A judicial review against Richmond Council’s planning department for granting permission to the Teddington and Ham Hydro scheme brought by the Lensbury club was dismissed by the High Court.

The scheme involves the demolition of a section of Teddington Lock weir and construction of three Archimedean screw turbines in order to generate power.

It was approved in September 2015 and design amendments were made in February after opponents including the nearby Lensbury Club continued to raise concerns about the structure’s size, flood risk and associated noise.

The High Court dismissed the grounds of the Lensbury’s claim on April 29, and the council could claim up to £20,000 of its legal costs back from the leisure club and the second claimant, Pinenorth Properties.

Lensbury chief executive Lacy Curtis-Ward said the club’s legal team were still reviewing a number of things and did not rule out appealing the decision.

She said: “It is all still open at the moment.

“We will pay the costs as the court has ordered.”

Ham Hydro communications director Jono Adams said the team were delighted at the dismissal of the review and he felt there was limited substance to the challenge.

He added that he hoped the decision would not go to an appeal and he did not believe it would change anything if it did.

Mr Adams said: “We are really keen for that not to happen and to try and find some middle ground with the Lensbury and we are trying to engage with them.

“We continue to be optimistic we will convince them to engage with the new design.”

The scheme has raised £700,000 so far and Mr Adams said he is confident once share options are released it will raise the required sum in the region of £2-3million.

He said: “The scheme is well-liked, is achieving its objectives and is a good financial investment so we are confident it will be over-subscribed.”

He added: “We are hoping to start building by summer next year.”

Councillor Martin Elengorn, part of the council’s planning committee, said he was encouraged by the judge’s decision and did not feel there was strong grounds to contest the scheme.

He said: “A lot of care was taken in making sure all the proper work was in order for the scheme.”