DOCSLIB.ORG

Desk-Based Assessment Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Desk-Based Assessment Report Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Road, Richmond, London Borough of Richmond An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment For Mr and Mrs Reid by Steve Preston Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code ALR07/144 November 2007 Summary Site name: Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Road, Richmond Grid reference: TQ 1750 7490 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Steve Preston Site code: ALR07/144 Area of site: Summary of results: The site lies in an area of very considerable general and specific archaeological potential. The general potential springs from its location on the Thames in an area likely to have been favoured by prehistoric settlement, the specific potential relates to its location on or very near the sites of the medieval Sheen Manor House, Sheen Palace and Richmond Palace or their gardens/outbuildings. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 26.11.07 i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Lane, Richmond, London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Steve Preston Report 07/144 Introduction This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a plot of land located at Asgill Lodge, Old Palace Lane, Richmond, London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Iain Sherman, of Walters and Cohen, 2 Wilkin Street, London, NW5 3NL on behalf of Mr and Mrs Reid and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area. Planning permission is to be sought from the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames for redevelopment of the site. In light of the possibility that the development might have an adverse impact on archaeological remains, a desk-based assessment has been requested in order to inform the planning process. Site description, location and geology The site currently consists of Asgill Lodge, its gardens (lawns with mature trees), and a garage, all surrounded by a brick wall. The development area is centred on NGR, TQ 1750 7490. The site is located on First terrace river gravel (BGS 1981) in a bend of the Thames. It is at a height of approximately 5m above Ordnance Datum. Richmond Old Deer Park, containing the Kew Observatory, is just to the north of the site. Planning background and development proposals Planning permission is being sought for the erection of a single new house on the site, which would involve removal of several trees. A previous application for the site has been withdrawn, but in response to this earlier proposal English Heritage had advised that a desk-based assessment would be required and it is assumed that this will also be the case for any new proposal. Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised: 1 Paragraph 21 states: ‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out...’ Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and 18. Paragraph 8 states: ‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation...’ Paragraph 18 states: ‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’ However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage. Paragraph 25 states: ‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’ The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (LBRUDP 1998, First Review, adopted 2005) also addresses the issue of archaeological sites. Several policies cover Scheduled Ancient 2 Monuments, Listed Buildings, Historic Buildings, and Buildings of Townscape Character; these policies would not affect development on the proposal site. The following policies are pertinent to the proposed development site: ‘BLT7: Archaeological Sites ‘6.29 The Council will seek to promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the Borough, including industrial archaeology, and will encourage the interpretation and presentation of sites, finds and research to the public. ‘6.30 The Council is committed to developing the potential of archaeological sites in terms of education, recreation and tourism. This will involve agreements with developers who will be expected to include design, land use and management safeguards for archaeological sites affected by their proposals. The term ‘archaeology’ may include industrial sites, buildings, machinery and artefacts of the 19th and 20th centuries where these are of historic or architectural interest.’ BLT 8: Evaluation of archaeological sites ‘6.33 Where development proposals may affect archaeological remains or areas of archaeological potential the Council will encourage early discussion of the implications with developers and specialist bodies where appropriate. The Council may require the applicant to arrange and make adequate provision, including funding, for an archaeological evaluation, according to a written specification agreed with the Council, before proposals can be considered. ‘6.34 Prospective developers should include as part of their research into the development potential of a site which they undertake before they make a planning application, an initial assessment of whether the site is known or likely to contain archaeological remains by consultation with the appropriate specialist bodies, normally English Heritage. Where this indicates that important remains may exist the Council may require an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken. This will probably involve a ground survey and small scale trial trenching carried out by a professionally qualified archaeologist. This evaluation will help define the character and extent of the remains and thus indicate the weight that should be attached to their preservation. It will also be helpful in identifying potential options for minimising or avoiding damage. The Council will normally expect developers to provide the results of such assessments and evaluation as part of their application: where necessary it will consider service of a direction under Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988 to require provision of information. The Council wishes to endorse the spirit of the Code of Practice already established by the British Archaeologists and Developers Liaison Group. Map 7 shows Archaeological Constraints in the Borough. ‘BLT 9: Development of Archaeological Sites ‘6.35 Where development affects sites of archaeological importance, the Council will normally require that the applicant satisfies the Council that appropriate provision, including funding, has been made for the remains to be preserved in situ, or in exceptional cases where preservation in situ is not appropriate or feasible, excavated and recorded. A condition will normally be attached to any consent granted requiring these works to be carried out. ‘6.36 The proposals map identifies scheduled ancient monuments. The archaeological constraints map identifies areas with archaeological potential where sites of importance could exist. Not all sites of archaeological importance will necessarily be on the constraints map. Established procedures of consultation and evaluation must be followed in preparing development proposals. On sites of archaeological importance the Council will ensure, wherever possible, that archaeological remains are preserved in situ. However, this need not prevent the development of the site providing that special attention is paid to the protection of remains through the careful design of buildings and their foundations. In considering such proposals the Council will liaise with English
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hampton Village Consultation Material
    Hampton Village INTRODUCTION TO VILLAGE PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR HAMPTON What is Village Planning Guidance? How can I get involved? London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRuT) wants residents and businesses to help prepare ‘Village Planning There will be two different stages of engagement and consultation Guidance’ for the Hampton Village area. This will be a before the guidance is adopted. document that the Council considers when deciding on planning During February and March residents and businesses are being asked applications. Village Planning Guidance can: about their vision for the future of their area, thinking about: • Help to identify what the ‘local character’ of your area is and • the local character what features need to be retained. • heritage assets • Help protect and enhance the local character of your area, • improvement opportunities for specific sites or areas particularly if it is not a designated ‘Conservation Area’. • other planning policy or general village plan issues • Establish key design principles that new development should respond to. Draft guidance will be developed over the summer based on your views and a formal (statutory) consultation carried out in late The boundary has been based on the Village Plan area to reflect summer/autumn 2016 before adoption later in the year. the views of where people live, as well as practical considerations to support the local interpretation of planning policy. How does Village Planning Guidance work? How does the ‘Village Planning Guidance’ relate to Village Plans? The Village Planning Guidance will become a formal planning policy ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) which The Planning Guidance builds on the ‘Village Plans’ which were the Council will take account of when deciding on planning developed from the 2010 ‘All in One’ survey results, and from ongoing applications, so it will influence developers and householders consultation, including through the engagement events currently in preparing plans and designs.
    [Show full text]
  • RICHMOND the Thames Landscape Strategy Review 3 0 1
    REACH 09 RICHMOND The Thames Landscape Strategy Review 3 0 1 Landscape Character Reach No 9 RICHMOND 04.09.1 Overview 1994-2012 • As the set-piece centre to this reach, Richmond Riverside’s re- invention in the mid 1980s as a terraced setting for the riverside walk has continued to be highly popular in good weather, as an ampitheatre to watch the life of the river and passing crowds. • London’s Arcadia projects have further enhanced the area in the last 5 years. • Open-air boat building and repair on the riverside outside Richmond Bridge Boathouse has been re-instated • Improvements to Bridge House Gardens • Loss of the Three Pigeons as a pub and Petersham Boat Services - given over to residential use – but the Canoe Club, new and improved outdoor cafes, new little parks and the passenger boat pier all provide interest and activity along the way. • The TLS character analysis and policies for the area were successfully used to support Richmond Council at appeal in refusing demolition of the Three Pigeons, although it was not possible to prevent the loss of the boatyard at Duck’s Walk on the Middlesex Bank to housing. • As part of London’s Arcadia: Richmond Riverside, 2007 Completion of restoration of Richmond Riverside, St Helena Terrace and Cholmondeley Walk. • New lights up Richmond Hill, (2007) • Richmond Promenade. Improvements to the riverfront including landscape and access enhancements, new seating areas, lighting, interpretation (2007). • Terrace Field – re-location of fencing and planting to open up direct route and view. New planting to re-introduce native species LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 04.09.2 Richmond meets the Thames in a characteristic leafy elegance.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Palace Lane Data from Censuses
    Old Palace Lane Data from Censuses (1841 to 1911) and 1939 Register Index Click on the number or name below of the chosen property to go to the census information for that property To return to the Index, click on the tab at the top of the chosen page. Numbered properties Named properties 1 The White Swan 2 Cedar Grove 3 The Theatre 4 Garrick House 5 Asgill Lodge 6 Asgill House 7 Asgill House - Gardener’s Cottage 8 Asgill House - Coachman’s House 9 Garage Cottage 10 “Asgill Lane” 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1, Old Palace Lane Return to Index Occupant Relation Condition Age Occupation Where born to Head 1901 Charles F Branson Head Marr 30 Coffee Merchant (employer) Clapham SW Ada F Branson Wife Marr 25 Clapham SW Doris Branson Daughter 3 Surrey, Richmond Audrey V Branson Daughter 1 Surrey, Richmond Geoffrey C F Branson Son 4 Surrey, Richmond months Martha Alexander Servant Single 24 Cook, domestic Middx, Twickenham Ada E Laven Servant Single 29 Nurse Rivenhall, Essex Elizabeth M Adds Servant Single 19 Housemaid Surrey, Kingston 1911 Charles Freemantle Branson Head Marr 40 Coffee Merchant (employer) Clapham SW Ada Florence Branson Wife Marr 34 Clapham SW Audrey Victoria Bryant Branson Daughter 11 School Richmond, Surrey Anthony Charles Powell Branson Son 8 School Richmond , Surrey Fanny Capp Servant Single 50 Cook Guildford Annie Haile Servant Single 27 Housemaid Newnham, Glos Eva Harrington Servant Single 21 Nurse Mortlake, Surrey 1939 Date of Contribution to birth war effort Dorothy K Hatton Widow 9/08/83 Unpaid domestic
    [Show full text]
  • In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology
    In the Nature of Cities In the Nature of Cities engages with the long overdue task of re-inserting questions of nature and ecology into the urban debate. This path-breaking collection charts the terrain of urban political ecology, and untangles the economic, political, social and ecological processes that form contemporary urban landscapes. Written by key political ecology scholars, the essays in this book attest that the re- entry of the ecological agenda into urban theory is vital, both in terms of understanding contemporary urbanization processes, and of engaging in a meaningful environmental politics. The question of whose nature is, or becomes, urbanized, and the uneven power relations through which this socio-metabolic transformation takes place, are the central themes debated in this book. Foregrounding the socio-ecological activism that contests the dominant forms of urbanizing nature, the contributors endeavour to open up a research agenda and a political platform that sets pointers for democratizing the politics through which nature becomes urbanized and contemporary cities are produced as both enabling and disempowering dwelling spaces for humans and non-humans alike. Nik Heynen is Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Maria Kaika is Lecturer in Urban Geography at the University of Oxford, School of Geography and the Environment, and Fellow of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. Erik Swyngedouw is Professor at the University of Oxford, School of Geography and the Environment, and Fellow of St. Peter’s College, Oxford. Questioning Cities Edited by Gary Bridge, University of Bristol, UK and Sophie Watson, The Open University, UK The Questioning Cities series brings together an unusual mix of urban scholars under the title.
    [Show full text]
  • Rep-202-001-Old-Deer-Park-Working
    REP/202/001 LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND-UPON-THAMES LOCAL PLAN A STATEMENT BY THE OLD DEER PARK WORKING GROUP FOR PRESENTATION AT THE RELEVANT HEARING SESSION OF THE INSPECTOR’S EXAMINATION, BASED ON THE GROUP’S EARLIER SUBMISSIONS TO THE COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER, 2017 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Old Deer Park Working Group comprises representatives of The Richmond Society, The Kew Society, The Friends of Richmond Green, The Friends of Old Deer Park and The St Margaret’s Estate Residents Association. Details of each of the groups are attached in Appendix A. 1.2 This statement conveys the concerns of the Working Group regarding the soundness of a number of specific aspects of the Council’s final version Richmond-upon-Thames Local Plan relating to the Old Deer Park, Richmond. The statement focuses on those aspects of the Council’s Plan which the Group considers are insufficiently robust in providing the Council, as local planning authority and the local community with effective control over development affecting the particular architectural, historic and landscape significance of the Old Deer Park as a designated heritage asset in the terms commended in the relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework. 1.3 In Section 3 of this Statement, the Working Group has set out its concerns about the soundness of specific aspects of the Plan relating to the particular definition of boundaries in the Proposals Map insofar as they relate to the Old Deer Park; to the wording of some of the policies of the Plan insofar as they relate to the Park; and to the wording of two of the site- specific proposals which relate directly to the Park.
    [Show full text]
  • A. the River As Commercial Waterway B. the River As One of London's Playgrounds C. the River As Water Provide
    23/09/2020 Survey 1930 Putney to Staines - WHERE THAMES SMOOTH WATERS GLIDE The Thames from Putney to Staines A Survey of the River, with Suggestions for the Preservation of its Amenities, prepared for A Joint Committee of the Middlesex and Surrey County Councils by Adams, Thompson and Fry, Town Planning Consultants 121 Victoria Street, Westminter, SW1 St Dominic’s Press Ditchling, Hassocks, Sussex 1930 Syon Reach CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: A. THE RIVER AS COMMERCIAL WATERWAY B. THE RIVER AS ONE OF LONDON’S PLAYGROUNDS C. THE RIVER AS WATER PROVIDER D. THE RIVER AND LAND DRAINAGE E. THE RIVER BANKS AND BUILDINGS F. HOW AMENITIES MAY BE DESTROYED: a. Industrial Buildings and Public Works b. Bridges c. Domestic Buildings d. Advertisements e. Various causes of disfigurement and loss of amenity f. General attitude to the river https://thames.me.uk/Survey1930.htm 1/47 23/09/2020 Survey 1930 Putney to Staines - WHERE THAMES SMOOTH WATERS GLIDE II. A SURVEY OF THE RIVER WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ITS AMENITIES A. PUTNEY BRIDGE-HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE B. HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE-BARNES BRIDGE C. BARNES BRIDGE-KEW BRIDGE D. KEW BRIDGE-RICHMOND RAILWAY BRIDGE E. RICHMOND RAILWAY BRIDGE-BUCCLEUCH HOUSE F. BUCCLEUCH HOUSE-TEDDINGTON WEIR G. TEDDINGTON WEIR-KINGSTON BRIDGE H. KINGSTON BRIDGE-HAMPTON COURT BRIDGE I. [NB there is no I. section] J. HAMPTON COURT BRIDGE-SUNBURY WEIR K. SUNBURY WEIR-SHEPPERTON LOCK AND WEIRS L. SHEPPERTON LOCK-PENTON HOOK LOCK M. PENTON HOOK-STAINES BRIDGE III. METHODS OF PRESERVING THE AMENITIES OF THE RIVER SIDE A. OPEN SPACES a.
    [Show full text]
  • River Thames- Hampton Court to Richmond Moderate Trail: Please Be Aware That the Grading of This Trail Was Set According to Normal Water Levels and Conditions
    River Thames- Hampton Court to Richmond Moderate Trail: Please be aware that the grading of this trail was set according to normal water levels and conditions. Weather and water level/conditions can change the nature of trail within a short space of time so please ensure you check both of these before heading out. Route Summary Distance: 7 miles This section of the River Thames has much of interest en- Approximate Time: 2-3 Hours route with activity on the water, the mixed landscapes of The time has been estimated based on you travelling 3 – 5mph parkland and town, and historic landmarks. The trail is (a leisurely pace using a recreational type of boat). suitable for all abilities by either canoe or kayak in normal Type of Trail: One Way river conditions. Waterways Travelled: River Thames For ease of parking and launching the trail commences at Type of Water: River urban West Molesey, approximately ¾ mile upstream of Hampton Court Bridge. Portages and Locks: 2 locks Nearest Town: Richmond The reaches between Molesey and Richmond are some of Start: - Hurst Park, West Molesey, London, KT8 1ST MR the busiest on the river with canoes, rowers, sailing 176/134691 dinghies, motor cruisers, hire boats and passenger launch services, especially at weekends. Do keep an eye on Finish: River Lane, Petersham, Richmond Mr 176 other river traffic and comply with navigation rules 178735, TW10 7AG Start Directions O.S. Sheets: Landranger No. 176 – West London Licence Information: A licence is required to paddle this waterway. See full details in Useful Information Hurst Park, West Molesey, London, KT8 1ST MR below.
    [Show full text]
  • Listed Buildings Register Planning
    Listed Buildings Register Planning 14 October 2019 Official# REFERENCE GRADE ADDRESS DESCRIPTION 83/00179/II Grade II Boundary Walls To Richmond Park Boundary Walls TQ 17 SE 4/12 TQ 27 SW 5/12 TQ 1971 27/12 83/00207/II Grade II North Lodge 2 Admiralty Road - Part Of National Physics Laboratory Teddington Middlesex TW11 0NN North Lodge to the National Physical Laboratory 73/00003/II Grade II North Bridge In Pleasure Grounds Ailsa Road Twickenham Middlesex Two bridges in the pleasure grounds parallel to Ailsa Road, St Margarat's area 73/00007/II Grade II Alma Cottage 5 Albert Road Teddington Middlesex TW11 0BD No 5 (Alma Cottage) 83/00250/II Grade II Amyand House 60 Amyand Park Road Twickenham Amyand House, 60 Amyand Park Road 99/00001/II Grade II 52 Amyand Park Road Twickenham Middlesex TW1 3HE Grove Cottage 74/00010/II Grade II 70 Barnes High Street Barnes London SW13 9LD No 70 Barnes High Street 83/00166/II Grade II 2 Branstone Road Richmond Surrey TW9 3LB 2 Branstone Road Richmond 68/00006/II Grade II 12-14 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 12-14 Brewers Lane (Victorian shopfront to No 12) 68/00033/II Grade II 11 And 13 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey 11 and 13 Brewres Lane (Victorian shop front ) 83/00018/II Grade II 16 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 16 Brewers Lane (Modernised Victorian shop window) 83/00019/II Grade II 8 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 8 Brewers Lane 83/00093/II Grade II The Britannia 5 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH The Britannia (Modified Victorian pub front) 83/00106/II Grade II 2 - 6 Brewers
    [Show full text]
  • Download It As A
    Richmond History JOURNAL OF THE RICHMOND LOCAL HISTORY SOCIETY Numbers 1–39 (1981–2018): Contents, Author Index and Subject Index This listing combines, and makes available online, two publications previously available in print form – Journal Numbers 1 to X: Contents and Index, republished with corrections in October 2006, and Journal Numbers XI to XXV: Contents and Index, published in November 2004. This combined version has been extended to cover all issues of Richmond History up to No. 39 (2018) and it also now includes an author index. Journal numbers are in Arabic numerals and are shown in bold. Although we have taken care to check the accuracy of the index we are aware that there may be some inaccuracies, inconsistencies or omissions. We would welcome any corrections or additions – please email them to [email protected] List of Contents There were two issues in 1981, Richmond History's first year of publication. Since then it has been published annually. No. 1: 1981 The Richmond ‘Riverside Lands’ in the 17th Century James Green Vincent Van Gogh in Richmond and Petersham Stephen Pasmore The development of the top of Richmond Hill John Cloake Hesba Stretton (1832–1911), Novelist of Ham Common Silvia Greenwood Richmond Schools in the 18th and 19th centuries Bernard J. Bull No. 2: 1981 The Hoflands at Richmond Phyllis Bell The existing remains of Richmond Palace John Cloake The eccentric Vicar of Kew, the Revd Caleb Colton, 1780–1832 G. E. Cassidy Miscellania: (a) John Evelyn in 1678 (b) Wordsworth’s The Choir of Richmond Hill, 1820 Augustin Heckel and Richmond Hill Stephen Pasmore The topography of Heckel’s ‘View of Richmond Hill Highgate, 1744’ John Cloake Richmond in the 17th century – the Friars area James Green No.
    [Show full text]
  • Twickenham Tribune 0110.Pdf
    Est 2016 Borough of Twickenham 0110 The Twickenham Tribune Contents TwickerSeal TwickerTape Twickenham Riverside History Through Postcards Arts and Entertainment Coming to the End of 2018 Toby Jessel Twickenham Film Festival Steam, Steel and Shells River Crane Sanctuary St Mary’s University update Twickers Foodie Competitions Mark Aspen Reviews Football Focus A Traveller’s Tales Rugby update Contributors TwickerSeal Alan Winter Erica White Howard Greenwood Helen Baker Sammi Macqueen Bruce Lyons Alison Jee TwickerGrump St Mary’s University Shona Lyons Mark Aspen Doug Goodman Rugby Football Union EDITORS Berkley Driscoll Teresa Read Contact [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Published by: Twickenham Alive Limited (in association with Main Street, Gibraltar World InfoZone Limited) Registered in England & Wales (A lot like Church Street, Twickenham!) Reg No 10549345 The Twickenham Tribune is registered with Photo by Berkley Driscoll the ICO under the Data Protection Act, Reg No ZA224725 TwickerTape - News in Brief Christmas and New Year waste and recycling collection arrangements For Christmas week commencing Monday 24 December, Richmond Council will carry out waste and recycling collections from domestic properties on the Monday for normal Monday collections day and two days later than usual for all other collections days. Collections the following week will take place on Monday 31 December as normal and will then take place a day later than normal after New Years’ day. Box Deliveries and Special Collections will continue through until Friday 21 December 2018 and will recommence on Wednesday 2 January 2019. Garden Waste collection will continue until 21 December 2018 and will recommence on Monday 7 January 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Spring 2013 Other Local Applications
    The Kew Society Newsletter Spring 2013 Other local applications. We objected to the Events proposed re-development of 1-2 South Parade, off Sandycombe Road, the change of use of 30 2013 started well with our now-traditional 12th Cumberland Avenue from residential use to use by Night Party. Held in St. Anne’s hall, it was a lovely Kew College and the development of Ruth House opportunity to catch up with both friends and news facing the Mortlake Road. at the end of the festive period. Our next event presents an opportunity of a Environment different nature. Many of you will be aware and will probably have visited the David Nash The Richmond Heathrow Campaign on which we exhibition presently at the Royal Botanic Gardens, are represented continues to be very active. It is Kew. We are very pleased to be able to offer a tour submitting evidence on alternative ways of of the exhibition with David Nash in person on 26th On Kew meeting the demand for aircraft expansion other March. With the sculptor himself guiding us than more flights, including night-time flights, and around, the tour will be an excellent means of a new runway. We believe there may be other gaining a unique understanding of his work. attention to landscaping and sustainability, a Kew Gardens’ new Director to talk solutions which would limit an increase in aircraft Further details of the tour are available separately. to Kew Society change or intensification of use, loss of public noise. The Campaign is pressing for a reduction in amenities, loss of green space, loss of garage or the number of flights by encouraging larger aircraft Looking further ahead, we also have walks planned We are pleased to announce that Richard Deverell, off-street parking, intensification of traffic volumes and discouraging smaller planes, improving seat for April and May.
    [Show full text]
  • Teddington Society News Letter
    TEDDINGTON SOCIETY NEWS LETTER Published by the Teddington Society News Letter No. 2 A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS A “mini” conservation area is under consideration by the Council for the part of Teddington close to Teddington Station (part of Clarence and Park Roads). We hope to make suggestions to the Council concerning this area. The idea of the “mini” conservation area is wholeheartedly endorsed by the Society to prevent unnecessary spoiling and development of some of the most attractive parts of Teddington. There was a rumour of a motorway-type road from Apex Corner, through Teddington High Street,across the river with a bridge starting at St. Albans Church, across the Ham lands, by—passing Kingston and then up to London; this gave us much concern. Letters were sent to the Department of the Environment, the G.L.C. and Richmond Council. The answers showed that no plans are in existence for the immediate future but the idea for a bridge across the river at Teddington Lock has been around for years and possibly at some future date something may happen. We’ll remain aware of this situation. St. Alban’s Church has been discussed at all our committee meetings. Some of you may have seen a letter from Alan Sibley of the Environmental and Planning Group in the local paper asking for residents’ views on the matter. If you would like to write to Alan, he is keen to hear your ideas for the church. Some of the Committee do not wish the Church to come down but future financing of its upkeep is obviously getting to be an expensive task.
    [Show full text]