David Williams on Twickenham station: ‘everyone can now count the eight storeys the Tories have approved’ [Letter to the RTT Jan 13

• [Jan 13] Cllr David Williams* writes: SIR - The disastrous decision of Richmond Council's Conserva­tives to give planning permis­sion to the Solum scheme at Twickenham station on De­cember 19 will haunt them for a long time. Only six days before this planning committee the coun­cil approved a new planning strategy (local development framework development man­agement plan). Two of the key policies in this are strong restrictions on tall buildings and provision of affordable housing in large res­idential developments. Both of these policies were ignored by the Tories on the planning committee.

Also ignored, as your letters page showed comprehensively last week, were the public. Twickenham residents ac­cept the need to improve their railway station, but not with eight storeys of development on top. Worst affected are the resi­dents of Mary's Terrace, who will now have this huge build­ing in front of them.

In the 2010 elections* the To­ries claimed they would listen to the public. Even I had not expected them to show their cynical arrogance so soon. The restrictive planning policies on tall buildings have been essentially the same for both Liberal Democrat and Tory ad­ministrations. But you would never know this from the Tory posturing and spin. In her letter, Cllr Virginia Morris claimed that because a planning application was sub­mitted for a tall building when the Lib Dems ran the council, this was a "Lib Dem legacy".

Only tall buildings given planning consent by the coun­cil count, and everyone can now count the eight storeys the Tories have approved*, de­spite the opposition of the pub­lic and the Lib Dems. She objects to me question­ing the position of Cllr Scott Naylor. He was a vocal oppo­nent of the Solum scheme. But his views, like those of the public, have been ignored by the Tories. He has been made to look ir­relevant to the people he said he would help. The simple question he has to answer is, does he support the decision of his fellow To­ries to give planning permis­sion for this over-development at Twickenham station? Or is he resigning as a vice-chair­man of the planning commit­tee that approved this tall building?

* Deputy leader of the opposition Richmond Council

* Extract from the minutes of the Planning Committee, Monday, 19 December:

Present: Cllrs Linnette [chair], Allen, Elengorn, Fleming, Gibbons, Mille, O'Malley, Palmer and Stockley

' . . 11/1443/FUL - Twickenham Railway Station, London Road, Twickenham: Phased redevelopment of Twickenham Railway Station to provide: . . A new station concourse with stair and lifts to platform level; three buildings ranging in height between 7 storeys and 2 storeys (where measured from London Road Bridge) comprising 115 residential units . .

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and no adverse direction from the GLA.

Minutes: The Development Control Officer provided a comprehensive introduction to the report and referred the Committee to the addendum (as appended to the minutes). The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Gillum, Mr Milner, Mr Heads, Ms Evans, and Mr Blackman who were local residents; and from Mr Mellor and Mr O'Neil who were consultants on behalf of a residents' association.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Brett, a local resident, Mr Graham, the architect, Mr Kistruck on behalf of Network Rail, and Mr Rutter, on behalf of Solum, the applicant. The Committee heard representations from Cllrs Coombs Khosa and Naylor, who spoke as interested Councillors.

The Committee considered the information provided by officers and the points raised by speakers. Members considered the merits of the scheme and balanced this against the perceived disadvantages of the proposal. Members discussed the design of the scheme and the height of the buildings, considering whether departure from the Council's Development Management Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance could be justified in the context of the provision of enhanced station facilities and new public realm. The Committee considered the lack of provision of affordable housing and whether this was acceptable in the context of the viability study and the section 106 financial obligations that were proposed.

The Committee considered the impact on the street scene and neighbouring amenity in the vicinity of the site, and in particular whether the height and scale of the proposal would create a sense of enclosure for the residents of Mary's Terrace. It was recognised that there were disadvantages to the scheme, but Members considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the potential harm, and that the conditions secured would mitigate the harm. Members were concerned about the lack of disabled toilet facilities at the station site and about potential construction issues for residents of Mary's Terrace and Cole Park Road.

It was RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED . . '

The vote: FOR: Cllrs Linnette [chair], Fleming, O'Malley, Palmer and Stockley. AGAINST: Cllrs Allen, Elengorn, Gibbons and Miller.'

• Webcast of meeting

* Twickenham Conservatives: manifesto May 2010

• Twickenham Residents' Action Group's petition asking London Mayor Boris Johnson to stop the scheme

• Pickles says "yes" to Twickenham station redevelopment [RTT Mar 16]