Judicial review of station decision will achieve nothing, leader warns

First published in News by

A judicial review on approved plans for Twickenham station will achieve nothing and jeopardise the completion of the station development in time for the 2015 Rugby World Cup (RWC), the leader of Richmond Council said.

Twickenham Residents’ Action Group (Trag) has fought hard against Solum Regeneration’s plans for redevelopment work of the station, with their next step to overturn the council approved plans.

Thousands of residents have backed Trag and donated toward the £10,000 needed for a judicial review.

Trag members believe the council failed to take into account the evidence of a critical Twickenham Advisory Panel (Tap) report on the station developments and that not enough importance was attached to developers not committing to work being finished by the 2015 RWC.

However, Lord True said he was disappointed Trag was moving forward with the judicial review and that if it went ahead the station would not be ready for the World Cup.

He said: “In three years’ time when the 400,000 expected for the rugby world cup arrive we want them to be greeted at a station the borough can be proud of, in a town which is undergoing unprecedented investment. However, this won’t happen if the development is delayed.

“Judicial review is a costly and time consuming process. The council will have to spend taxpayers’ money to oppose this challenge. We are confident the courts will agree that there are no grounds. Should this be the case, we will seek to recoup all of our expenditure.

“Twickenham desperately needs a new station. Further delay will enrich lawyers but achieve nothing.”

A further reason Trag want the judicial review was to allow its plan B for the station to be considered by the council, although the council said it had never received a planning application.

John Watson, Trag spokesman, said: “Trag remains totally committed to a plan B solution for an attractive, viable, policy compliant new low-rise station and one that we can all be proud of in 50 years time. We continue to be open to engaging with any who have a similar interest and wish to support our ongoing efforts.

“We are entering the summer months, so it may take a while before the claim documents have been considered in full and we have a response from the High Court.”

To view the Tap report, visit trag-sos.moonfruit.com.

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:01am Mon 9 Jul 12

Gareth_Roberts says...

How charming to see the leader of the council threatening to pursue those who dare challenge his vision for costs through the courts.
How charming to see the leader of the council threatening to pursue those who dare challenge his vision for costs through the courts. Gareth_Roberts
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Mon 9 Jul 12

twickersargyle says...

I think Councillor True's spot on, Gareth. TRAG is going to waste a lot of taxpayers' money with this pointless legal challenge, so it needs to know there may be serious consequences.
I think Councillor True's spot on, Gareth. TRAG is going to waste a lot of taxpayers' money with this pointless legal challenge, so it needs to know there may be serious consequences. twickersargyle
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Culverin says...

@twickersargyle

As the members of TRAG are probably all taxpayers anyway they have every right to challenge what they see as a bad decision by the council.

Personally, I think it's good to see democracy in action no thanks to the Tory Council.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much, Richmond is one of the wealthiest boroughs in the country so you won't even notice the tax.

Interesting that it's now 'Lord' True. I wonder what insight and knowledge he adds to the Upper House?
@twickersargyle As the members of TRAG are probably all taxpayers anyway they have every right to challenge what they see as a bad decision by the council. Personally, I think it's good to see democracy in action no thanks to the Tory Council. Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much, Richmond is one of the wealthiest boroughs in the country so you won't even notice the tax. Interesting that it's now 'Lord' True. I wonder what insight and knowledge he adds to the Upper House? Culverin
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Mon 9 Jul 12

twickersargyle says...

TRAG have every right to challenge the decision, but they must also be prepared to face the financial consequences, should they fail.
TRAG have every right to challenge the decision, but they must also be prepared to face the financial consequences, should they fail. twickersargyle
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Mon 9 Jul 12

jeremyhm says...

Gareth - I don't read this as Lord True "threatening" anybody. I believe all Councils have a statutory duty to obtain best value for money, and thus, should TRAG lose the JR, the Council has little option but to ask for costs.
Please correct me if this is not the way things are meant to work.
Gareth - I don't read this as Lord True "threatening" anybody. I believe all Councils have a statutory duty to obtain best value for money, and thus, should TRAG lose the JR, the Council has little option but to ask for costs. Please correct me if this is not the way things are meant to work. jeremyhm
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Gareth_Roberts says...

Well under normal circumstances I'd agree with both Jeremy and TwickersArgyle. However this case is rather more complex than their interpretation allows for.

What we're dealing with is a Conservative administration which very publicly came to power promising to be the firewall against hi-rise development at the station.

What we're dealing with is a Conservative administration which very publicly appointed an independent panel (TAP) to act as an 'honest broker' to advise on issues such as these yet appeared to suppress the findings of that panel before the Planning Committee sat.

What we're dealing with is a Conservative administration which had very good planning reasons put before it which would have enabled them to refuse permission yet, inexplicably, voted along party lines to support the application.

As I say, under normal circumstances.......
.................
Well under normal circumstances I'd agree with both Jeremy and TwickersArgyle. However this case is rather more complex than their interpretation allows for. What we're dealing with is a Conservative administration which very publicly came to power promising to be the firewall against hi-rise development at the station. What we're dealing with is a Conservative administration which very publicly appointed an independent panel (TAP) to act as an 'honest broker' to advise on issues such as these yet appeared to suppress the findings of that panel before the Planning Committee sat. What we're dealing with is a Conservative administration which had very good planning reasons put before it which would have enabled them to refuse permission yet, inexplicably, voted along party lines to support the application. As I say, under normal circumstances....... ................. Gareth_Roberts
  • Score: 0

4:13am Tue 10 Jul 12

Concerned_Resident says...

On one hand, they raise the 10 grand for a judicial review, which will probably only cover the cost of a barrister to look at the case, not take it to court. In the other, they couldn't be bothered, or were too bone idle to stump up the couple of hundred quid to submit a planning application for their vision of the station. What's that all about?!

So we don't have a "plan B", contrary to what the people in Trag would have you believe, just a B. And B in this case stands for bull.... You complete the rest. It is what Trag is full of.
On one hand, they raise the 10 grand for a judicial review, which will probably only cover the cost of a barrister to look at the case, not take it to court. In the other, they couldn't be bothered, or were too bone idle to stump up the couple of hundred quid to submit a planning application for their vision of the station. What's that all about?! So we don't have a "plan B", contrary to what the people in Trag would have you believe, just a B. And B in this case stands for bull.... You complete the rest. It is what Trag is full of. Concerned_Resident
  • Score: 0

9:14am Tue 10 Jul 12

PhillipTaylor says...

It is worth remembering that the statistics for judicial review success are notoriously small in England and Wales and rather too many applicants end up in the bankruptcy courts when they lose.

Yes, it is right for applicants to have their day in court but applicants must always remember that a legal challenge costs a great deal of money and £10k is a mere drop in the ocean when you take on a local authority in the courts as any barrister will tell you.

And, of course, there are always the possibility of appeals which cost even more.

It is always worth noting the classic phrase: "never go to law if you can avoid it".

Phillip Taylor
It is worth remembering that the statistics for judicial review success are notoriously small in England and Wales and rather too many applicants end up in the bankruptcy courts when they lose. Yes, it is right for applicants to have their day in court but applicants must always remember that a legal challenge costs a great deal of money and £10k is a mere drop in the ocean when you take on a local authority in the courts as any barrister will tell you. And, of course, there are always the possibility of appeals which cost even more. It is always worth noting the classic phrase: "never go to law if you can avoid it". Phillip Taylor PhillipTaylor
  • Score: 0

9:35am Tue 10 Jul 12

jeremyhm says...

Gareth accused Lord True of being "threatening"; he should withdraw this statement. It is only fair that the possible consequences of this act should be pointed out fairly and squarely.
A Judicial Review (I have looked at a legal website for help on this, as I am a scientist by training) "is concerned only with the legality of the decision under review". I assume the specific legality in this case is Planning Law. As I recall, the Planning Officers recommended acceptance in this case. I cannot judge the legal rights and wrongs, but the Judicial Review, if it takes place, will do this.
Gareth accused Lord True of being "threatening"; he should withdraw this statement. It is only fair that the possible consequences of this act should be pointed out fairly and squarely. A Judicial Review (I have looked at a legal website for help on this, as I am a scientist by training) "is concerned only with the legality of the decision under review". I assume the specific legality in this case is Planning Law. As I recall, the Planning Officers recommended acceptance in this case. I cannot judge the legal rights and wrongs, but the Judicial Review, if it takes place, will do this. jeremyhm
  • Score: 0

10:12am Tue 10 Jul 12

Gareth_Roberts says...

I see no reason to withdraw it, Jeremy, Nick True's tone is threatening.

I must say that for an administration which came to power promising a new style of politics, one which promised to work with rather than against residents they're managing to alienate large swathes of the electorate. To adapt Oscar Wilde; to prompt one judicial review is a misfortune, to prompt two looks like carelessness
I see no reason to withdraw it, Jeremy, Nick True's tone is threatening. I must say that for an administration which came to power promising a new style of politics, one which promised to work with rather than against residents they're managing to alienate large swathes of the electorate. To adapt Oscar Wilde; to prompt one judicial review is a misfortune, to prompt two looks like carelessness Gareth_Roberts
  • Score: 0

10:12am Tue 10 Jul 12

Gareth_Roberts says...

I see no reason to withdraw it, Jeremy, Nick True's tone is threatening.

I must say that for an administration which came to power promising a new style of politics, one which promised to work with rather than against residents they're managing to alienate large swathes of the electorate. To adapt Oscar Wilde; to prompt one judicial review is a misfortune, to prompt two looks like carelessness
I see no reason to withdraw it, Jeremy, Nick True's tone is threatening. I must say that for an administration which came to power promising a new style of politics, one which promised to work with rather than against residents they're managing to alienate large swathes of the electorate. To adapt Oscar Wilde; to prompt one judicial review is a misfortune, to prompt two looks like carelessness Gareth_Roberts
  • Score: 0

10:44am Tue 10 Jul 12

Riverman says...

Even larger "swathes of the electorate" are concerned at the possibility of their Council Tax money being wasted on judicial reviews. And thinking of Plan B - has British Rail seen and commented on the plan? As they own the land, not the Council, I should like to know their comments. Who is going to pay for Plan B to be built? Presumably the poor old Council Tax payer again!
Even larger "swathes of the electorate" are concerned at the possibility of their Council Tax money being wasted on judicial reviews. And thinking of Plan B - has British Rail seen and commented on the plan? As they own the land, not the Council, I should like to know their comments. Who is going to pay for Plan B to be built? Presumably the poor old Council Tax payer again! Riverman
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Culverin says...

@Riverman

Firstly, you don't sound as if you like living in a democracy, apparently Saudi is nice - public executions on Fridays.

Secondly, apparently another group is planning to take the council to court for something so rather than blame these people perhaps it's his 'Lordship's' style of politics. If you need to winge about your tax I think it's the Tories you need to go to.
@Riverman Firstly, you don't sound as if you like living in a democracy, apparently Saudi is nice - public executions on Fridays. Secondly, apparently another group is planning to take the council to court for something so rather than blame these people perhaps it's his 'Lordship's' style of politics. If you need to winge about your tax I think it's the Tories you need to go to. Culverin
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Tue 10 Jul 12

jeremyhm says...

Gareth - my last word: the Leader's comment was no more threatening than someone saying "If you go too near the edge of the cliff, you might fall off" ie good advice.
Gareth - my last word: the Leader's comment was no more threatening than someone saying "If you go too near the edge of the cliff, you might fall off" ie good advice. jeremyhm
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Riverman says...

Remember Culverin that democracy also includes the silent majority! Your abusive attack tells me that you dont like the truth of my post and haven't got answers to it. So I ask again, who is going to pay for all the costs of a judicial review and who is going to pay for Plan B.?
Remember Culverin that democracy also includes the silent majority! Your abusive attack tells me that you dont like the truth of my post and haven't got answers to it. So I ask again, who is going to pay for all the costs of a judicial review and who is going to pay for Plan B.? Riverman
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Wed 11 Jul 12

Riverman says...

So answer came there none!! I think that says it all!
So answer came there none!! I think that says it all! Riverman
  • Score: 0

12:13am Thu 12 Jul 12

Twickenham Bob says...

Its good the courts will be looking into the planning decision process. As a light needs to be shone into the inner workings of this administration.

Many local residents think a backroom deal was done between the Council - the RFU - Solum - The London Mayor - and Network Rail.

Like clockwork, the RFU bankrolled a council scheme the moment the application was passed, the Mayor of London released millions of pounds to improve platforms (which was never on the table or mentioned beforehand).

Obviously there is a mountain of letters, emails, and text messages that went between the five parties and lets hope its all put into the public domain. As daylight is the best disinfectant.

This challenge is good news for all taxpayers as it means officials and councilors will be more careful in the future - as they will realise they are accountable.
Its good the courts will be looking into the planning decision process. As a light needs to be shone into the inner workings of this administration. Many local residents think a backroom deal was done between the Council - the RFU - Solum - The London Mayor - and Network Rail. Like clockwork, the RFU bankrolled a council scheme the moment the application was passed, the Mayor of London released millions of pounds to improve platforms (which was never on the table or mentioned beforehand). Obviously there is a mountain of letters, emails, and text messages that went between the five parties and lets hope its all put into the public domain. As daylight is the best disinfectant. This challenge is good news for all taxpayers as it means officials and councilors will be more careful in the future - as they will realise they are accountable. Twickenham Bob
  • Score: 0

9:39am Thu 12 Jul 12

jeremyhm says...

Bob - Why not try some Freedom of Information requests, that would cost very little, before making such serious allegations?
Bob - Why not try some Freedom of Information requests, that would cost very little, before making such serious allegations? jeremyhm
  • Score: 0

9:57am Thu 12 Jul 12

twickersargyle says...

Exactly, Jeremy. It's amazing how people assume corruption when a council decision goes against their wishes.
Exactly, Jeremy. It's amazing how people assume corruption when a council decision goes against their wishes. twickersargyle
  • Score: 0

11:34am Thu 12 Jul 12

Copthall resident says...

The silent majority in Twickenham were the ones who voted for this administration at the last election largely because they promised to listen to people on planning issues, and in particular that there would be no high rises. Instead the "Northern approach" is rapidly turning into Croydon. Doubtless the Post Office site will now rise upwards and they even plan a four storey car park (well they say four storeys, that could end up at eight too) in front of the Albany! Who in the 21st century builds multi storey car parks!! Its all like something out of a satirical novel about a 70s Tory Council running amok with a town, except if the author called the leader Lord True people would say that was a bit obvious!! Since we have to wait another three years to tell them what we think at the ballot box thank goodness someone is holding them to account before. Perhaps they will think twice before working with all their cronies, Solum, the Catholic church etc in future.
The silent majority in Twickenham were the ones who voted for this administration at the last election largely because they promised to listen to people on planning issues, and in particular that there would be no high rises. Instead the "Northern approach" is rapidly turning into Croydon. Doubtless the Post Office site will now rise upwards and they even plan a four storey car park (well they say four storeys, that could end up at eight too) in front of the Albany! Who in the 21st century builds multi storey car parks!! Its all like something out of a satirical novel about a 70s Tory Council running amok with a town, except if the author called the leader Lord True people would say that was a bit obvious!! Since we have to wait another three years to tell them what we think at the ballot box thank goodness someone is holding them to account before. Perhaps they will think twice before working with all their cronies, Solum, the Catholic church etc in future. Copthall resident
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Gareth_Roberts says...

Hello Copthall Resident, the good news is that you have fewer than two full years to wait before you can get your hands on a ballot paper.

Next Scheduled Council Elections - May 2014
Hello Copthall Resident, the good news is that you have fewer than two full years to wait before you can get your hands on a ballot paper. Next Scheduled Council Elections - May 2014 Gareth_Roberts
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Thu 12 Jul 12

twickersargyle says...

I suspect that the Solum development will be near-finished, look rather nice and everyone will have forgotten what all the fuss was about by then.
I suspect that the Solum development will be near-finished, look rather nice and everyone will have forgotten what all the fuss was about by then. twickersargyle
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Thu 12 Jul 12

alex twickenham says...

Aaah, it's always good to see the LibDem attack dogs prowling around. Has anyone else noticed how the pack seems to be forming as the next election looms ever nearer? - go for it Gareth. Just under 2 years to go!
Aaah, it's always good to see the LibDem attack dogs prowling around. Has anyone else noticed how the pack seems to be forming as the next election looms ever nearer? - go for it Gareth. Just under 2 years to go! alex twickenham
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Copthall resident says...

Actually alex twickenham, I was one of the silent majority, fell for all of Scott Naylors words (and to be fair the fact that there had been action as well as words), I don't think there will be many of us in Twickenham making that mistake again. Trouble is it was the Libdem approach to planning we all objected to in the first place.... thought were getting it wrong in the first place....
Actually alex twickenham, I was one of the silent majority, fell for all of Scott Naylors words (and to be fair the fact that there had been action as well as words), I don't think there will be many of us in Twickenham making that mistake again. Trouble is it was the Libdem approach to planning we all objected to in the first place.... thought were getting it wrong in the first place.... Copthall resident
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Copthall resident says...

twickersargyle It certainly won't look rather nice from my bedroom window, and quite a lot of bedroom windows in Central Twickenham, including those of the poor souls living there! The children who live there will exacerbate the shortage of school places with the only new places being 10 in a Catholic School which will doubtless be as in demand (not)as the ones in the bulge class at Sacred Heart have been this year, that they are still trying to pursuade all the non Catholic parents without school places to accept. And there will have been three years of having a station made inaccessible by building (they plan to pursuade us to use neighbouring stations and walk/bus it, I'm not backing their chances of pursuading all those Richmond College students to walk anywhere they don't have to!!) And when it's finished it also won't be fit for purpose. Have you read the report from Lord True's "honest brokers"? http://www.richmond.
gov.uk/tap_report.pd
f
twickersargyle It certainly won't look rather nice from my bedroom window, and quite a lot of bedroom windows in Central Twickenham, including those of the poor souls living there! The children who live there will exacerbate the shortage of school places with the only new places being 10 in a Catholic School which will doubtless be as in demand (not)as the ones in the bulge class at Sacred Heart have been this year, that they are still trying to pursuade all the non Catholic parents without school places to accept. And there will have been three years of having a station made inaccessible by building (they plan to pursuade us to use neighbouring stations and walk/bus it, I'm not backing their chances of pursuading all those Richmond College students to walk anywhere they don't have to!!) And when it's finished it also won't be fit for purpose. Have you read the report from Lord True's "honest brokers"? http://www.richmond. gov.uk/tap_report.pd f Copthall resident
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Gareth_Roberts says...

Come off it, Alex, I've been issuing online warnings about the duplicitous nature of the Tories as far back as their last stint in office. You'll recall those happy days on VoxPops when we all had to use our real names, I'm sure.

I'm hardly sitting in Newbie Corner!
Come off it, Alex, I've been issuing online warnings about the duplicitous nature of the Tories as far back as their last stint in office. You'll recall those happy days on VoxPops when we all had to use our real names, I'm sure. I'm hardly sitting in Newbie Corner! Gareth_Roberts
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Thu 12 Jul 12

twickersargyle says...

Copthall resident wrote:
twickersargyle It certainly won't look rather nice from my bedroom window, and quite a lot of bedroom windows in Central Twickenham, including those of the poor souls living there! The children who live there will exacerbate the shortage of school places with the only new places being 10 in a Catholic School which will doubtless be as in demand (not)as the ones in the bulge class at Sacred Heart have been this year, that they are still trying to pursuade all the non Catholic parents without school places to accept. And there will have been three years of having a station made inaccessible by building (they plan to pursuade us to use neighbouring stations and walk/bus it, I'm not backing their chances of pursuading all those Richmond College students to walk anywhere they don't have to!!) And when it's finished it also won't be fit for purpose. Have you read the report from Lord True's "honest brokers"? http://www.richmond.

gov.uk/tap_report.pd

f
How do you know it won't look nice? Will it look worse than a view of passing jumbos? Or that big railway warehouse with graffiti all over it? Just wait and see, Copthall and don't worry too much about it. I've said on here before, but Docklands has loads of similar developments, sitting side by side withe older buildings, and they look great. I'm not being glib or antagonistic. I genuinely think you have nothing to worry about.
[quote][p][bold]Copthall resident[/bold] wrote: twickersargyle It certainly won't look rather nice from my bedroom window, and quite a lot of bedroom windows in Central Twickenham, including those of the poor souls living there! The children who live there will exacerbate the shortage of school places with the only new places being 10 in a Catholic School which will doubtless be as in demand (not)as the ones in the bulge class at Sacred Heart have been this year, that they are still trying to pursuade all the non Catholic parents without school places to accept. And there will have been three years of having a station made inaccessible by building (they plan to pursuade us to use neighbouring stations and walk/bus it, I'm not backing their chances of pursuading all those Richmond College students to walk anywhere they don't have to!!) And when it's finished it also won't be fit for purpose. Have you read the report from Lord True's "honest brokers"? http://www.richmond. gov.uk/tap_report.pd f[/p][/quote]How do you know it won't look nice? Will it look worse than a view of passing jumbos? Or that big railway warehouse with graffiti all over it? Just wait and see, Copthall and don't worry too much about it. I've said on here before, but Docklands has loads of similar developments, sitting side by side withe older buildings, and they look great. I'm not being glib or antagonistic. I genuinely think you have nothing to worry about. twickersargyle
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Thu 12 Jul 12

twickersargyle says...

Copthall resident wrote:
twickersargyle It certainly won't look rather nice from my bedroom window, and quite a lot of bedroom windows in Central Twickenham, including those of the poor souls living there! The children who live there will exacerbate the shortage of school places with the only new places being 10 in a Catholic School which will doubtless be as in demand (not)as the ones in the bulge class at Sacred Heart have been this year, that they are still trying to pursuade all the non Catholic parents without school places to accept. And there will have been three years of having a station made inaccessible by building (they plan to pursuade us to use neighbouring stations and walk/bus it, I'm not backing their chances of pursuading all those Richmond College students to walk anywhere they don't have to!!) And when it's finished it also won't be fit for purpose. Have you read the report from Lord True's "honest brokers"? http://www.richmond.

gov.uk/tap_report.pd

f
How do you know it won't look nice? Will it look worse than a view of passing jumbos? Or that big railway warehouse with graffiti all over it? Just wait and see, Copthall and don't worry too much about it. I've said on here before, but Docklands has loads of similar developments, sitting side by side withe older buildings, and they look great. I'm not being glib or antagonistic. I genuinely think you have nothing to worry about.
[quote][p][bold]Copthall resident[/bold] wrote: twickersargyle It certainly won't look rather nice from my bedroom window, and quite a lot of bedroom windows in Central Twickenham, including those of the poor souls living there! The children who live there will exacerbate the shortage of school places with the only new places being 10 in a Catholic School which will doubtless be as in demand (not)as the ones in the bulge class at Sacred Heart have been this year, that they are still trying to pursuade all the non Catholic parents without school places to accept. And there will have been three years of having a station made inaccessible by building (they plan to pursuade us to use neighbouring stations and walk/bus it, I'm not backing their chances of pursuading all those Richmond College students to walk anywhere they don't have to!!) And when it's finished it also won't be fit for purpose. Have you read the report from Lord True's "honest brokers"? http://www.richmond. gov.uk/tap_report.pd f[/p][/quote]How do you know it won't look nice? Will it look worse than a view of passing jumbos? Or that big railway warehouse with graffiti all over it? Just wait and see, Copthall and don't worry too much about it. I've said on here before, but Docklands has loads of similar developments, sitting side by side withe older buildings, and they look great. I'm not being glib or antagonistic. I genuinely think you have nothing to worry about. twickersargyle
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Copthall resident says...

twickersargyle If I wanted to live in docklands, or Croydon, I would have gone and lived there. But I don't because I rather like looking out across clear skies, and buildings that are in scale with their surroundings (blotting out Regal and Queen's House) with or without passing jumbos. I don't have a problem with genuinely well designed modern buildings which really do add to the environment, and that doesn't have to be pastiche, it can be innovative, like the pyramid in the Louvre. This though is just the sort of stack 'em up as high and build it as cheaply as we can get away with to make a quick buck development weak suburban planners allow developers to get away with and future generations come to regret. Do you look at UK House, Bridge House, Regal House, Queen's House etc and think "that's rather nice"! If you do you are in the minority. It would look as rubbish in docklands as it is going to look here, and it is going to cheapen our environment, just another Woking, Croydon, Bromley. And whats more they also let them get away with shortchanging us on improvements to the stations.
twickersargyle If I wanted to live in docklands, or Croydon, I would have gone and lived there. But I don't because I rather like looking out across clear skies, and buildings that are in scale with their surroundings (blotting out Regal and Queen's House) with or without passing jumbos. I don't have a problem with genuinely well designed modern buildings which really do add to the environment, and that doesn't have to be pastiche, it can be innovative, like the pyramid in the Louvre. This though is just the sort of stack 'em up as high and build it as cheaply as we can get away with to make a quick buck development weak suburban planners allow developers to get away with and future generations come to regret. Do you look at UK House, Bridge House, Regal House, Queen's House etc and think "that's rather nice"! If you do you are in the minority. It would look as rubbish in docklands as it is going to look here, and it is going to cheapen our environment, just another Woking, Croydon, Bromley. And whats more they also let them get away with shortchanging us on improvements to the stations. Copthall resident
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Thu 12 Jul 12

akhanw says...

The council is out of touch with local needs and hence its a bit rich for Lord True to pontify about localism.What sort of localism is that - Divide and Rule or mateo-cracy ?
Catholic school, Twickenham station has any Council ever been subject to two parallel JR's? - do they really believe that the laws of this country do not apply to Richmond ?
The council is out of touch with local needs and hence its a bit rich for Lord True to pontify about localism.What sort of localism is that - Divide and Rule or mateo-cracy ? Catholic school, Twickenham station has any Council ever been subject to two parallel JR's? - do they really believe that the laws of this country do not apply to Richmond ? akhanw
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Thu 12 Jul 12

akhanw says...

The council is out of touch with local needs and hence its a bit rich for Lord True to pontify about localism.What sort of localism is that - Divide and Rule or mateo-cracy ?
Catholic school, Twickenham station has any Council ever been subject to two parallel JR's? - do they really believe that the laws of this country do not apply to Richmond ?
The council is out of touch with local needs and hence its a bit rich for Lord True to pontify about localism.What sort of localism is that - Divide and Rule or mateo-cracy ? Catholic school, Twickenham station has any Council ever been subject to two parallel JR's? - do they really believe that the laws of this country do not apply to Richmond ? akhanw
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Thu 12 Jul 12

twickersargyle says...

Copthall resident wrote:
twickersargyle If I wanted to live in docklands, or Croydon, I would have gone and lived there. But I don't because I rather like looking out across clear skies, and buildings that are in scale with their surroundings (blotting out Regal and Queen's House) with or without passing jumbos. I don't have a problem with genuinely well designed modern buildings which really do add to the environment, and that doesn't have to be pastiche, it can be innovative, like the pyramid in the Louvre. This though is just the sort of stack 'em up as high and build it as cheaply as we can get away with to make a quick buck development weak suburban planners allow developers to get away with and future generations come to regret. Do you look at UK House, Bridge House, Regal House, Queen's House etc and think "that's rather nice"! If you do you are in the minority. It would look as rubbish in docklands as it is going to look here, and it is going to cheapen our environment, just another Woking, Croydon, Bromley. And whats more they also let them get away with shortchanging us on improvements to the stations.
We'll see, we'll see. But, be assured, Docklands is nothing like Croydon. Architecture has come a long since Croydon was thrown up.
[quote][p][bold]Copthall resident[/bold] wrote: twickersargyle If I wanted to live in docklands, or Croydon, I would have gone and lived there. But I don't because I rather like looking out across clear skies, and buildings that are in scale with their surroundings (blotting out Regal and Queen's House) with or without passing jumbos. I don't have a problem with genuinely well designed modern buildings which really do add to the environment, and that doesn't have to be pastiche, it can be innovative, like the pyramid in the Louvre. This though is just the sort of stack 'em up as high and build it as cheaply as we can get away with to make a quick buck development weak suburban planners allow developers to get away with and future generations come to regret. Do you look at UK House, Bridge House, Regal House, Queen's House etc and think "that's rather nice"! If you do you are in the minority. It would look as rubbish in docklands as it is going to look here, and it is going to cheapen our environment, just another Woking, Croydon, Bromley. And whats more they also let them get away with shortchanging us on improvements to the stations.[/p][/quote]We'll see, we'll see. But, be assured, Docklands is nothing like Croydon. Architecture has come a long since Croydon was thrown up. twickersargyle
  • Score: 0

10:27pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Riverman says...

Copthall resident, you must have moved here very recently because "high rise" was lib dem policy - the one that the Council Planning Officers had to take into account when judging that the station plans should be passed, and the policy that the judge will have to look at. And I repeat for the third time, who is going to pay for Plan B etc? Certainly not the RFU.
Copthall resident, you must have moved here very recently because "high rise" was lib dem policy - the one that the Council Planning Officers had to take into account when judging that the station plans should be passed, and the policy that the judge will have to look at. And I repeat for the third time, who is going to pay for Plan B etc? Certainly not the RFU. Riverman
  • Score: 0

12:04am Fri 13 Jul 12

Copthall resident says...

Copthall resident wrote:
Actually alex twickenham, I was one of the silent majority, fell for all of Scott Naylors words (and to be fair the fact that there had been action as well as words), I don't think there will be many of us in Twickenham making that mistake again. Trouble is it was the Libdem approach to planning we all objected to in the first place.... thought were getting it wrong in the first place....
Riverman Depends if you percieve 1988 as recent, but I suspect you didn't bother to read the thread. And what a judge will take into account is the planning policy current when the permission was given which superceded the libdem policy. Lord True and his planning minions just capitulated when Solum did a bit of low grade posturing, basic level negototiating skills course for them I think, and I do have first hand experience of how pathetic Richmonds Planning Officers are when it comes to a developer saying boo! And when a Planning Inspector found for us rather than the Planning Officer we did get a development that didn't damage our environment and amenity, but then that was with the help of Conservative Councillors before Lord True made it clear that what mattered wasn't what the people of Twickenham wanted.....
[quote][p][bold]Copthall resident[/bold] wrote: Actually alex twickenham, I was one of the silent majority, fell for all of Scott Naylors words (and to be fair the fact that there had been action as well as words), I don't think there will be many of us in Twickenham making that mistake again. Trouble is it was the Libdem approach to planning we all objected to in the first place.... thought were getting it wrong in the first place....[/p][/quote]Riverman Depends if you percieve 1988 as recent, but I suspect you didn't bother to read the thread. And what a judge will take into account is the planning policy current when the permission was given which superceded the libdem policy. Lord True and his planning minions just capitulated when Solum did a bit of low grade posturing, basic level negototiating skills course for them I think, and I do have first hand experience of how pathetic Richmonds Planning Officers are when it comes to a developer saying boo! And when a Planning Inspector found for us rather than the Planning Officer we did get a development that didn't damage our environment and amenity, but then that was with the help of Conservative Councillors before Lord True made it clear that what mattered wasn't what the people of Twickenham wanted..... Copthall resident
  • Score: 0

12:29am Fri 13 Jul 12

Copthall resident says...

Riverman Have you read the TAP report? Pretty damning from "honest brokers" selected by Lord True from the great and the good. No evidence to back up Solums negotiating position that anything less would be uneconomic, indeed it didn't stand up to logic since lower rise would be less expensive. Numerous breaches of planning policy not just on number of storeys but even bedrooms with no windows"! I suggest you try getting planning permission for that unless you have friends in high places! There is a reason you negotiate in business, it is to get the best outcome for all parties, and if you do it well you get a win win. Perhaps a negotiation based on Plan B could get to that outcome, because at the moment Plan A is yielding a win for Solum but a lose for the people of Twickenham, the users of the station, the people who will live in the development and even actually the World Cup Rugby fans who will be squashed in under their development. Knowing Rugby fans they have no problem being coralled out of the side of a rundown station as they have been since I was a lass...have you been to Eden Park?
Riverman Have you read the TAP report? Pretty damning from "honest brokers" selected by Lord True from the great and the good. No evidence to back up Solums negotiating position that anything less would be uneconomic, indeed it didn't stand up to logic since lower rise would be less expensive. Numerous breaches of planning policy not just on number of storeys but even bedrooms with no windows"! I suggest you try getting planning permission for that unless you have friends in high places! There is a reason you negotiate in business, it is to get the best outcome for all parties, and if you do it well you get a win win. Perhaps a negotiation based on Plan B could get to that outcome, because at the moment Plan A is yielding a win for Solum but a lose for the people of Twickenham, the users of the station, the people who will live in the development and even actually the World Cup Rugby fans who will be squashed in under their development. Knowing Rugby fans they have no problem being coralled out of the side of a rundown station as they have been since I was a lass...have you been to Eden Park? Copthall resident
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Wed 1 Aug 12

idblackman says...

Just to clarify a couple of points:

TRAG have applied for a Protected Cost Order. They are commonly awarded to groups of residents and set a maximum cost that would be faced if the case is lost. Otherwise residents groups would not be able to challenge Councils.

Plan B shows that a low rise development is feasible. TRAG is not in a position to seek planning permission. TRAG does not own the land. It would be like asking for planning permission for an extension on the back of your neighbour's house. The cost would be in excess of £100,000 for a commercial development.

As for the Rugby World Cup it is very unlikely the Solum Scheme will be completed in time. They don't even have to start for three years as the completion date was not a condition demanded by the Council.

Boris has provided funding to renovate most of the station. The only significant omission is the lifts, which Network Rail are already obliged to provide to make the platforms accessible.

In the latest planning application DD03 Solum have asked for the use of the station to be minimised during construction. We are still waiting for the Planning Department to explain what that means.
Just to clarify a couple of points: TRAG have applied for a Protected Cost Order. They are commonly awarded to groups of residents and set a maximum cost that would be faced if the case is lost. Otherwise residents groups would not be able to challenge Councils. Plan B shows that a low rise development is feasible. TRAG is not in a position to seek planning permission. TRAG does not own the land. It would be like asking for planning permission for an extension on the back of your neighbour's house. The cost would be in excess of £100,000 for a commercial development. As for the Rugby World Cup it is very unlikely the Solum Scheme will be completed in time. They don't even have to start for three years as the completion date was not a condition demanded by the Council. Boris has provided funding to renovate most of the station. The only significant omission is the lifts, which Network Rail are already obliged to provide to make the platforms accessible. In the latest planning application DD03 Solum have asked for the use of the station to be minimised during construction. We are still waiting for the Planning Department to explain what that means. idblackman
  • Score: 0

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