivity to the qualities of the area in question.' The final resting place of the Gloriana' is a red herring. The boat is in no danger; he proposed site definitely is.
[quote][p][bold]Copthall resident[/bold] wrote: Robin, here's a novel idea, upgrade the playground and cafe without inflicting the bulk of a row of three storey houses that will be needed to house the boat on the park. I am not opposed to a home being found for the Gloriana somewhere where it will not dominate and overwhelm an important and undeveloped part of our green riverside that is very well used and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Before this ludicrous project received publicity I simply would not have believed anyone would even conceive of any development on the site, let alone something of this size.[/p][/quote]Final sentence: absolutely! Even to have suggested this crass 'development' reveals a total insensitivity to the qualities of the area in question.' The final resting place of the Gloriana' is a red herring. The boat is in no danger; he proposed site definitely is. mike hine
  • Score: 4

12:17am Sun 6 Jul 14

mike hine says...

robin.c.rowe wrote:
My point , which maybe Jeremy could not grasp , is that the beneficiaries of this plan are your kids, not you. If we have to go through the usual hoopla of protests and planning enquiries which we usually go through in this Borough it will be well past his bedtime before Gloriana finds a safe haven.
Nonsense. Kids could visit a Glorianaland anywhere. And kids become adults. In time they would be grateful that their parents were responsible enough not to let the passing, and necessarily childish, desires of childhood determine the environment that they, as adults, inherit .
And their kids after them.
You can build Disney stuff anywhere and knock it down when you're bored with it. Unspoilt stretches of Thames can never be replaced. Once you've let 'development' in, they're lost. Forever.
We owe it to our kids (and our own dignity for that matter) to be grown up about these things.
[quote][p][bold]robin.c.rowe[/bold] wrote: My point , which maybe Jeremy could not grasp , is that the beneficiaries of this plan are your kids, not you. If we have to go through the usual hoopla of protests and planning enquiries which we usually go through in this Borough it will be well past his bedtime before Gloriana finds a safe haven.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Kids could visit a Glorianaland anywhere. And kids become adults. In time they would be grateful that their parents were responsible enough not to let the passing, and necessarily childish, desires of childhood determine the environment that they, as adults, inherit . And their kids after them. You can build Disney stuff anywhere and knock it down when you're bored with it. Unspoilt stretches of Thames can never be replaced. Once you've let 'development' in, they're lost. Forever. We owe it to our kids (and our own dignity for that matter) to be grown up about these things. mike hine
  • Score: 4

7:10pm Mon 7 Jul 14

metis says...

Anyone would think that judging by the hysterical reaction that the proposal was for a nuclear reactor, a sewage farm or a waste tip (which it once was apparently!). Its for a boat house on the river for goodness sake.
Anyone would think that judging by the hysterical reaction that the proposal was for a nuclear reactor, a sewage farm or a waste tip (which it once was apparently!). Its for a boat house on the river for goodness sake. metis
  • Score: 10

3:01am Tue 8 Jul 14

Copthall resident says...

A 27ft high by 100 ft long boathouse with added canal. It would actually be entirely appropriate next to Townmead, one of the few bits of the riverside it wouldn't affect adversely.
A 27ft high by 100 ft long boathouse with added canal. It would actually be entirely appropriate next to Townmead, one of the few bits of the riverside it wouldn't affect adversely. Copthall resident
  • Score: -2

9:54am Tue 8 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

metis wrote:
Anyone would think that judging by the hysterical reaction that the proposal was for a nuclear reactor, a sewage farm or a waste tip (which it once was apparently!). Its for a boat house on the river for goodness sake.
Hysteria? no, anger and indignation, yes. This was known about last year, long before the local elections and not mentioned till after them.
The concept of removing over 1000 cubic metres of spoil from orleans garden and the boathouse, which is the height of the roof line of a two story house thirty metres long being mentioned before the election would have caused controversy at least, let alone costing votes.
The council website on gloriana leads you through a series of explained,but not answered statements, until it's just a matter of the paperwork to be completed. A done deal.
Better, if we have to have this white elephant, it is to put alongside Hampton Court Palace, little or no spoil to remove,easy access from major roads, therefore reducing costs.
So far not very democratic. "just a boathouse" it's not on the river it's inside Orleans garden, a world of difference.
[quote][p][bold]metis[/bold] wrote: Anyone would think that judging by the hysterical reaction that the proposal was for a nuclear reactor, a sewage farm or a waste tip (which it once was apparently!). Its for a boat house on the river for goodness sake.[/p][/quote]Hysteria? no, anger and indignation, yes. This was known about last year, long before the local elections and not mentioned till after them. The concept of removing over 1000 cubic metres of spoil from orleans garden and the boathouse, which is the height of the roof line of a two story house thirty metres long being mentioned before the election would have caused controversy at least, let alone costing votes. The council website on gloriana leads you through a series of explained,but not answered statements, until it's just a matter of the paperwork to be completed. A done deal. Better, if we have to have this white elephant, it is to put alongside Hampton Court Palace, little or no spoil to remove,easy access from major roads, therefore reducing costs. So far not very democratic. "just a boathouse" it's not on the river it's inside Orleans garden, a world of difference. dellboy twick.
  • Score: -2

12:58pm Tue 8 Jul 14

kingstonpaul says...

Let's keep this in proportion shall we? Talk about Disneyfication is just synthetic outrage, because the Gloriana will only ever really have a niche appeal. It's not a mass tourism attraction.
But its presence will add to the richness of the very pleasant stroll along the 'Arcadian' section of the river between Strawberry Hill and Richmond.
Let's keep this in proportion shall we? Talk about Disneyfication is just synthetic outrage, because the Gloriana will only ever really have a niche appeal. It's not a mass tourism attraction. But its presence will add to the richness of the very pleasant stroll along the 'Arcadian' section of the river between Strawberry Hill and Richmond. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 6

7:37pm Tue 8 Jul 14

mike hine says...

So the royal family is a niche interest, is it? The Queen? Diana? Wills ‘n’ Kate? Harry? Really? I think you’d better let the British tourist industry and the press and tv of every country in the world know about this, they’ve been wasting a lot of time and resources.
Disneyfication: ‘Creating or altering in a simplified, sentimentalized, or contrived form or manner’. Sounds about right to me. Substitution of the ersatz for the authentic? Check. Invented tradition? Check. ‘Heritage’-style signage littering the riverbank? All in the best possible taste, of course. Gloriana fridge magnets? Why not, sir.
‘You don’t know what you’ve got, until you lose it’. And some people not even then.
So the royal family is a niche interest, is it? The Queen? Diana? Wills ‘n’ Kate? Harry? Really? I think you’d better let the British tourist industry and the press and tv of every country in the world know about this, they’ve been wasting a lot of time and resources. Disneyfication: ‘Creating or altering in a simplified, sentimentalized, or contrived form or manner’. Sounds about right to me. Substitution of the ersatz for the authentic? Check. Invented tradition? Check. ‘Heritage’-style signage littering the riverbank? All in the best possible taste, of course. Gloriana fridge magnets? Why not, sir. ‘You don’t know what you’ve got, until you lose it’. And some people not even then. mike hine
  • Score: -6

1:59pm Wed 9 Jul 14

kingstonpaul says...

I'm talking about the boat having niche interest. A few second-string members of the royal family warmed their backsides on the Gloriana at the Jubilee pageant (HRH and Phil were carried on the Chartwell). It really won't be the big box-office draw many are suggesting. More a pleasant addition to the fabric of what is of course a very privileged little enclave.
I'm talking about the boat having niche interest. A few second-string members of the royal family warmed their backsides on the Gloriana at the Jubilee pageant (HRH and Phil were carried on the Chartwell). It really won't be the big box-office draw many are suggesting. More a pleasant addition to the fabric of what is of course a very privileged little enclave. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 5

3:36pm Wed 9 Jul 14

LaurenceMann says...

I have read through the consultation document carefully and there is no doubt that there has been quite a lot of hysteria about this matter. However:
1. The cost to the borough would be around £1m, which it cannot afford.
2. The proposed design is simply awful. The mock-up in the consultation makes the boathouse look like a poorly fitted together and unstable fence.
3. The idea that this borough is honoured by having to find a home for a boat is just tosh really.
4. There is no sensible proposal for the continued maintenance of the boathouse or boat. It is not credible that money could be raised from donations or sponsorship. This borough cannot afford to maintain existing historical structures such as the Kilmorey Mausoleum. The cost of ongoing maintenance should be costed before anything more is done.
5. I don't have a particular problem with the location, but unlike some people, do not think it will draw in visitors or lots of traffic, that is fanciful, and it is thus more likely to be a magnet for vandals.

The boat is a work of art, but its failure to be used indicates that it is a one-off white elephant. We should not forget that although the Jubilee was a big thing in 2012, it will be forgotten in 20 years' time.

I regret therefore that I am unable to support this proposal.
I have read through the consultation document carefully and there is no doubt that there has been quite a lot of hysteria about this matter. However: 1. The cost to the borough would be around £1m, which it cannot afford. 2. The proposed design is simply awful. The mock-up in the consultation makes the boathouse look like a poorly fitted together and unstable fence. 3. The idea that this borough is honoured by having to find a home for a boat is just tosh really. 4. There is no sensible proposal for the continued maintenance of the boathouse or boat. It is not credible that money could be raised from donations or sponsorship. This borough cannot afford to maintain existing historical structures such as the Kilmorey Mausoleum. The cost of ongoing maintenance should be costed before anything more is done. 5. I don't have a particular problem with the location, but unlike some people, do not think it will draw in visitors or lots of traffic, that is fanciful, and it is thus more likely to be a magnet for vandals. The boat is a work of art, but its failure to be used indicates that it is a one-off white elephant. We should not forget that although the Jubilee was a big thing in 2012, it will be forgotten in 20 years' time. I regret therefore that I am unable to support this proposal. LaurenceMann
  • Score: 2

3:43pm Wed 9 Jul 14

LaurenceMann says...

And two more things:

1. The boat was not even built here in the borough but in Brentford.
2. The cost of the boat was some £500,000 and we are now contemplating spending 6 times as much on housing it. That is barmy.
And two more things: 1. The boat was not even built here in the borough but in Brentford. 2. The cost of the boat was some £500,000 and we are now contemplating spending 6 times as much on housing it. That is barmy. LaurenceMann
  • Score: 2

4:17pm Wed 9 Jul 14

JeremyRodell says...

A simple principle seems to be missing from most of the debate about the Gloriana: there is no evidence that anyone in the borough felt a need to house it here before the proposal came up. And there would, it seems, be little "regret" if it were to find a home in another borough.

So, in a time of austerity, the Council is proposing to spend £1 million on something for which borough residents have no need. Isn't that a misuse of public funds?
A simple principle seems to be missing from most of the debate about the Gloriana: there is no evidence that anyone in the borough felt a need to house it here before the proposal came up. And there would, it seems, be little "regret" if it were to find a home in another borough. So, in a time of austerity, the Council is proposing to spend £1 million on something for which borough residents have no need. Isn't that a misuse of public funds? JeremyRodell
  • Score: 1

9:31am Thu 10 Jul 14

Doblinski says...

Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment?

The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals.

The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana.

Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?
Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment? The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals. The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana. Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham? Doblinski
  • Score: -3

1:11pm Thu 10 Jul 14

kingstonpaul says...

Doblinski wrote:
Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment?

The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals.

The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana.

Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?
Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion.
[quote][p][bold]Doblinski[/bold] wrote: Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment? The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals. The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana. Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?[/p][/quote]Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 7

2:47pm Thu 10 Jul 14

jeremyhm says...

Referring to Mr Rodells' comment that nobody seems to want the boat in this Borough, he may have missed statements last evening by the "antis" that they would all love have Gloriana here. Also remarks by at least two councillors to the same effect from their constituents.
Referring to Mr Rodells' comment that nobody seems to want the boat in this Borough, he may have missed statements last evening by the "antis" that they would all love have Gloriana here. Also remarks by at least two councillors to the same effect from their constituents. jeremyhm
  • Score: 3

3:06pm Thu 10 Jul 14

JeremyRodell says...

jeremyhm wrote:
Referring to Mr Rodells' comment that nobody seems to want the boat in this Borough, he may have missed statements last evening by the "antis" that they would all love have Gloriana here. Also remarks by at least two councillors to the same effect from their constituents.
This is what I actually said: "there is no evidence that anyone in the borough felt a need to house it here before the proposal came up. " The Council is supposed to spend its funds on things that people in the borough actually need.
Cllr Samuel's response on costs, which was that - despite austerity - they have built the reserves so much that they can afford to squander £1 million on something no-one said they needed is breathtaking. Why not invite all the local charities to say what they could do with £1 million of capital to make life better for people in the borough?
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: Referring to Mr Rodells' comment that nobody seems to want the boat in this Borough, he may have missed statements last evening by the "antis" that they would all love have Gloriana here. Also remarks by at least two councillors to the same effect from their constituents.[/p][/quote]This is what I actually said: "there is no evidence that anyone in the borough felt a need to house it here before the proposal came up. " The Council is supposed to spend its funds on things that people in the borough actually need. Cllr Samuel's response on costs, which was that - despite austerity - they have built the reserves so much that they can afford to squander £1 million on something no-one said they needed is breathtaking. Why not invite all the local charities to say what they could do with £1 million of capital to make life better for people in the borough? JeremyRodell
  • Score: -3

3:50pm Thu 10 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
Doblinski wrote:
Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment?

The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals.

The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana.

Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?
Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion.
kingstonpaul
The channel required has to be about 4 metres wide and deep by 70 metres long.this approximates to 1120 cubic metres of spoil.
The sides will have to be shored up, poured concrete or inter linked steel sheeting.
If a dry dock is required, as stated,pumping facilities also.
None of the plant needed can come by road,it will all be by river, to move equipment on to land calls for some form of substantial landing stage to allow barges along side to unload and load.
If the dry dock is for working on the barge it will need to be wider and deeper.
Half a dozen navies with picks and spades won't do the job.
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doblinski[/bold] wrote: Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment? The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals. The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana. Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?[/p][/quote]Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion.[/p][/quote]kingstonpaul The channel required has to be about 4 metres wide and deep by 70 metres long.this approximates to 1120 cubic metres of spoil. The sides will have to be shored up, poured concrete or inter linked steel sheeting. If a dry dock is required, as stated,pumping facilities also. None of the plant needed can come by road,it will all be by river, to move equipment on to land calls for some form of substantial landing stage to allow barges along side to unload and load. If the dry dock is for working on the barge it will need to be wider and deeper. Half a dozen navies with picks and spades won't do the job. dellboy twick.
  • Score: -1

8:30pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Julie Hill says...

Has anyone actually stopped to think about the practicalities of building a huge boathouse, dry dock and channel from the River in this location?

The sheer scale of what is proposed would require a HUGE number of excavators, lorries, heavy lifting equipment etc etc etc. All of which would have to trundle either down Orleans Road or via Church Lane or Lebanham Court.

These routes to the river are constantly used by a great many - those out for a peaceful stroll, families, dog walkers, cyclists etc.

Can you imagine what will happen to this area?

The only alternative would be to use the River to transport equipment and to move soil etc.

I appreciate that there was once a boat house by Orleans Park and very lovely it looks too on the historic maps, but that was then and this is now.

Why can't an simple but well designed boathouse (which actually resembles a boathouse and not a banana packing crate) be created on the Ham side near Ham House, where there is plenty of open space and when Gloriana needs maintenance work, she can return to Brentford, where she was built.
Has anyone actually stopped to think about the practicalities of building a huge boathouse, dry dock and channel from the River in this location? The sheer scale of what is proposed would require a HUGE number of excavators, lorries, heavy lifting equipment etc etc etc. All of which would have to trundle either down Orleans Road or via Church Lane or Lebanham Court. These routes to the river are constantly used by a great many - those out for a peaceful stroll, families, dog walkers, cyclists etc. Can you imagine what will happen to this area? The only alternative would be to use the River to transport equipment and to move soil etc. I appreciate that there was once a boat house by Orleans Park and very lovely it looks too on the historic maps, but that was then and this is now. Why can't an simple but well designed boathouse (which actually resembles a boathouse and not a banana packing crate) be created on the Ham side near Ham House, where there is plenty of open space and when Gloriana needs maintenance work, she can return to Brentford, where she was built. Julie Hill
  • Score: 2

8:22am Fri 11 Jul 14

Doblinski says...

dellboy twick. wrote:
kingstonpaul wrote:
Doblinski wrote:
Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment?

The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals.

The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana.

Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?
Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion.
kingstonpaul
The channel required has to be about 4 metres wide and deep by 70 metres long.this approximates to 1120 cubic metres of spoil.
The sides will have to be shored up, poured concrete or inter linked steel sheeting.
If a dry dock is required, as stated,pumping facilities also.
None of the plant needed can come by road,it will all be by river, to move equipment on to land calls for some form of substantial landing stage to allow barges along side to unload and load.
If the dry dock is for working on the barge it will need to be wider and deeper.
Half a dozen navies with picks and spades won't do the job.
OK so here are the facts for the ''intelligent man'' requiring them.

According to surveys carried out and as reported by resident Paul Bigley at this weeks Council meeting outlining project measurements that were not contradicted or questioned by any Councillor or member of the cabinet.

The channel for the Gloriana will be 150ft long, 20 ft wide and between 10 and 20 ft deep, the boat-house will have a foot-print of 110ft x 40ft and is 7m high. So actually Sir, I used the words 'massive' and 'enormous' advisedly.
[quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doblinski[/bold] wrote: Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment? The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals. The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana. Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?[/p][/quote]Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion.[/p][/quote]kingstonpaul The channel required has to be about 4 metres wide and deep by 70 metres long.this approximates to 1120 cubic metres of spoil. The sides will have to be shored up, poured concrete or inter linked steel sheeting. If a dry dock is required, as stated,pumping facilities also. None of the plant needed can come by road,it will all be by river, to move equipment on to land calls for some form of substantial landing stage to allow barges along side to unload and load. If the dry dock is for working on the barge it will need to be wider and deeper. Half a dozen navies with picks and spades won't do the job.[/p][/quote]OK so here are the facts for the ''intelligent man'' requiring them. According to surveys carried out and as reported by resident Paul Bigley at this weeks Council meeting outlining project measurements that were not contradicted or questioned by any Councillor or member of the cabinet. The channel for the Gloriana will be 150ft long, 20 ft wide and between 10 and 20 ft deep, the boat-house will have a foot-print of 110ft x 40ft and is 7m high. So actually Sir, I used the words 'massive' and 'enormous' advisedly. Doblinski
  • Score: -2

10:34am Fri 11 Jul 14

ChrisSquire says...

This week’s RTT has a news story ‘Residents ‘mutiny’ over plans to home Gloriana’ (p 5 with photos) and 7 letters (pp 23-4)

http://edition.pages
uite-professional.co
.uk/launch.aspx?pbid
=c7955673-549d-44a9-
9a9c-a642bedeaef8
This week’s RTT has a news story ‘Residents ‘mutiny’ over plans to home Gloriana’ (p 5 with photos) and 7 letters (pp 23-4) http://edition.pages uite-professional.co .uk/launch.aspx?pbid =c7955673-549d-44a9- 9a9c-a642bedeaef8 ChrisSquire
  • Score: -3

10:18pm Sat 12 Jul 14

kingstonpaul says...

Doblinski wrote:
dellboy twick. wrote:
kingstonpaul wrote:
Doblinski wrote:
Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment?

The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals.

The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana.

Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?
Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion.
kingstonpaul
The channel required has to be about 4 metres wide and deep by 70 metres long.this approximates to 1120 cubic metres of spoil.
The sides will have to be shored up, poured concrete or inter linked steel sheeting.
If a dry dock is required, as stated,pumping facilities also.
None of the plant needed can come by road,it will all be by river, to move equipment on to land calls for some form of substantial landing stage to allow barges along side to unload and load.
If the dry dock is for working on the barge it will need to be wider and deeper.
Half a dozen navies with picks and spades won't do the job.
OK so here are the facts for the ''intelligent man'' requiring them.

According to surveys carried out and as reported by resident Paul Bigley at this weeks Council meeting outlining project measurements that were not contradicted or questioned by any Councillor or member of the cabinet.

The channel for the Gloriana will be 150ft long, 20 ft wide and between 10 and 20 ft deep, the boat-house will have a foot-print of 110ft x 40ft and is 7m high. So actually Sir, I used the words 'massive' and 'enormous' advisedly.
I fear that adjectives such as 'massive' and 'enormous' are suffering from hyper-inflation on this thread.
At this rate, what superlatives are left in the lexicon to describe the 200 km long, 24 m deep, and 205 m wide Suez Canal....
[quote][p][bold]Doblinski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doblinski[/bold] wrote: Norman Foster does not design boathouses, but he does design riverside developments marina's, apartments and the like. Is he humbling himself for Richmond by designing this 7m high boat-house (equivalent to 4 terraced houses) just to house the Gloriana during the winter, or are there other aspects to the design we're not privy to at the moment? The Council's own drawings are very misleading as to scale. They depict a small leafy dock with the Gloriana as a 4 man long vessel. When in fact a huge dredged chanel needs to be created for the 10 man long Gloriana with the removal of several mature trees. This is a massive engineering project and it will undoubtedly cost much more than the proposed 1m. The historic boathouse they allude to (to encourage us to think they're just putting back what was there), used to house punts and small vessels. It bares no resemblance to these current proposals. The Gloriana is an attractive motorised boat that replicates, on the outside, an historic barge. The queen was presented with and didn't want it. Yes it deserves a dock somewhere, but why at Orleans Gardens which has terrible access with narrow roads that flood regularly, on a tidal part of the river necessitating major earth-works to house it there? It's going to ruin an unspoiled part of the river on land left to the people of Richmond the vast majority of whom don't want or need the Gloriana. Perhaps instead Mr Foster might be commissioned to put his genius to redesigning the uglier parts of central Twickenham?[/p][/quote]Hyperbolic phrases like 'huge dredged channel' and 'massive engineering project' undermine your case. Hey, we're not talking Suez Canal here. This lack of objectivity is a tad galling for intelligent folk like me that just want to be presented with the facts, un-garnished and not spun into a hyped-up stew of distortion.[/p][/quote]kingstonpaul The channel required has to be about 4 metres wide and deep by 70 metres long.this approximates to 1120 cubic metres of spoil. The sides will have to be shored up, poured concrete or inter linked steel sheeting. If a dry dock is required, as stated,pumping facilities also. None of the plant needed can come by road,it will all be by river, to move equipment on to land calls for some form of substantial landing stage to allow barges along side to unload and load. If the dry dock is for working on the barge it will need to be wider and deeper. Half a dozen navies with picks and spades won't do the job.[/p][/quote]OK so here are the facts for the ''intelligent man'' requiring them. According to surveys carried out and as reported by resident Paul Bigley at this weeks Council meeting outlining project measurements that were not contradicted or questioned by any Councillor or member of the cabinet. The channel for the Gloriana will be 150ft long, 20 ft wide and between 10 and 20 ft deep, the boat-house will have a foot-print of 110ft x 40ft and is 7m high. So actually Sir, I used the words 'massive' and 'enormous' advisedly.[/p][/quote]I fear that adjectives such as 'massive' and 'enormous' are suffering from hyper-inflation on this thread. At this rate, what superlatives are left in the lexicon to describe the 200 km long, 24 m deep, and 205 m wide Suez Canal.... kingstonpaul
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree