|
Clive Wren's Submission to the Council Cabinet
25 February 2003
I am an architect and landscape designer with many years' experience
of canal and riverside projects. I presented the Terrace Group scheme
to the planning committee in July 2001. I have taken a keen interest
but have not been directly involved in the scheme's development since.
I do not propose to dwell here on my complaint to the Chief Executive
about the inaccurate and biased nature of the report on this Agenda
Item. My comments relate to the recommendation to proceed with Short-Term
Option B.
Although presently neglected and abused, the pool building is a public
resource capable of economic adaptation to accommodate a range of
uses appropriate to its riverside location. Demolition would squander
the resource and prejudice alternative short and long-term proposals
for its use that could form part of the Twickenham Challenge. The
Terrace Group scheme makes good use of part of the building.
River-related uses such as small boat hire, repair and storage which
require inexpensive premises close to the river are excluded from
Short-Term Option B. Demolishing the pool building undermines the
feasibility of accommodating such uses in the future, contrary to
the objectives of the Thames Landscape Strategy. The Terrace Group
scheme makes provision for river related uses.
Two seats raised 1 metre and set 7 metres back from the pavement,
and two seats behind a planted 2.4 metre high fence would not provide
much improved views of the river. Better views are available from
existing seats on the embankment. The raised terrace in the Terrace
Group scheme would provide excellent views of the river.
Being set back from the embankment and surrounded by planting, the
seating area in Short-term Option B would be secluded and gives cause
for concern about how it would be used. The raised terrace in the
Terrace Group scheme enjoys all-round visibility.
Short-term Option B needs planning permission, Conservation Area Consent
and approval from GOL, which could be delayed or unforthcoming. The
Terrace Group scheme already has planning permission and could start
to be implemented immediately.
The reports to Cabinet have failed to identify the benefits or costs
of retaining the ground floor of the pool building and implementing
parts A and B of the Terrace Group scheme.
The reports to Cabinet have failed to reconcile the divergence between
cost estimates prepared by the Council's and Terrace Group's consultants
in respect of the Terrace Group scheme. A reconciliation is necessary
because there is a conflict of interest in the Council's consultants
advising on the costs of a competing scheme.
The reports to Cabinet have failed to compare the costs and benefits
of implementing short-term option B with parts A and B of the Terrace
Group scheme. Without such a comparison Cabinet cannot reach a properly
informed decision.
I urge Cabinet to request a report that addresses these issues before
reaching its decision on this matter.
Clive Wren
Hammersmith
^top
|