TWICKENHAM REDISCOVERED – TRANSFORMING TWICKENHAM

NEW HEART FOR TWICKENHAM

A RESPONSE TO RECENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION July, 2017

INTRODUCTION

As a resident of the Borough since 1948, as a resident of Twickenham since 1983, as a chartered architect working in Twickenham, and as life-member of the Twickenham Society, I set out below my response to the recent public consultation ‘Twickenham Rediscovered – Transforming Twickenham - New Heart for Twickenham’, referring to the material displayed in the Clarendon Hall at York House, Twickenham in June and July; to the 17-page, A.3-format document available at the exhibition; and to the separate, one-page ‘Twickenham Rediscovered: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)’ document. I have also had the opportunity of a useful conversation with the Project Manager, Darren Jacob at the Clarendon Hall.

In part, these comments draw upon my observations of December, 2015 responding to the Council’s consultation on the original proposals for the Twickenham Riverside site prepared by Quinlan and Francis Terry Architects, and my observations of December, 2016 responding to the Council’s consultation on the revised proposals for the site prepared by Francis Terry and Associates*. Many of my earlier comments in relation to those previous proposals remain relevant in relation to the latest proposals. However, in submitting these comments, I have had regard to the changes effected to the original and subsequent proposals shown in the latest proposals prepared by Francis Terry and Associates.

Once again, the Council’s carrying-out further public consultation on emerging proposals for the future development of a key and long-unresolved part of Twickenham’s riverside adjacent to Water Lane and The Embankment is to be keenly welcomed. However, it is clear that the latest proposals are still substantially deficient and still require substantial revision before they can form the basis of a sound application for Planning Permission that properly meets the local community’s entirely reasonable aspirations and expectations for a site of such outstanding strategic and heritage significance and the relevant, formally adopted national, London-wide and local planning and conservation policies and the Council’s supplementary planning guidance.

SETTING THE SCENE

Once again, there is little evidence in the material displayed in the Clarendon Hall and in the accompanying document of any real attempt to assess the particular, special architectural and historic interest, character, appearance and significance of the proposed development site and its setting. Very sadly, the opportunity has been missed to identify the scale, configuration and

1

character of the area between King Street, Church Street and the Embankment before the damaging property-clearances and street-widening undertaken during the 20th century, and to use such historic precedent to inform the shaping of the proposals for new development.

THE BRIEF AND PROCUREMENT OF THE PROJECT

Whilst noting the statement about financial viability and delivery on page 17 of the consultation document, the Council remains silent about the shaping of the brief in terms of the desirable land-use mix and the floor-space figures for the proposed retail, restaurant, business, residential and other uses. Whilst welcoming the advice provided in the separate, one-page ‘Twickenham Rediscovered: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)’ document that ‘the upper floors of the development will provide a number of 1, 2 and possibly a small number of 3 bedroom flats’, and noting that ‘the total number and mix of units is still to be determined’ and that ‘the proposal is likely to deliver between 35 and 40 flats’, no indication is provided on the critical issue of the maximum size of the residential, retail, restaurant and business units in the development.

Once again, the Council remains effectively silent on the critical issue of the proposed approach to the funding and implementation of the development and its ownership on its completion – not least, if a lease or the freehold interest in the site is to be sold-on after Planning Permission is obtained or development completed. It is to be assumed that the Council has secured detailed professional advice regarding the valuation and costs aspects of the project, and has already agreed an appropriate strategy for its funding and procurement. All these matters should be shared with the local community if there is to be any confidence in the project and in the scope for its effective delivery if approved in due course.

In the present circumstances, it is once again difficult to see how any architect can provide sound and realistic options for the development of the site in the absence of such a brief, including an independent analysis of the site and its broader setting, identifying their particular architectural and historic interest, character, appearance and significance. Without such a brief and site assessment, the exhibited sketch-proposals cannot carry any real conviction.

It is quite extraordinary for any prospective developer, let alone a local authority, to give an entirely ‘open-brief’ to an architect to explore the development potential of land in public ownership - not least, land of such strategic and heritage significance and potential commercial value. It is to be hoped that the appointed architects have been encouraged or required to adhere to relevant national, London-wide and local planning and conservation policies, and to the Council’s supplementary planning guidance, and to the relevant, published guidance of Historic England and CABE.

The assurance provided in the separate, one-page ‘Twickenham Rediscovered: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)’ document that ‘the development will provide affordable housing’ and that ‘the Council is committed to delivering affordable housing on site’ is to be keenly welcomed. However, it is to be noted that ‘the number of affordable (units) is still to be

2

determined. It is to be hoped that this commitment should not be withdrawn at a later stage and affordable housing provision transferred to another site or omitted altogether in favour of a payment in lieu to the Council.

Of particular concern is the lack of clarity regarding the location and extent of floor-space within Blocks A and/or B intended for business and community-related uses. Given the past history of the site, previous but aborted development proposals, and the continuing and substantial interest in reinstating a publicly accessible lido facility on the site, it is disappointing that greater attention has not been given to defining the scope to incorporate appropriate community facilities in the development.

Finally, given the Council’s stated intention to submit an application for Planning Permission by the end of October, further to pre-planning consultation in September, there is a vast amount of detailed work that needs to be undertaken by the Council’s professional team to review, revise and develop the recently exhibited outline drawings and other material in sufficient detail to provide the basis for further public consultation – let alone to support a sound application for full Planning Permission.

THE DESIGN ASPECTS OF THE LATEST PROPOSALS

Given the fundamental deficiencies of the original proposals presented for consultation in November and December, 2015, and the clearly expressed critical comments raised by the local and broader communities, and the deficiencies in the revised proposals presented for consultation in November and December, 2016, which drew similar critical comment, it is disappointing that the latest proposals retain a number of the unresolved or unsatisfactory aspects of those earlier schemes. Not only does the external design of parts of the proposed buildings lack authenticity and conviction, and thus requires substantial review and revision, but the quality and sensitivity of the landscape design of the extensive open areas within and adjacent to the site has still to be demonstrated.

Disappointingly, despite the sound reputation of Quinlan Terry, reflected in key aspects of the work of the Erith and Terry practice in the award-winning Richmond Riverside Development of 1984-1988, the scale and design of the earlier schemes and of the latest scheme for the Twickenham Riverside Site prepared by Quinlan and Francis Terry and Francis Terry and Associates respectively, do not share the same quality of classical design clearly discernible in the Richmond scheme. If a traditional architectural approach is to be adopted, then it should demonstrate a sound understanding of the scale and design of the local vernacular, and of the English Georgian architectural tradition in particular. Such an understanding is still not discernible in many parts of the latest proposals. Importantly, too, the scheme fails to retain the existing, modest scale of the upper part of Water Lane, let alone to reinstate the historic, modest scale of its lower part.

3

THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FRONTING KING STREET

Fundamental deficiencies are reflected in the excessive scale of the proposed four-part development fronting King Street (Block A) which rises by the equivalent of almost two- storeys above the deeply projecting eaves of the existing, three-storey, 1930s, retail and residential building immediately to the south-west (nos. 3 to 33 (consec.), King Street) and dwarfs the two-storey historic and other buildings at the corner of Water Lane and Church Street, and the modestly scaled and sensitively designed, modern housing that extends down the north-eastern side of Water Lane (no. 5 and nos. 7 to 21 (odd), Water Lane). Ironically, the former, three-storey, 1930s King’s Head Public House that stood on the site at the corner of King Street and Water Lane until demolished about thirty years ago, performed a very much more successful townscape and architectural role than the presently proposed buildings.

The proportions and design of the ground and third floor storeys of the proposed two-bay building adjacent to the existing, three-storey, 1930s building fronting King Street are entirely unsatisfactory. The elevation of the King Street frontage suggests the subdivision of the property into two distinct, retail or restaurant units at ground floor level, whereas the plan shows only one, large retail or restaurant unit (AG1). This is an unacceptable architectural deceit. It is to be regretted that the opportunity of bringing forward the building-line of the proposed new building at the corner of King Street and Water Lane towards the original pre- 1930s building-line above a classically detailed, open colonnade has not been pursued.

THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FRONTING WATER LANE

The proposed retention of the existing building-line for the proposed new development (Block A) along the upper part of Water Lane (opposite nos. 1a, 1 and 3, Water Lane) is to be welcomed as reflecting the historic urban character of this part of the heart of Twickenham and the need to sustain the scale of its historic streets. However, the height of the proposed new building at the corner of Water Lane and King Street supported on a classically detailed, open colonnade needs to be reduced in order to relate satisfactorily to that of the existing building on the corner of Water Lane and Church Street.

The height of that part of the proposed new development along Water Lane opposite nos. 5 to 13 (odd), Water Lane is excessive in relation to that of the modestly scaled and sensitively designed, modern housing that extends down the north-eastern side of Water Lane (no. 5 and nos. 7 to 21 (odd), Water Lane) directly opposite, and inconsistent with the scale of that part of the proposed new development along Water Lane raised on a level terrace opposite nos. 17 to 21 (odd), Water Lane. The elevation to Water Lane is indeterminate in architectural character and compares poorly with those of the traditional and modern buildings nearby. This part of the proposed development requires major review and revision.

The scale of the ground floor storey of that part of the proposed development on the raised terrace opposite nos. 17 to 21 (odd), Water Lane, appears to be anomalously diminutive and poorly related to the design of the upper floor and the mansard. In addition and equally open

4

to question is the breaking-forward of the right-hand half of this part of the development and the absence of an appropriate hipped return in the mansard roof on the right-hand half. The elevation of the Water Lane frontage clearly suggests the subdivision of the building into two, distinct, retail or restaurant units at ground floor level, whereas the plan shows only one, large restaurant-unit (BG2). This is an unacceptable architectural deceit. This part of the proposed development requires review and revision; not least, in order to relate more positively to the slope in Water Lane. In this connection, there would be benefit in drawing influence from the successful composition, scale and character of Erith and Terry’s residential buildings extending down the south-east side of Water Lane, Richmond which form part of the Richmond Riverside Development completed in 1988.

THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FRONTING THE EMBANKMENT

The elevation of that part of the proposed development raised on a raised terrace fronting The Embankment (Block B – The Embankment Building) clearly suggests the subdivision of the ground floor of the building into five, distinct, retail or restaurant units at ground floor level, whereas the plan shows two, large, restaurant-units (BG1 and BG2) – one to each side of the entrance to the flats on the upper floors. This is a gross and unacceptable architectural deceit, and clearly suggests a size of commercial units totally at odds with the historic riverside setting. The scale of the ground floor storey of that part of the elevation at the corner of Water Lane appears to be anomalously diminutive and poorly related to the design of the upper storey and the mansard.

The rear elevation of the Block B – The Embankment Building comprises an unsettling composition of part traditional architectural character – at each end – and part indeterminate architectural character – at the centre. The scale of the ground floor storey of that part of the elevation at the corner of Water Lane appears to be anomalously diminutive and poorly related to the design of the upper storey and the mansard.

THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FRONTING THE DIAMOND JUBILEE GARDENS

Open to question is the breaking-forward of the left-hand half of that part of the proposed development fronting The Diamond Jubilee Gardens (Block B – The Embankment Building) and the absence of an appropriate hipped return in the mansard roof on the left-hand half. The elevation clearly suggests the subdivision of the building into two, distinct, retail or restaurant units at ground floor level, whereas the plan shows only one, large restaurant-unit (BG1). This is an unacceptable architectural deceit. This part of the proposed development requires review and revision.

THE ROOFSCAPE

Whilst the elevations of the frontages to King Street, Church Street (in part), Embankment and the Diamond Jubilee Gardens show mansard roofs with projecting dormers, ‘party-wall’ upstands and chimney-stacks, the sketch drawings clearly indicate the significant use of flat

5

roofs and roof-terraces. As noted in relation to the earlier proposals, it is disappointing that the proposals as a whole fail to provide a lively roof-scape reflecting the architectural character of the adjacent part of the historic heart of Twickenham. Importantly, no indication is provided to show how necessary lift over-runs, lift motor-rooms and M+E plant are to be designed or screened.

THE DESIGN OF THE EXTERNAL AREAS

The extensive open areas on the proposed raised terrace extending along the riverside elevation of Block B – The Embankment Building - and its return-elevations to Water Lane and The Diamond Jubilee Gardens, above the proposed car-parking area and possible boat-house accommodation at low level, and the similarly extensive open areas along The Embankment itself in front of the proposed development and the Diamond Jubilee Gardens, and adjacent to The Slipway at the foot of Water Lane, will require a coherent scheme of hard landscaping of the greatest quality and sensitivity, commensurate with a site of such outstanding strategic and heritage significance. It is essential that at the Council should be appointing a landscape architect of particular calibre and experience to design this important aspect of the overall project before the proposals move forward to the next consultative stage, let alone, to the application stage.

Of equal significance to ensuring a satisfactory overall scheme, will be the satisfactory surface- treatment of Water Lane and the design of the retaining-wall and balustrading serving the proposed raised terrace along the Lane – not least, in order to avoid a hostile setting to the important pedestrian route down the lane towards the river.

Of equal significance too, will be the design and surface-treatment of the ‘shared-surface’ roadway extending between Wharf Lane and Water Lane behind the existing, three-storey, retail and residential building (nos. 3 to 33 (consec.), King Street) and the surviving part of the assembly hall of the former Town Hall of 1877. Whether this will be designed to enable vehicles to move between Wharf Lane and Water Lane or to limit vehicle access and egress from Wharf Lane only, it will be essential that the route is treated as an attractive urban space for pedestrians and not just as a service-road.

Finally, any scheme of landscaping and surface-treatment of the open areas and public highway will need to be robust and sustainable in detail and capable of easy and affordable cleaning and maintenance.

CONCLUSION

If a traditional architectural approach to the design of the new buildings and spaces on the Twickenham site is to be adopted, it requires a sensitive and contextual approach which reflects a real understanding and appreciation of the modest scale and understated character of the surviving 18th and early-19th century historic buildings along the Embankment and in Church Street nearby, and of the sensitively designed, modern housing that extends down the north-east side of Water Lane (no. 5 and nos. 7 to 21 (odd), Water Lane). Importantly, too,

6

the proposed elevations of Block A fronting King Street and the proposed elevations of Block B fronting The Embankment, Church Street and the Diamond Jubilee Gardens show an extraordinary mismatch with the subdivision of the interiors at ground floor level. Such an architectural deceit is unacceptable.

All in all, the development of Twickenham’s riverside site deserves a more sensitive and carefully considered approach than that presently offered in the current proposals.

Paul Velluet 28th July, 2017.

* Copies of my earlier submissions of December, 2015 and December, 2016 should be retained and accessible from the Council’s records. Further copies can be made available by contacting me at the address below.

The foot of Water Lane, The Embankment, The Slipway and the boathouses and terrace on the north-east side of Water Lane in the 1880s – A potential historic resource to inform the future

PAUL VELLUET, B.A. Hons, B.Arch. Hons, M.Litt., RIBA, IHBC, CHARTERED ARCHITECT 9, BRIDGE ROAD, ST MARGARET’S, TWICKENHAM, T.W.1. 1.R.E. e-mail: [email protected]; telephone: 020 8891 3825; mobile: 077 64 185 393

7