Time for Another Twickenham Riverside Development (& Car Park) Consultation

Water Lane car park – Twickenham riverside

Another season, another Twickenham riverside consultation. Running from June until 11th July you have a chance to give some more feedback on El Brute’s grand plan for Twickenham Riverside. You remember! It’s the one that architect Francis Terry has come up with. So much for all this talk about Labour or the Tories or the DUP or whoever returning Britain to the 1970s, this is the plan that takes plucky Twickenham back to the 70s… the 1770s, except that Twickenham wasn’t like this back then.

In the latest consultation document, Councillor Pamela Fleming said “In thirty-five years there has not been consensus on the best way of improving this beautiful stretch of the riverside, but at last we seem to be moving in the right direction. This has only been achieved by working together and recognising how passionate people are about the area. I hope we can continue this partnership and that together we can create a scheme that will enhance Twickenham and be enjoyed for years to come”. Quite. There has been some progress brought about by those passionate Twickenham residents but LBRuT needs to keep listening and act on what it hears.

Twickenham riverside site from Embankment

Yes we all want to see the site improved and LBRuT are billing this project as ‘New Heart for Twickenham’ which all sounds jolly good. Terry’s retro-designs remain and it’s clear that LBRuT have no intention of changing that. He won a ‘competition’, innit? Everyone has a different view of what should be done in terms of the remit and scale of the development but certain themes are common such as a proper town square or community area, limiting the extent of the commercialisation of the site in terms of flats, the need to better connect King Street to the river and finding a better solution to using prime river frontage as a car park.

It’s no wonder many were disappointed that the proposals have always struggled to fully reflect these points. An impossible task? Perhaps, but some of the changes that have been made do take some account of concerns. The height of the building on King Street has been scaled back and it’s also been pulled back from the edge of Water Lane (a little) although doesn’t create much new space. The “two big blocks” solution seems to be the preferred route, with retail use on the ground floor and residential above. Some tweaks have been made to the riverside terrace too although the ‘before and after’ images in the latest document are quite selective. The raised riverside terrace has an option for ‘boathouse’ type arches underneath. It’s still all very Richmond but that’s not going to change. You’ll either like that or you won’t  On the whole the design has softened a fair bit from the very original “Rome in a day” colosseum idea that Q&F Terry put forward.

Possible view of Embankment frontage
From: LBRuT Twickenham Rediscovered

On parking, the document says of previous feedback, “A number of respondents highlighted the need to retain parking on the Embankment, the existing pressure on this parking and the necessity of any additional parking demand generated by the development being adequately catered for”. In other words, more parking not less. Parking for the new development will be underneath a podium and more residents only bays will be installed. In other words, no creative solution has yet been found to address the issue and significant parking remains on the river frontage. Yes, Eel Pie Island residents’ views do need to be factored into the designs but is ‘no change’ the best that we can do? Surely not.

As @twickerman railed on Twitter, “Thanks for not spoiling these car park views! Who wants and visionary pedestrianised Twickenham Riverside park anyway”. Ouch!

You can see what he means…


Possible parking plan, with under podium spaces.
From LBRuT Twickenham Rediscovered

El Brute says that feedback from this consultation will be used in the final proposal for the site. There will then be a further consultation before something gets submitted to planning later in 2017.


Site plan view (possible).  “Two blocks please we’re Twickers”
From LBRuT Twickenham Rediscovered

Heading in the right direction? You decide. And remember to have your say here and with the Council too.




We ran a quick parking poll on Twitter and the result is clear cut.  Would you have voted the same way?

Better parking solution needed


* LBRuT Twickenham Rediscovered
The drop-in exhibitions are being held on the following dates at Clarendon Hall, York House:
Sun 18th June, 11am to 3pm
Mon 19th June, 5 to 8pm (parking consultants to attend)
Thur 29th June, 5 to 8pm (landscaping consultants to attend)
Thur 6th July, 5 to 8pm
Sat 8th July, 10am to 5pm

* Riverside Action Group


Filed under Council, Local Issues & News, Twickenham Action Plan

125 responses to “Time for Another Twickenham Riverside Development (& Car Park) Consultation

  1. The plan DOES INCLUDE UNDERGROUND PARKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • twickerman

      Well spotted illiad1, yes there is underground, or as it’s now known under-podium, parking in the latest plans.

      LBRuT state the 47 under-podium parking spaces are intended solely for the 30-35 flats and the shops in the new development, and therefore their latest proposal won’t help relocate parking from the riverside car park.

      However, if the flats were sold without parking (as per the station), allowing for a few disabled and car club spaces, there would be at least 30 spaces for residents. With excellent bus and train routes on the doorstep this is quite reasonable, and was also the case for the houses on Water Lane.

      Another 30-50 spaces can easily be added along the service road. These will be more convenient for the shops and cafes than along the riverbank, and more importantly will not spoil the riverside views or use of riverside space.

      As a result, it will be possible to pedestrianise most of the Embankment between Water Lane and Wharf Lane (access will still be maintained for Eel Pie deliveries).

      Eh voila, we have a Twickenham Riverside Park which will run all the way from the top of Diamond Jubilee Gardens to the edge of the river. Hoorah.

      But where will these spaces be created along the service road, I hear you ask? There are two possibilities, which could be combined:
      1. along the edge of the DJGardens. The Trust have said they would be flexible about the space, and ultimately, they would gain more space at the front of the gardens than they lose along the back.
      2. in the new development, roughly where the car park is at the moment.

      I could claim that this is a brilliant new idea, but I’m too honest to do that. The idea of relocating parking along the service road was proposed before the 2010 elections. Unfortunately, the green River Park ideas have gone AWOL since the election, along with promises of NO luxury flats and NO developers (but to be fair the site now includes King Street).

      Also, if you cast your minds back to a more recent Riverside consultation in which we promised a new Town Square (plus the colosseum), Pamela Fleming and LBRUT made the following positive statement:

      ‘Parking Strategy – Residents have told us in the many local consultations that they want to remove cars from the Riverside. Therefore, the biggest proposed change to parking is that parking will be removed from the Embankment directly in front of Diamond Jubilee Gardens. This is to enhance the views of the river from DJG and also provide better access from the Embankment up to DJG.’

      Wow. I couldn’t agree more, and presumably neither could the 73% of people who voted in twickerati’s poll to do exactly the same.

      When you all respond to the current consultation, can you please disagree with the current riverside parking proposal, and let them know what your preferred alternative parking solution is. Thank you.

    • well, no one else has bothered to look, they are still gassing on about their own loony stuff..

    • Limited space??? well how about digging UNDER the whole DJG???


    I do hope people are LOOKING at the plan..

  3. demokrat


    Why not try a new pole based on the Peoples Plan, which established/confirmed, the True Twickenham Riverside Solution (TTRS). Specification and detail at: http://www.barryedwards.info/?page_id=53

    I can guess the results, because I designed it in connection to local residents requirements. But this ironically is not an alternative solution, it was the True one, because it is was the one generated by the public and accepted by the Tories.

    El Brute should not have even considered anything else and just did what the people wanted.

    • Sally

      For Gods’s sake Barry Edwards stop trying to get people to look at your website! Every blasted post you make a link to your great works and would doubtless do this even if someone contacted asked the time or the best local place to buy sink plungers . You will put people off ,and we need residents to be involved, many of whom will be new to this or punch drunk after so many consultations.
      All the information of importance is freely available on line with no need to wade through your Barry – centric visions.

    • demokrat

      Baby Sal,
      1st – I was talking to Twickerati and your attention is unwelcome and is anti-social behaviour.
      2nd – The website is where the document can be easily posted, so people can see it and for no other reason and I am happy to supply it to Twickerati, if needed. Only your twisted mind would think this an attempt to bring traffic to a website. For you information it already has huge traffic statistics for the site.
      3rd – It is the plan the residents chose, of course they are interested.
      4th – This plan is the one that was picked by the public, is not “freely available online”. And far from any your sarcastic remarks, if anyone, it is you who are trying to suppress the original and True Peoples Plan for Twickenham Riverside.
      You ought to try and take a really look at the information and try to be objective for a change, instead of just shooting from the hip expressing your habitual bigotry.

    • anonymouse

      Unlike a kipper to recommend a pole!

    • Alexis

      Careful Sally or you might become the first person to be issued with a Demos Kratos ASBO!
      Bon courage

    • Sally

      Thank you Alexis. It is chastening to be instructed in habitual bigotry by a kipper- but best to learn at the feet of a master. (Website :www .barking.alldowntome.com) I can’t wait to hear all about the “True People’s Plan”- and I suspect I will not need to wait at all .

  4. Idiotic

    Seems like a missed opportunity to provide needed extra parking for visitors – i.e. why not provide an uplift in visitor/P&D bays so that more people can come to the new development.

    • anonymouse

      Yeah, let’s pave over the river to extend the car park. Visitors will come from far and wide in amazement at our idiocy.
      *flippant comment warning*

  5. We ran a quick parking poll on Twitter. Polls can be misleading as we all know, but this looks pretty clear…

    • twickerman

      Well done twickerati, that’s nearly as many replies in 48hrs as El Brute received to their last consultation (that lasted for weeks).

      I hope everyone replies to El Brute’s current consultation to share their views about relocating parking from the Riverside, so that it can be landscaped and enjoyed for generations to come.

      I wonder if Pamela Fleming’s paying attention, or is she too busy eyeing up Lord True’s office?

    • whiteknight

      Great idea. Now please let us have practical answers to the “better solution”, ie ideas as to where 58 new parking spaces can be found?

    • RiversideVoter

      The Council bought a development of shops, offices and a Car Park at a price that presumably reflects the value of that property on the existing scale as a long term commercial investment. Their proposals with riverside parking in place pose issues of the viability of a much bigger development, with the added costs and risks as well as greater potential payback.

      What about scaling the whole thing back to redevelopment on the scale of that existing and then some clever landscaping to bring the car parking away from the river and develop green /public areas from Jubilee Gardens, along the river and back up water lane, perhaps drawing into the planning proposal the big hall where the karate club is that various overdevelopment proposals have been submitted for that neighbours the site. The site slopes anyway so would be a gift to a good landscape architect. I am not being naive, I have been involved in the capex business case for some pretty extensive developments to concentrate business activities, but those would now be regarded as risky financially and unnecessary, and as others have said, outdated in not many decades and in need of more investment and modernisation.

      I think it is naive to think these grandiose proposals are driven by viability when it is clear to see it is a massive vanity project, particularly since the True power behind Ms Fleming’s throne has such form.

    • demokrat

      I am not surprised that 73% want to find an alternative.

      The link below shows what the people of Twickenham actually voted for, which El Brute has persistently ignored.

      It has all the elements that the community asked for (shown in the link) and not only has an extra 50 parking spaces, but also retains the existing car park for Eel Pie residents parking permits.

      I don’t know why the Council is even continuing to come up with even more property developments, the people have spoken, please get on with it.


    • If anyone will bother look closely at the above plan, they will see *underground* parking IS included… 🙂

      Now if someone will remind them about flooding….. :O

    • Riverside Voter

      Aristophanes has replied to me elsewhere but I will keep with the thread discipline 😀

      The “big hall”, where the karate club meets is owned by somebody else but it has to submit plans in line with the Council’s Planning framework, something the owner has failed to do on various occasions which is why their plans have been refused, on the grounds it was overdevelopment which was not in context with the hall and its current useage or the surroundings. The Council has considerable influence over what future plans are submitted and could amend the planning framework based on the strategy for the overall site or make clear what was required in discussions with the owner. It is after all a key building within the overall context. Of course the fact that they are hoping to embark on a project of exceptionalism to plonk a massive development next door would just make it appear they treated the owner unfairly in the past and gives a green light for them to submit something even bigger. To be fair to the owner their last plans which took the RIverside context into account by drawing inspiration from boathouses if anything worked better than what the Council proposes.

      I suggest Aristophanes takes a wonder around the site. No I am not suggesting that the Car Parking goes on the site of the hall, it does not need to. The site is pretty obviously big enough for the car parking and commercial development on the existing scale since they are already there! What I am suggesting is to reconfigure it to move the commercial development and Car Parking to somewhere other than where it blights the RIverside and blocks it from King Street, I am no landscape architect but perhaps to the back and side of the site where they can be hidden from view by landscaping and restoring some nice greenery and community use to the RIverside and Water Lane, a more modest and less risky project in terms of finances and the quality of the finished development and one which would benefit Twickenham and its residents.

      The problem is that at the moment this project is being led by an architect and Council Leader with the glory of the Richmond RIverside in their minds, and neither has any business sense, awareness of the context and nor do they know or care what the community needs / wants.

    • RiversideVoter

      Nor do I mean the old pool site aka Jubilee Gardens which is now protected by a trust from any development. Presumably having secured that Lord True felt done with the prior commitments he made to us as recorded on video that our riverside would be protected from development, and able to give all to his dreams of neo classical palaces with fairy craft rowing by……

    • Sally

      Could I just throw this in? For years I have been at meetings and heard the longest residents mutter about the underground car park at the Civic Centre York Street
      Twickenham, They said that they had been promised that said large underground car park would be for residents’ use as well at the council’s.
      Stung by Chris Squire demanding this story be substantiated, I hot footed it to the excellent Local Studies library in Richmond.
      There I found the Detail Brief 1985 for the York Street development .Page 5 under “Access and Parking conditions” paragraph 4.2 :
      “It is envisaged that the staff car park will be available for public use outside normal office hours”
      The application was granted with that as a given. Now of course the powers that be could claim that things change etc but that large ,underground ,close to Eel Pie car park WAS meant for residents to use outside office hours. (Boo to you, Mr Squire.)
      This could be of use. It does not solve the problem of frail or elderly Eel Pie residents needing to park close to home. But surely this gives just a bit of extra weight to the idea that the car park could once again be for residents to use? Visitors? Weekend parking? After hours?

      I calle up parking just to double check where things now stand .
      “The car park under York House is not for residents’ use . ”
      What about on the weekends? After hours?
      “Oh, it closes when we close. ”
      So it sits empty every weekend? Every evening?

      Incidentally, the records of York Street development feature a certain youthful Councillor True who is all over the RTT (some things never change) speaking eloquently against the development’s cost and the lack of transparency about its spiralling funding. Councillor True estimated the development would be millions of pounds over budget, He spoke very movingly against huge ,expensive, overblown developments .
      Brought a tear to the eye.

    • whiteknight: LOOK CLOSELY at the plan above and you will see where the cars can all go…

  6. anonymouse

    Hi twickerati, how did your parking poll go?
    Do folks want to keep the Riverside car park or do they want to stick it where the sun don’t shine (under the podium and in the shady service road)?

    ps I’m not a Yellow, nor a Red or a Blue or a Green, and most defo not a Purple.

    • I think the point is, you cannot take a car over the eel pie bridge…. 😀 😀

    • anonymouse

      then build a car bridge from wharf lane. simples.

    • you sound like the guy who ordered the stone pavements, NO CLUE about what is involved, just looked like a good idea… maybe a good look at a MAP of the area would help??? 🙂

      or are the guy the follows his GPS, and wondered why the way it is getting very narrow and overgrown?????

    • …. or even wonders why his car is now in the river??? 😀 😀

    • Dr NHS

      Dear Anonymouse,
      Sorry to have had a sense of humour failure. There is a history on this site of ludicrous ideas being sounded forth (the sounds seeming to be coming from Isleworth, oddly) that look like they might be flippant or a joke but turn out to be held in deadly, humourless earnest. As a consequence I’ve got into the habit of taking everything, no matter how barking, as seriously meant.

    • anonymouse

      Dr NHS,
      Apology accepted.
      I know what you mean about the Isleworth issue, but if you read his comment above he has actually had or borrowed some sensible ideas about moving the riverside parking to the back of the site and landscaping (a specialist subject of his) the riverside.
      In fact these ideas were part of the Twickenham Tories proposals for ‘a public park’ on the riverside prior to the election in 2010.
      They also promised ‘NO blocks of luxury flats’ and ‘No to developers’.
      Oh, how things change, and how fickle politicians like True and his trusty sidekick Fleming are!

    • just to repeat… If anyone will **bother** to look closely at the above plan, they will see *underground* parking IS included… 🙂

      Now if someone will remind them about flooding….. :O

    • aristophanes

      Riverside Voter: the “big hall” you mention, aka Queens Hall, is not the property of Richmond Council. It is part of the 3- 33 King St block that was recently bought by Evergreen Retail Investment from the previous owners, Omaha Nominees. The Council has no control over it, or any of the other properties backing onto the Service Road.
      Are you suggesting the car parking should be moved onto the Old Pool site?

    • whiteknight

      illiad: I have looked closely at the plan above; I understand there is to be an underground carpark (for the new residents), about 40 spaces.
      If you intend to use the existing service road, you would first have to widen it by cutting down the hornbeams (that would cause an outcry); even so , you could do this only as far as the back of no.9 (Queens Hall). Then you would have a problem, as you have made it too narrow for two way traffic, that is essential for servicing the new dwellings and existing shops on King Street. Even doing this, you can fit in only about 22 cars (see the Countryside plan in 2010); the requirement is for 58 (see above).
      Please tell…….

  7. anonymouse

    Hi twickerati, how did your parking poll go?
    Do folks want to keep the Riverside car park or do they want to stick it where the sun don’t shine (under the podium and in the shady service road)?

    • Dr NHS

      Leaving aside the aesthetic issues of a bridge and that the Tower of Power company which owns Eel Pie Island prohibits all motorised transport theron it might be worthwhile noting that the construction of any bridge, particularly one strong enough to hold a car, is a massively expensive exercise that costs way, way more than simple groundworks. In a related vein, the construction of any underground car parking facilities – ideal though they might be in this setting because we could have the gardens running down to the river edge AND have parking – is very much more expensive than a purely ground level development.
      El Brute seem obsessed with the cost being ‘zero’ but it seems to me that the things that are not in short supply in this neck of the woods are shops with residential flats above them. Nobody is going to rush to Twickenham to spend a lazy day by the river admiring the architecture of the shops. What they might do is notice, when driving through from the Station or York Road, if there were a whacking flat bit of gardens with a clear view of the lovely river. They might stop, or later return, to enjoy such gardens.
      Almost any architectural construction, rammed into the space, will risk going out of style. It’s worthwhile bearing in mind that Regal House, shortlisted for the prestigeous ‘ugliest building in Britain’ competition, was in its day seen by the El Brute of the time as perfectly acceptable. I am pretty sure that a more or less open garden space will not, however, go out of fashion.

    • anonymouse

      Dear Dr,
      My comment about the car bridge was of course flippant and ill-informed, but that’s what this blog is all about init.
      That’s why dear old Bazza feels so at home here.
      BTW, what colour do you think his new party will be? Black (as in hole)? Brown (as in ****hole)?

  8. Sorry folks but a few people need to get a grip. This is an important subject. If Barry doesn’t actually live in Twickenham but has a view on what happens here, that’s OK. It is acceptable to take an interest in an area where you don’t actually live. In turn, the references to the “be wicked, act shamelessly” Lib Dem thing or whatever the hell it is, is now boring beyond belief. As our friends in America might say, enough already. Persuading people to engage with the topc at hand is key here. Direct your energy into providing feedback to the Council. Thanks.

  9. Procrastinating, Inefficien, Payronising. Three words to sum up successive Twickenham Lib/Dem, Conservative councils. They have outsourced all local services, they do not listen, they are non communicable.
    Why have we got them?
    Oops nearly forgot, their expenses a nice little earner.
    That’s why !

  10. A whole generation of kids have grown up, moved away and began families of their own and another generation of Twickerites have grown old and died whilst successive Lib/Dem and Vonsevative councils have kept Twickenham riverside scruffy. At least they could have cleaned it up !

  11. Open space is more valuable than more buildings. Keep it simple and reasonable. Open space with possibly a seating and possibly a fountain. Let’s all enjoy the river. Not a privileged few. Simple and fair.
    Incidentally we have more than our fair share of shops unable to pay their way with more to come at the station development and Brewery Wharf. A bit overkill !

    • Sally

      I agree. Open space, a fountain, something for the children, . Perhaps a paddling pool or water play area. What I think is vital is that anything put up also needs fund ring fenced for its cleaning, security, maintainence. There is no point having a public area which is filthy, poorly kept or unsafe.We have seem with the pavement fiasco, this administration is quite capable of putting something up and losing all interest in keeping it looking good.
      Oddly, Wetherspoons have been able to lay their hands on a machine to clean the pavements . The area in front of their pub is bright, clean and a sharp contrast to the acres of grey sludge surrounding it.Perhaps a loan could be arranged?

    • see above.. June 26, 2017 at 7:24 pm

      and where were you in 2010, when plans were submitted???

    • Um, Wetherspoons has about 50 million profit from it’s almost 1000 pubs, so can afford private stuff…. 😡

    • Sally

      You are right illiad1. Wetherspoons have a hell of a lot more money.! However,, the council knew how much money they had, decided to do all the pavements in special expensive easy-stain paving and , I gather, didn’t budget for a cleaning machine. So the pavements went grey. And might as well have been made of cheapo grey slabs!
      This seems eye wateringly idiotic, but our area any area, can boast lots of municipal developments which now look awful because no money was ring fenced to look after them. Something to guard against on the riverside site.

    • twickerman

      It seems to be impossible for El Brute to mention the Diamond Jubilee Gardens without describing them as ‘the award winning’ DJGs.
      What they don’t mention is that the award for extensive use of fake york stone paving was from none other than the supplier of said paving!!!

  12. A. Robot (Mrs)

    Twickenham Riverside Development, kitsch ‘classicism’, Quinlan Terry, Lord True, town squares, Gareth Roberts, King Street, Pamela Fleming pissing in your gardens on 6 Nations rugby days, costly paving, Vince Cable, ghastly lefties, demos kratos and Demis Roussos: just some of the things not mentioned a single time in Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom’s entertaining interviews this week.
    But if you haven’t already seen or heard them, do give yourself a treat:

    * ( It’s possible that I innocently omitted a comma somewhere in the list above)

    • Anonymous

      Thank you Mrs R , hilarious and horrifying. Andrea Leadsom’s ability to smile condescendingly and talk at the same time is impressive .

    • demokrat

      Baby Sal,

      You still haven’t got it have you?
      The word reside (an address) and the word live (where you spend your life), have two quite separate and different meanings in the English Dictionary, are you stupid?? Do you actually know that this topic is about Twickenham Riverside? You are wasting everyone’s time, stay on topic, or don’t bother posting.

      Sal’s irrelevant dirty LIb Dem propaganda service seems to have been resumed….
      “be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly”, “advises candidates to “exaggerate” claims and to use a range of other negative campaigning tactics”, “you can secure support from voters who normally vote Tory by being effectively anti-Labour and similarly in a Tory area secure Labour votes by being anti-Tory.”
      Published by the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors (ALDC).

      It is pitiful, come on Sal tell us your real name and where you live, so we can all have a laugh.

    • Riverside Voter

      Anonymous, she spent decades in a broom cupboard somewhere in the City perfecting it, that and her “CV”

  13. demokrat

    They should all resign and give the people of Twickenham some hope.
    One scheme after the next, designed to “do over” the residents.
    It is ridiculous that any of them, Tory, Lib Dem, Labour etc still get anyone voting for them. Society should be run for the people, these political parties have to go. The future is on its way, where you have the power……:

    • anonymouse

      And what about the people of Isleworth, like you Bazza?

    • A. Robot (Mrs)

      ‘The future is on its way’, mandem: the first thing you’ve ever said on here that we can probably all agree on.
      But doesn’t it sound worryingly close to a certain well-known song called ‘Tomorrow belongs to me’? Could they be by any chance related?

    • Sally

      By definition the future is always on its way, Mr Edwards. Whether or not it is marching towards a utopian world over which you rule as philosopher King is another question..

      Iseworth has a riverside too. 267.hightly recommended.

    • demokrat

      Mrs Bot, Annoying Mouse and Baby Sal, have actually run out of things to say. They are on repeat, yellow good, blue bad and don’t choose any other colour.

      This is what has ruined Twickenham for the last 30 years. Your pointless bickering has to stop, change the broken record and learn to have some respect towards the people that reside, (1. to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; live. 2. (of things, qualities, etc.) to be present habitually; be inherent 3. to rest or be vested, as powers or rights)……

      – and people that live (1. To be alive; exist. 2. To continue to be alive. 3. To support oneself; subsist:. 4. To reside; dwell .5. To conduct one’s life in a particular manner . 6. To pursue a positive, satisfying existence; enjoy life: those who truly live.7. To remain in human memory. v.tr.1. To spend or pass (one’s life).2. To go through; experience .3. To practice in one’s life: live one’s beliefs., (that means have businesses, investments, friends and family and lived there for 25 years and still spend most of their time and money there, oh yes and are eligible under election regulations), in the area.

      Definition of reside 2 and 3 apply to me and live noun 1 to 7 and verb 1 to 3 also apply. So please grow up and learn what words mean, before using them.

      Nobody wants to hear your rubbish, anyone that is prepared to put some positive effort into improving Twickenham should be encouraged and commended, it is a real shame that you lot, are a bunch of sad old naysayers, that hold Twickenham back.

      So have you actually got anything positive to say, that could help?

    • Sally

      Mr Edwards, speaking of repetition, your incessant attempts to link posters to your Thoughts Of Barry website are a bit tragic. Do give over. We now all know where to go if we want to read your insights .and your unique take on how you can be made a political player without the need for any of those tricky elections.
      Meanwhile please stop trying to come up with a way you can be living Twickenham while actually.living in Isleworth. Going on and on about having previously lived here, or grindingly listing all the stuff you do in the neighbourhood except live here is not relevant. A helpful thing to do is look at the address on the next piece of mail you get. Down the bottom. Or, when you pay your council tax, where is the money heading?.Failing that, just ask a neighbour .
      It wouldn’t matter at all apart from the fact that you go to such great lengths to veil the truth.

    • demokrat

      Baby Sal,

      You are the one “being persistent and acting shamelessly”, nobody cares about your illiterate rantings about addresses. Like all babies, you still don’t understand words. GaGa, GoGo, maybe that helps.

      You are the one with the alias, let’s have some truth from you for a change, you probably don’t live in Twickenham, if so give us your address.

      You are hell bent on trying to promote Lib Dem propaganda and oppose any kind of freedom of thought, participation or expression, Twickenham is not your own authoritarian state according to Sal.

      Well you and your closed mind is a disgrace. Anyone else, no matter where they are from, there background, where they live, or any other interests that they may have in the area is most welcome. The future of Twickenham is not down to you.

      Your bigotry will not stop freedom of speech.

    • Sally

      Freedom of speech is wonderful.I am not sure if the Founding Fathers had “where does Barry live” in mind when they mentioned it, but no matter. And ,as I said, it’s no issue where you live . As far away as you like. I suggest Easter Island.
      Lots of excellent posters on this site are upfront that they have an attachment to Twickenham, but no longer live here. The point is your fibs, evasions, and threats when your boasts to live in Twickenham are challenged .I keep saying, if you want to be a man of mystery you perhaps have to stop constantly directing people to your website.
      Anyway, I totally agree. Freedom of Speech is wonderful. You are free to claim you live in Twickenham.We are free to point out you bloody don’t. Everybody is happy !.

  14. Cllr True announces retirement from Council
    Release Date: 23 June 2017

    Cllr Nicholas True, Leader of Richmond Council since 2010, announced at the Cabinet meeting last night (22 June) that he will not be seeking re-election to the Council in 2018. As a result, he will be stepping down as Leader of Richmond Council on 4 July to enable a successor to be elected to lead the administration forward up to and beyond next May.

    (LBRuT press release)

  15. Sally

    So in a nutshell here is the Council’s script:

    1.Eye up a piece of Twickenham land-, a station, a playground, a riverside site. Riverside is good.
    2.Big up a public demand for development on site. The people of Twickenham are desperate for a new station, town square. vast boat container. It doesn’t matter if you can’t actually produce anybody who wants such a development. Just claim that “lots of locals” have been braying for it. Hooray, we all agree! Twickenham needs this and we the council will deliver !
    3.Reveal that the promised positive change can only come with a large , high development of shops or flats . Designed by a chum.
    4.Offer a series of meaningless consultations-at residents expense- in which they are asked about different configurations of said shops and flats.One big lump? Two big lumps?- but they are not allowed to refuse the shops and flats.
    5. When enough time has passed, say that it has been going on for too long and time to act. Build the development! Lovely lovely development!
    Get booted out. Next regime says they will not put a development on the site. Residents wait in hope.

    I can’t accept that the amount of our money thrown away so far is a reason to throw more. If we sell this land to a developer to put a high level build of shops and flats the council will break even. But we did not want this bloody site sold off for that!

    • Boot him out ??? biiig problem is, there are far too many Tory faithful voting in the RUT election…

    • Alexis

      An interesting couple of posts from Iliad1 and Chris Squire.
      Taken in turn:
      Iliad bemoans the fact that there are too many Tory faithful lurking in our part of the borough – he or she is probably right. May I suggest that fact has a lot more to do with the autocratic way the previous LibDem administrations chose to misrule us. There was always bound to be a backlash and they were arrogant and didn’t see it coming any more than the Tories in the general election.
      The botched way Lourie tried to bully his way to selling off Twickenham Riverside upset more previously loyal supporters than he or his ex-webmeister realised, so they tried rubbishing their opponents – RUG etc. This used to be a standard LibDem tactic. More fool them, hubris has brought down far bigger players, however the final nail in Lourie’s political coffin was the parlous financial state of his chosen contractor. Something he and his staff should have been aware of much earlier.

      Chris Squire: A stalwart LibDem supporter – he was always there on all the local forums, leaping to Lourie’s defence and famously ready to rubbish anyone who dared to oppose the LibDem plans to flog off the Riverside – Isn’t it interesting how his views have subtly changed now that the Tories have come up with an equally unpopular plan?

      What to make of the new LibDem leader, Gareth Roberts? Before election as a Councillor, he was one of the most prolific Lib Dem warriors on Oncom, Twitter etc and would defend anything the LibDems said or did unto the death, including the Riverside sell-off. (note the local paper photo’s) He’s both clever and articulate, sadly, like Boris Johnson, he’s also rather pleased with himself which doesn’t make for a consensual politician or someone I would wish to be running our borough.

      So, where am I to turn? My local Tory Councillors are OK, the 3 LibDem candidates in my ward were rubbish although I believe one has subsequently died. The LibDems keep crowing that “Labour can’t win here” so there’s no point in voting for them. I’m not left with a lot of choice (apart from Demokrat) am I?
      PS Good feisty stuff from Mrs Robot – doesn’t half remind me of DocB!

    • Alexis, I thought it was ‘Lord true’ that did all the ‘selling of twickenham’ bit???
      BTW, Please note my name starts with i.. I would put a capital, but that then looks like 3 ‘L’s!! (Do note I am a private guy, nothing more… 😛 🙂 )

      Gareth Roberts??? he is Councillor for Hampton, and only trlibdems.org.uk and Richmond.gov has any record of him…

    • Alexis: ah, local papers?? you mean in **2015** when he was talking about GLA, and loosely talking about Richmond?? tell Gareth to ask Vincent how to raise his profile, and not get confused with a doctor Who actor or rugby player… 🙂 🙂
      I am sick about how many mean LBRUT, and lazily say Richmond..
      You know, the one that *finishes* when you go over Richmond bridge into East Twickenham??

    • Alexis

      I’m sorry illiad1, as you can see, I have corrected your “nom de plume”.

      As to your posts, I’m sorry if I gave the impression that you were a LibDem warrior. Like me, you seem to wish for decent governance for a change – whichever party provides it. I’m not a committed Tory but have no viable alternative to the LibDems who lost my vote when they chose to fight down and dirty and launched their so-called “attack dogs” on those who dared to oppose them. I’m sure that nasty tactic irritated many other voters and may well be why they lost the last election. As is obvious, it certainly put me off ever voting for them again

      As to Councillor Gareth Roberts, now leader of the LibDem “group” on our Council:
      Prior to his election as a Councillor for Hampton (what a surprise given his tireless efforts!) he had been a prolific poster and writer of letters to the R&TT in defence of anything the LibDems did. It must be causing him considerable anguish to have to toe the party line and shut up now he has achieved high office! His pensive, upright index finger, cool dude mugshot in the R&TT is quite an improvement, although somewhat dated – he also uses it on his Twitter stuff – I’m sure illiad1 could find it if he chose to do so.
      PS: My thanks to Nemesis – I’m sure I’m over the target and can expect some flak so I’m sitting on my jacket!

    • Alexis: I guess you are happy living in Hampton , away from Twickenham…

      As I remind all my friends..
      ” DO NOT vote for London, unless you live there… Make sure you know your local representatives policy, and vote for THAT, not some London speech!! ” A few of them only have two parties to vote for, unless they want to waste their vote… :/
      Your local Councillors may have their own views, BUT they have to follow their MP (whether borough or constituency 😦 )

      DO check who that is….:P 🙂

    • Alexis

      A correction for illiad1.
      I do not live in Hampton, nor have I ever done so. Instead I have been a happy resident of South Twickenham for the last 3 decades, and, hopefully, another one. My reference to Hampton Councillor Gareth Roberts, leader of the LibDems on our Council probably confused Illiad1, for which I apologise. Also, please believe me – we are not one and the same person!
      I’m sure that he will also be having a good chuckle at the ghastly thought.

      Elsewhere on this thread we have a somewhat strange post from Demokrat – yes, even by his standards it was decidedly odd. Let’s be charitable and put it down to the late hour.
      Could I suggest that he pops down to the Richmond Environment Centre near the bridge and signs up for a course in “Lifeism”. It might help him clarify his thoughts and, dare I say it, help him to curb his rudeness?

    • Alexis: it seem YOU are confused.. how about giving a link to the leader of the LibDems on *your* Council?

      you also seem to forget that ANYONE can join this blog, even teenagers and nuts who just want to mess about.. 😀 😀

      YES! not all are in politics (shock!!) and some have Little grasp of reality!!!

  16. The fate of the Terry scheme hangs on national politics, the main determinant of how electors vote in a council election. Until May 8 local Tories were confident of re-election next May on the back of a national Tory win this year; so they seemed to have plenty of time to carry it through in 2018 and beyond.

    Now the ‘cockroaches ’ – the hated Liberals – are back: they have their MP again and expect national opinion to shift against the Brexiteers enough to give them the Council. Their policy is – or was the last time they stated it in January 2016 – to sack Terry and hold a genuine competition to fulifil a new brief: ‘Twickenham riverside consultation will NOT reopen after Lib Dem motion defeated’ (RTT): http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/14224800.Twickenham_riverside_consultation_will_NOT_reopen_after_Lib_Dem_motion_defeated/

  17. aristophanes

    twickerman: “if you live in a beautiful place, you expect to pay for it” – that was I was told by a local when I admired the superb Christmas decorations in Chicago some years ago. The same applies here.
    Even with your cynical and pessimistic outlook, you will realise that there will be some money coming back to the Council (eg in effect to us, as all “Council money” is in fact ours). If your intention is to get the present scheme (the merits and demerits of which I note you do not comment upon) cancelled, surely it is obvious that all prior expenditure will be wasted, and similar amounts will have to be spent on the next. Is this really the outcome you want?

    • Riverside Voter

      Aristophanes. Yes it is our money, exactly. Therefore the Council should be held accountable for spending it wisely and effectively on our behalf. Instead Lord True has a record of hijacking our resources for the benefit of his legacy and his friends, whether it the RFU, the Lords Stirling and Rogers, the Catholic Church or The Terry’s. I want to see this project taken back to the process that should have been followed in the first place, consultation to determine the specification that meets the needs and wants of the community together with preparation of a proper business case. The lack of a proper feasibility study / business case at the start was as much the reason that our money was sunk on the Gloriana debacle as the fact that it had no public support. It was pretty obvious that the idea was not feasible either in engineering or financial terms (and indeed where is the Gloriana now, certainly not in its own expensive Boathouse / exhibition centre / tourist attraction) but we still had to have expensive PR exercises, reports and Consultations all to prop up three Lords’ flight of fancy.

      Only with a proper spec and business case, and a complete scoping of the planning requirements that are compliant with what is expected of any development, not Council exceptionalism (and none of the Terry plans so far have been compliant) should this have been put out to architects with proper criteria for the selection i.e. the trade off between cost and quality and innovation / creativity.

      It is not us who has wasted our money as a result of failing to go about this in a businesslike way that would have minimised the risks of producing plans that were overwhelmingly unpopular with the people actually paying for it, and that we will end up like Cambridge with overdevelopment that has been watered down to be something cheap and nasty that nobody not even Lord True and Terry, want.

    • twickerman


      With respect, what a load of tosh!

      If you think the council should continue throwing even more good money after bad I think you ought to read RiversideVoter’s comments about the Cambridge development fiasco, or consider the Garden Bridge debacle. These types of human behavioural fuck-ups are well described as Escalation of Commitment and/or Sunk Cost Fallacy:

      By the way, you might also
      like to read my earlier post which describes the merits/demerits of the latest Fleming/Terry proposal, the complete lack of a town square we were promised when LBRUT splashed £6.84million of our cash, and what can be done to surgically remove certain aspects of the over-development and move parking away from the riverbank.

      I think this Fleming/Terry nonsense has gone too far down the wrong tracks and needs to be stopped before any more time and funds (£1.166million for next phase) are wasted.
      The whole process needs to be restarted with a proper brief, open to all architects rather than just Fleming and True’s chums.

    • Riverside Voter

      Or throwing good money after bad…..

    • Riverside Voter

      As to where the Gloriana is now, from the website “During the season (April to November) she’s based in St. Katherine Docks, London. Her winter home is the PLA yard in Denton. We hope to have a boathouse on the Thames one day…” Denton is the Port of London Authority’s dry dock, spare capacity is rented out to third parties. Was that not suggested as the sensible solution by someone who posted on here. Since we had a worthy winner of Twickenham Political Expert perhaps we should also award Twickenhams Most Sensible Place to Put a Gold Rowing Boat Expert, Lord True comes last….

    • A. Robot (Mrs)

      Excellent points , twickerman, and thanks for the Escalation of Commitment and/or Sunk Cost Fallacy link. It’s very much the Garden Bridge irrational rationale and smacks of Macbeth’s
      ‘ I am in blood stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.’
      And we all know what happened to Macbeth.

      There’s also a bit of that Brexit ‘the people have spoken’, ‘we are where we are’, ‘let’s get on with it’ crap. As if anything is ever immutable.

      ( P.S Don’t fret, Alexis, I only popped in as I was passing).

    • twickerman

      Thanks Mrs Robot, it’s clear that #TwickenhamRiverside style fuck-ups go back some way, but I hadn’t realised that they went back as far as Shakespeare’s time!

      Unfortunately, it looks like we will need a change in El Brute leadership to stop this stupidly out of control Fleming/Terry/True juggernaut from ruining our Riverside for generations.

      As I comment the Tory Cabinet will be signing off more than £1.1 Million of our cash to fuel the car park / mock-georgian carbuncle scheme through the first planning application phase.

  18. twickerman

    Hete are some cost details of Francis Terry and Pamela Fleming’s #TwickenhamRiverside proposals.

    Cost to date = £299,000

    Estimated cost of current consultation and 2017 planning application (submitted to Cabinet in January) = £480,000

    Revised estimate of cost (of above) being requested at Cabinet Meeting on Thursday = £1,166,000.
    That’s 150% higher than the estimate from 5 months ago!!!

    Have El Brute lost the plot / lost control / not got a clue / other suggestions please?

    Add to those costs a second planning application when the first inevitably comes under massive criticism, plus the costs of a Judicial Review and you get an idea of how the costs will spiral even further out of control.

    This has all the hallmarks of an HS2 / 3rd Runway / Hinkley C fiasco.

    And lets not forget the £6.84 million of our hard earned cash they splashed on the King Street corner shops.

    Details can be found on p42 of the Cabinet report.

    • demokrat


      Yes and it gets worse!!
      What about the costs associated with the defunct River Centre and all the other schemes over the pasts 30 years, the Gloriana aircraft hanger, the lost Post Office site and the Station tower blocks yet to appear. The costs run into the multi-millions of pounds wasted.

      It makes you wonder if any of them have any respect for the people that live in Twickenham, or is it just really just about LBRuT PLC? Because if that’s the real reason for all these ridiculous white elephants, then we really need to get rid of the people involved.

    • SirChristianSurname

      …and all the money wasted on those York stone pavements which now look so vile!

    • anonymouse

      I don’t understand why Barry doesn’t focus on (ie bang on and on about) the Old Isleworth riverside development right on his doorstep?

    • RiversideVoter

      This is an example of a development initiated by a Council and with initial plans handed to a celebrity architect, in this case, our old friends the Rogers partnership, to develop that became an “embarrassment to the town”. What started out aiming to create a high quality gateway to the town (sound familiar) was so watered down in quality, and the density increased, by the developer and the cheaper architects that they employed to implement the plans that it became a high density low quality series of boxes with no social provision and little open space resulting in problems with anti social behaviour, pop up brothels and pollution. The Planning process proved inadequate to enable the Council to stop the deterioration in what was built compared with what was originally planned though the developer walked away with a nice profit. There would be lessons to be learned by a Council that was not blinded by the glamour of the architect and profit ……https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2017/jun/13/an-embarrassment-to-the-city-what-went-wrong-with-the-725m-gateway-to-cambridge

    • aristophanes

      I am very sorry that you chose not to quote from p 44 of that document. This says that Council aims to achieve a scheme that results in NIL COST [my capitals] to the Council.
      Do you really think there would be grounds for a Judicial Review?

    • twickerman

      I was focusing on the actual/estimated costs, rather some unquantified wish.
      The key words are ‘aims to’. They’ve just increased their cost estimate for the next phase by 150%. That doesn’t inspire confidence.
      There is no business plan. They’re just making it all up as they go along, with the over-development plans continuing to grow in size and density to try to achieve ‘nil cost’.
      Its ironic that they claim to be ‘investing’ in Twickenham Riverside, while aiming to achieve ‘nil’ investment!

      Q: Why should Cabinet sign off an additional £1.166 million of cost without a business plan?
      A: They shouldn’t, but will because of the Tory party majority and whip.

    • “NIL COST [my capitals] to the Council.” ??? Soooo, paid for by RICH people buying it???

  19. aristophanes

    I shall miss the contributions from Alexis, if indeed he/she is putting his/her hat and coat on and leaving the stage. However, I believe he/she has a house-mate by the name of Alex, who used to appear. Perhaps Alex could now take over?

    • Alexis

      Thank you Aristophanese. Sadly, if Alexis does indeed depart Alex won’t be able to replace her since they are one and the same person – The “is” on the end was a typo which neither of their alter ego’s bothered to correct. Hey ho, at least I/we are not as smugly superior as Mrs Robot, or dare I link the two again, DocB?

      Whilst most posters on this forum are articulate, interesting and/or humourous, I must confess that I have found some others to fall into one of these two categories:
      1. Tedious party political activists who seem to do a lot of cut and pasting and have neither a sense of humour nor empathy with those they are trying to influence – get the message out at all costs and grind or rubbish any opposition into submission – job done.

      2. Self-opinionated bores or those who are just plain barking, which brings me to Demokrat. It’s hard to know where to start or end. I was indeed in RUG and attended all of the Clarendon Hall meeting, although quite a few left whilst Barry was muttering something unintelligible and staring at a screen which was near invisible to those behind the front row.
      Judging by his latest post it was clearly my fault for failing to grasp the enormity and significance of his message – mea culpa!

      I only reduced my involvement with RUG because of Barry’s rudeness – sorry old boy, not to put too fine a point on it, you were a pain in the arse, as you have been on this forum. Grasp that concept and you might have a future in politics, if not you will continue to be the also-ran whether or not you win the highest loser vote – so what? There are no second places in politics. Get some help with your presentation skills or the lack of them and get your hands out of your pockets! Steve Roest clearly knew his game so perhaps you should learn from rather than sneering at him.

      If I may, I would like to recognise those who really made RUG happen: John Reekie, Ron Chappel, Scott Naylor, Julie Hill, Adrienne Rowe, Teresa Read, Brian Holder, Sarah Meagher and the TTRG. Apologies to those I/we have omitted – not deliberate!
      Alexis/Alex aka The Bitches

    • Sally

      Alexis, I am happy to say your work at RUG helped pull off a great victory.,Every time I walk past Diamond Jubilee gardens and reflect on what could,be there I am very happy about the near miss. And think there should be a public notice celebrating all the residents who fought off the development .

      Possibly our Borough could do with a lot of these sort of commemorative notices. I have observed that councillors have very short memories and are happy to celebrate local attractions they have previously been doing their utmost to destroy.
      Where could such celebratory notices go? Orleans Gallery ? (“Before you go further ,please bow your head in thanks to Mrs Ionides”) ) Orleans playground? (“You are looking at this pretty riverside scene and not a huge building thanks to..”)

      Maybe we should also have notices of shame. (“These dreary flats are brought to you by Councillor X who claimed that they would bring vibrancy to,the area”) (This filthy grey pavement was brought to you by Lord True who insisted on the expense but neglected to buy anything with which to clean it”)

      All such battling groups seem to be in the main made up of a majority of concerned residents fighting against the superior finances and propagandising powers of whichever administration wants to wreck our area this time. There will also be party hopefuls who ,you can be sure, will never let you forget they have worked in the group- and alas,, bores fanatics , narcissists and fruit cakes. The latter will attempt to claim all victory was all due to them. Bloody irritating.

  20. twickerman

    Well I’m buggered if I can see a Town Square. It looks like a very dense development without any space for the poor old town square that seems to have gone out of fashion as quickly as the Colosseum and Burlington Arcade abominations.

    The sticky-outy Guildhally thingy on the corner of Water Lane covers more of the pavement than the existing block, and certainly doesn’t open up the view down Water Lane or satisfactorily connect King Street to the Riverside. This projectile lump needs to be surgically removed.

    The King Street facade has grown in height since the previous version with the drawings showing it is higher than the existing King Street roofline. This is too much.

    Taking into account the additional 47 ‘underground’ parking spaces, on top of all the existing riverside car parking spaces (60 between Water & Wharf Lanes) it feels that rather than the proposals progressing, they are in fact mutating out of control.
    Instead, they are moving further and further away from the promised open spaces and town square that we were primised when LBRUT splashed our cash on the King Street corner shops.

    Of course we aren’t being consulted on the important stuff like, just on trivia like the colour of the disinfectant cubes to use in the open/covered Guildhall urinal space!

  21. Sally

    I have just been having a look at the results of the consultation document somewhat quiety released by the council.
    It is put together by Snap Surveys who have form in carrying out very , ah, helpful surveys for our fearless leaders.

    Once more, they do not fail Fleming. It is pronounced an impossibility to state proportions of residents for and against. This is tosh. A glance at the number of respondants and the number of positive and negative responses at very least shows that negatives overwhelm positives hugely .
    By claiming is impossible to do any sums it allows an impression of false equivalence; that for and against are evenly balanced. Not all all. It appears to have been another massed raspberry , or as Snap Surveys put it ” Not all respondents were in agreement that the proposal would meet local people’s needs and aspirations for the area.”
    No kidding!

    When this survey company was used by our council before they were quite open that the council supply the questions-those same open ones which cannot be counted up, and the forced choice.I imagine this is what has happened this time. We are not allowed to refuse the Terry design. We are not allowed to refuse the flats or the retail. We may only vote on how we want the lumps of flats and shops moved about on that space.

    Perhaps the questions should be: “Do you want this rather shabby but at least quiet, low level and open riverside area or X units of flats and shops nicely arranged and piled high ?
    No other choice is allowed.”

  22. A. Robot (Mrs)

    For those of you who take any notice of Alexis’s flatulent emissions, (not many by the look of his minus-15 support rating, almost as bad as May’s), could I just point out that ,though he’s not often right, actually on the matter of my ‘twitter stuff’ he’s managed to be wrong again. I have no Twitter account, have never tweeted and quite possibly never will.
    There are probably quite a number of Robot-themed names on Twitter, Alexis, because it’s a fairly obvious response to being asked to ‘prove you’re not a robot’ (on certain sites (geddit?) .

    Just a word, however: though I’m flattered by your fascination with me, I’ve noticed you sniffing around before seeking information on other posters to this site. Maybe they’re flattered too. But don’t you think it’s just a little bit pervily unhealthy in a man of your years?

    Regards to the saner Twickerati elements. I’m not really contributing on this topic as there are more pressing matters at the moment. Brexit’s going well, isn’t it?

    • Sally

      Agreed Mrs R. although this was your opportunity to announce you are in fact Lord True, and enjoy some hasty fawning ,
      It is nasty to be accused iof being person A or B but a little grimly funny when the accusation is totally, utterly bonkers. For a while our Isleworth shouter was accusing everybody of being Gareth Roberts in rotation, even Alexis. If true, Alexis is in deep, deep cover, hiding his tracks with many years of Conservative postings. Philby beware.

    • Riverside Voter

      Mrs A Robot, I am afraid that if you were to try and decloak as Susan Burningham I would not believe you. She has often posted here in her own name and style, no need for undercover shenanigans though of course respecting anonymity, and even the right to don trench coat, dark glasses and trilby or robot costume, if preferred is the normal etiquette of t’internet. She is in fact very much above the parapet politically, though a few degrees, I would guess from your posts, to the right and centre of you but then these days that is enough for you to be stuck in the middle and branded an extremist, and all manner of other indicators of being a terrible human being / snowflake / traitor, by both Left and Right, if you’re not with them you are against them. I think that maybe why she has desisted from posting more recently was that because of the politics she was a thumbs down magnet for the community causes and issues she was wanting to articulate, and just attracted the tribal rhetoric we are so familar (bored) with .

      However she has been very much involved in the Riverside Action Group, and before that the battle of Marble Hill Park, beavering away for over a year with others we should be equally grateful to, to organise meetings, put together reports and meet the Council in order to get the community’s views on the agenda and force the Council to abandon it’s we know best steamroller strategy for the current war of attrition by spinned and skewed “Consultation”. If you actually were Susan Burningham it would be nothing to be ashamed of. That is in contrast to certain Johnny Come Latelys, who appears to have only just noticed, even after all the endless consultations on the previous incarnations, Nero’s Palace, Trumpton etc. that a property development is proposed…..

    • Alexis

      What an interesting post from Mrs Robot – I’m described as a flatulent pervily unhealthy old man who sniffs around other posters on this site. That’s not a terribly nice way to describe anyone – is it?

      How strange that Mrs Robot should be interested in my sleuthing – I wonder why I came under his or her scrutiny? My only recent check has been on Gareth Roberts, leader of our local LibDems, since he and I used to spar with each other on the much lamented ONCOM – his Twitter stuff includes a photo of Dr Burningham meeting Harvey Keitel – I don’t know the gentleman. Nevertheless, since Nemesis had suggested that DocB was, in reality Mrs R, I had a look at her posts and had to agree with him – she does write with the same unpleasantly acerbic style which I remember from the Gloriana days.
      This is his or her closing para:
      “Just a word, however: though I’m flattered by your fascination with me, I’ve noticed you sniffing around before seeking information on other posters to this site. Maybe they’re flattered too. But don’t you think it’s just a little bit pervily unhealthy in a man of your years?”
      What a thoroughly unpleasant person he or she is, and, is that a veiled threat?

  23. whiteknight

    Pragmatist: if you examine site closely, you will discover, as others have (and was pointed out at the workshops), that what you suggest is, alas, completely impossible. The Service Road is simply not wide enough (and cannot be widened, for various reasons), and an underground park of the size you suggest would be prohibitively expensive.

    • demokrat

      Please use the reply button, not comment button, when you are replying, For the sake of completeness, here is my reply to Pragmatist. The People’s Plan did have 40 new parking spaces, accommodated easily at the rear of the site and retained the existing car park.

      Underground car park is possible, depending on how deep your pockets are, but the preferred solution which had a market/town square, public open space, pedestrianisation, shops, recreation/entertainment and through access to King St, oh yes in other words, all of the things the people of Twickenham wanted is at:

  24. demokrat

    Oh dear – Yet another property development!!

    And now for the News:

    Don’t even try and slag me off, or even give it the thumbs down.
    This is the reality – 93.5% of local people voted for open space.

    This is what Lord True had to say……

    For a time, he did listen to us, note the tone of his speech, sound familiar to what I have been saying? Lord True was becoming more democratic, with an acceptance of more referenda and consultations, but on this issue as in many other issues as time’s has gone by, he has obviously lost his way.

    Before you all start, you can see who the main protagonist were, from the speakers list. And at the end of my speech, is was me that made it an election issue, by calling out Serge Lowrie, clearly this Saved the Riverside as the LIb Dems were thrown out and it helped the Conservatives take the Council in 2010.

    Fat lot of gratitude I got for that from the Tories and now Lord False is U-Turning on this entire matter and the promises he made, by massing flats on Twickenham riverside.That’s a disgrace!! But don’t get me wrong, there’s is no way we want the Lib Dems back – They are even worse!!

    So we need a new approach, where our Councillors listen to the people that they are supposed to serve and just “DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT”. .

    That’s the future and that’s the kind of democracy I want. But in the meantime, are we really going to have to go through the whole thing over again, to stop the Council developing the site for luxury housing??

    • Gladiator

      Barry – for the sake of historical accuracy, what made serge Lourie decide to put the matter to the electorate was the fact that at the last moment mr maidment told him that countryside Plc was not in a suitable financial state for it to be safe to proceed. At the end of the day, everything has to be paid for; some degree of compromise has to exerted.

    • demokrat


      Whoever you are, clearly you weren’t there, don’t know what really happened and are trying to re-write history. The videos on the Richmond United Group (RUG) website were produced by Tom Tangle (sadly now deceased) and I took the photos. Pictures speak louder than words.

      These are the actual people that were involved, meeting organised by RUG: http://www.barryedwards.info/?page_id=58

      So where in this picture were you?

    • Alexis

      My thanks to Nemesis, I think you are absolutely right and Mrs Robot is indeed the good Doctor Burningham in disguise – I wondered where she and her acerbic posts had gone, so I had a look at her twitter stuff – my word she is a prolific tweeter and makes President Trump look completely inadequate. Good luck Gareth!

      As to Demokrat’s recent posts: I was a part-time member of RUG’s campaign to stop LibDem Lourie selling off the Riverside but found Barry’s contribution largely focussed on his own chances of selection and election as a Councillor in Teddington, on that occasion for the Tories – unsurprisingly, he wasn’t elected. I attended the meeting at Clarendon Hall in 2009 to which he has supplied a link. Predictably he made a rather poor speech about his environmental views – it was turgid stuff and clearly public speaking isn’t his forte. Time for a career rethink perhaps, Barry?
      By contrast Steve Roest, another environmentalist, spoke very well enthusiastically and clearly about something he believed in as did all the other speakers listed.
      I won’t be playing a part in this campaign but am in full support of those who want to stop yet another attempt at a sell-off.
      PS: Nemesis, I’d rather buy you a pint and a chat than give you a fiver.

    • demokrat


      I cannot believe that you were a “part time” member of RUG then, or ever, because nobody within the group was rude. If you did attend the meeting you clearly did not understand the content of the presentation. Expert environmental facts are actually somewhat unexciting to the uninitiated. And Steve Roest was at the time (don’t know if still) was member of Sea Shepard, which is in fact an environmental pressure group (direct action), which is very different to an environmental scientist who, in your dodgy opinion just does boring research.

      Steve is one of the good guys who’s contribution, as was all, was carefully choreographed for impact. The fact that you personally did not understand the relative scales of environmentalism described, was unfortunately down to the limitations of your mind and your way of thinking.

      If you are to play no part in any possible campaign, don’t contradict yourself by then supporting people like me, who continue to fight against these property developments.

  25. Riverside Voter

    Twickerati wrote us another excellent piece when the Council first bought this land. The consensus then was that the Council should sit down with the community to lay out the specifications for the scheme and then invite architects to tender. Instead they of course went at it arse about face so they could get their mate back and relive a little of the halcyon days basking in the glow of royal approval for Richmond RIverside. So here we are now at the umpteenth consultation as they try to wage a war of attrition on the feelings of the community by constant tweaking and providing us with Arcadian representations of the proposed buildings so light they appear to be floating, so their architect and whichever developer is chosen can get away with what is essentially still the sort of commercial and residential overdevelopment that is not wanted. They have made changes, some are a significant improvement, but they still do not do justice to the strong antipathy expressed in earlier consultations. Perhaps if we actually got the promised Town Square and opening up of the river to King Street we would be happy to put the Blue Baron on a column in the middle as suggested in the original thread, and we might even salute him…

    The first thread also got derailed in the end, and Twickerati closed it in frustration. Many of us really appreciate Twickerati’s efforts to sum up developments and the community’s feelings and facilitate discussion in such a witty and digestible way. It deserves as much respect as the community does.

  26. aristophanes

    Oh Mr Squire! I have a plan of the Countryside scheme from 2009 in front of me. It is quite clear that the view from the planned River Centre looked out over a row of what is labelled “Eel Pie Island Loading and Business Bays” . Selective memory perhaps, or wishful thinking?

    • Thanks – I have no plans and had indeed forgotten the proposed loading bays, which are not shown on the video Twickenham Riverside Redevelopment 3D animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOjoq02Ec-k My point is that most of the parking was to go at the back away from the river, making way for a wide promenade next to it for us to enjoy. To my mind this would be the main gain from the development and it would be well worth building on part of the site to pay for it.

      Now that we have the new bit to play with it could take a multi-story car park – a benefit to local businesses – clad in one of Terry’s elegant classical facades to please Cllr Palmer, which could in turn be cloaked in Virginia creeper or, even better, Russian vine to please those philistines who can’t abide classical architecture.

  27. Green space along the river frontage is a fine idea in theory, Pragmatist, but don’t forget the river does flood over the road quite frequently.

  28. Sally

    I can’t agree with Councillor Fleming that what that peaceful little bit of riverside needs are two whopping blocks of housing and retail. Look at the photo. Does it scream :”Big development needed here !!”?

    What was there before was, I understand, mostly boatsheds and workshops . Low level, jumbled, charming, in keeping with the architecture around it and reflected by the boatsheds etc opposite on Eel Pie.Trying to stick some lucrative Richmondesque riverside housing there is like putting a multi story car park on an allotment.
    Councillor F seems to be trying out a sort of mass hypnosis in which we accept that the land can only be beautified by bunging a large development there-and a Terry Jnr development at that.. I am sick of looking at Terry monstrosities artfully rearranged and imaginatively presented.
    She really seems to believe that Twickenham is a dump which might as well get some lucrative riverside developments built on while she walks her dogs in pastoral splendour down the river.

    Re the parking. As I understand it one of the conditions for the York St council offices build way back when was that residents would be allowed to use their underground parking. This promise was allowed to fade away.Well, that huge underground car park close to the river is still there and damn near empty on weekends. Could this be pressed into service?

    • Re: ‘What was there before was, I understand, mostly boat sheds and workshops . . ’ – this is incorrect. It was 2 shops with offices above, a private car park and the old toilet block for the pool; before that part of the pool site; before that part of the grounds of Richmond House, built in 1640, a fine Jacobean mansion pulled down in 1924 to build the pool.

      So no workshops for more than 350 years.

      Re the use of the parking under the council offices: please provide a source and a date for this assertion if you can – otherwise it’s just a story without substance.

    • Sally

      Hello Chirs The workshops etc claim is from looking at the old photos of the riverside before the area was bombed.
      The claim about the car park was made several times in my hearing by older residents in various public meetings -I will look for the sources. Or ask Mr Bayliss when I next see him having his constitutional .
      Regardless , it is a huge underground car park, apparently empty on the weekends , and paid for by our rates. A. Huge. Empty.Underground.Car. Park.
      Here’s an idea .locals living in a certain riverside /Eel pie zone are given residents parking permits for the York st underground car park.

    • Sally

      This is not a great reference but you can see a picture or the embankment and a reference to the large boathouse “which stood very close to where the Eel Pie bridge is today” in 1901.

    • Thanks for this – I see that you are correct. This is where the Lib Dem’s River Centre designed by Eel Pie Islander Clive Chapman was to go. – with no car parking between it and the river.

    • Alexis

      Rather naughty but, hey ho, Twickerati might let me get away with it since this post is related to this forum rather than to Dr Cable’s re-election, so here goes:

      This will be my last post on this topic (Dr Cable’s re-election) and, perhaps any other. That may well please those who disagree with my views on life and politics, hopefully there are others who will miss the mix of humour, pragmatism and wind-up that I have tried to include.
      Politics is a turgid business usually conducted by highly self-opinionated activists like Mrs Robot, RV and other left wing activists who seem to take pleasure in rubbishing those who dare to pose an opposing point of view. They may well bully others of a more sensitive disposition into submission, if so, who wins? That simply creates simmering resentment. They do themselves no favours and, I suspect, alienate more thoughtful people than they attract. The Tories have attracted the misnomer of “the nasty party” whereas I think that should be applied to the LibDems and Labour who have left the Tories far behind in the nastiness stakes.

      Amusingly, anyone who dares to oppose our local activists is rubbished by Mrs R and her chums who assume they are readers of the Mail, Express or Telegraph. Whilst routinely attacked by this ghastly coterie, I don’t, nor have I ever read any of them, except in the barber shop. I took the Independent from its launch until it went online and then was forced to try out The Times despite Murdoch’s ownership and am reasonably happy with it’s balanced coverage.

      I am extremely concerned about Corbyn and his chums getting control of our economy and many of those who support him on these pages should think long and hard before voting for his socialist utopian society. Remember, it won’t affect us too much but it will affect our children – massively.
      Over and Out as Captain Bigglesworth RFC (R’td) would have said.
      Alexis aka The Bitch.

    • Riverside Voter

      Surprised to discover that having always decided on my vote on the basis of who I judged would best serve the interests of our community and country, and especially our children, and on occasions that has meant voting Tory, and certainly nothing I have ever said would suggest it would be Jeremy Corbyn, I am now judged a left wing activist! My goodness Twickers must be crammed solid with them.

      It feels almost as surprising as Councillor F thinking she has met our concerns as a community with a plan for yet another big block albeit divided by a road….

    • Nemesis

      Alexis, you may well recognise the type you speak of from this piece.
      View story at Medium.com
      But I somehow doubt the guilty would recognise themselves.

    • Sally

      Alexis, Nemesis, time to put a sock in it on the last one . Twickerati has spoken. And it’s his /her forum, we are just along for the ride. If things get any nastier Twickerati might be forced to once again reintroduce a fictional character so offensive all are united in outrage .
      Thanks all the same for giving us a terrifying preview of your bedtime reading, Nemesis.
      Besides, Alexis with your talk of lib dem plotters you forget that you have been revealed to be Gareth Roberts. Your deep cover is blown. How about giving the old kite a spin to the current topic-what the hell to do about Fleming’s folly?

    • Alexis

      Just one more.
      Thank you Nemesis, most interesting. An intriguing alternative analysis of the mess we are all in and of those who may well be helping to cause it, albeit, some of them, unwittingly. I suspect that we have more than our fair share of IYI’s in our green and leafy borough but hasten to add that I have only speed read the link so I hope our class warriors etc will make allowance for that fact.
      I’m sure that they and their party apparatchiks will analyse the article in great depth before producing an in-depth paper of rebuttal.
      PS: Me Gareth Roberts?! He will probably be having a restrained chuckle in the members changing room at the thought of being mistaken for me – perhaps Sally should have a word with him.

    • Nemesis

      Gareth Roberts- haha. I’m guessing Mrs Robot is wannabe libdem councillor Susan Burningham and I claim my £5.
      Don’t worry Alexis – remember if you are getting flak you must be over the target.

  29. The car park is amusingly labelled a “shared use area” in the plans and the artistic impressions of the result carefully manage to miss out the rows of metal boxes. In France the car parking would have unhesitatingly been put under the gardens.

    • Pragmatist

      Absolutely, underground car park accessed by the road running behind the shops, then turn the road and existing car park into green space. I’d be more willing to accept any residential proposal that achieved that

    • Riverside Voter

      The sketches do include some metal though, the Eel Pie Island Bridge disappears enticingly from the sketches like some fairy bridge… Indeed the sketches of the fourth storey of the King Street frontage also disappears enticingly into the misty ether like some fairy palace. Shame it isn’t going to be as insubstantial in reality…..

    • demokrat


      Underground car park is possible, depending on how deep your pockets are, but the preferred solution which had a market/town square, public open space, pedestrianisation, shops, recreation/entertainment and through access to King St, oh yes in other words, all of the things the people of Twickenham wanted is at:

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s