Lourie writes to RUG

• CLLR Serge Lourie has published his reply to John Reekie . .

"Dear Mr Reekie

I refer to your letter of 4 October signed by 11 people referring to your so-called petition which you say was signed by 8,500 people. As you will be aware, I have asked several times to see the petition because I believe that it was several petitions with different words which changed over time. I suspect it has been going for 6 years as the copy you sent me refers to "23 years of neglect". This suggests the petition started in 2004.

I should appreciate seeing the petition or a copy thereof and any information that was provided to people signing it.

Turning to the specifics of the version of the so-called petition you sent me reproduced below:

________________________________________________

• "We call on Richmond Council to honour the recommendations of the Government appointed inspector on the use of the Twickenham Pool site. These include the provision of Open Space as the predominant immutable feature of any future scheme, the provision of Public Toilets and the adherence to the Conservation nature of the site and its historic connection with the River. We ask you to give an undertaking that the existing Children's Playground and Café should be kept in its current location and that 23 years of neglect will be brought to an end by restoring the whole site to use as Public Space."

I comment as follows:

________________________________________________

• " . . We call on Richmond Council to honour the recommendations of the Government appointed inspector on the use of the Twickenham Pool site. These include the provision of Open Space as the predominant immutable feature of any future scheme, the provision of Public Toilets . . "

The proposed development complies with the recommendations of the Inspector and scheme T1 in the Unitary Development plan approved by the former Tory administration in 2005. Open space is the predominant feature at 48%, with 26% being the part of the site being sold on a long lease to the developer. The balance of the site (26%) is the popular river centre and small pieces of road etc. that are not "public open space" but are being retained by the Council.

________________________________________________

• " . . and the adherence to the Conservation nature of the site and its historic connection with the River . . "

The proposal creates a strong link with the river through the creation of the river centre that will have many links and the creation of a unified open space in 48% of the site and on the improved embankment. The site was not a site dedicated to "conservation" but is now derelict and was formerly a swimming pool.

________________________________________________

• " . . We ask you to give an undertaking that the existing Children's Playground and Café should be kept in its current location . . "

We are retaining the playground in a better location by the river. The proposal also allows for significant improvements with its river theme. I do not understand why it should not be moved and resent the untruths in your publicity that suggested we were getting rid of the playground. As you knew at the time this was not true. The café will be greatly improved as a result of the proposal and will be in as good a location as at present.

________________________________________________

• " . . and that 23 years of neglect will be brought to an end by restoring the whole site to use as Public Space."

As you know the site has been largely derelict for 29 years. You use the word "restore" inaccurately. This site was never public open space. We are proposing to use 48% of the site as open space for the first time. This was a private house and garden and then it was a public swimming pool for which members of the public had to pay.

________________________________________________

Finally, I thought you would be interested to know that RUG's argument that the site was bought by the then council to be used for "public walks and pleasure grounds" is incorrect. I have looked at the Twickenham council minute for the meeting on 17 January 1924 when the purchase was approved. It makes clear that only a small part of the site (under 6% by value) was to be used for "public walks and pleasure grounds". My guess is this referred to the riverside embankment which will remain as open space under our proposal. The rest of the site was acquired for "street improvements" and as "surplus land"

I assume you will notify your supporters that you have been in error.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Serge Lourie

Leader, LB Richmond upon Thames"