There was an interesting article in the
Richmond and Twickenham Times recently (see below), in which Lord True updated us on
progress, or perhaps lack of, on developments in Twickenham’s town center.
These included references to; the station
work, the old post office site, progress with the opening up of King Street to
the river, work on pavements and relocating bus stops and his thoughts on the
aspiration to see a pedestrian and cycle bridge from Radnor Gardens to Ham Lands.
While he said it would be nice to see a
“river park joining up Ham and Twickenham sides of the river” he also added
that the Radnor Bridge idea was unlikely in his current term as leader.
Did you see the article? If so, do tell us
what you thought of his message here.
The title of the article (written by Tom
Ambrose) was “Town Square plans to ‘invigorate’ area”. However, the thrust of the
message seemed to dwell on how the ambition to open up Twickenham to the river
front (as expressed as a key desire from residents in the 2010 Barefoot
Consultation) would now not happen.
What a shame. Perhaps development of a
Square is still going ahead, but because of a fear that knocking down the shops
on King Street would be “far too grandiose” a plan, the square will no longer
deliver on its original brief of ‘re-invigorating the area’ and opening up
Twickenham to the river.
It is our opinion that this type of small-minded
ambition and inability to stick to the original plan is what has plagued
initiatives in the area for too long. Such an attitude would no doubt have killed
the Richmond riverside development ideas before they had got going. However,
thankfully it didn’t and we all know what a fantastic legacy for the area the
redesign of Richmond riverfront has been.
Sadly over the last 30-40 years there has
been a serious lack of investment in our beloved Twickenham. Procrastination
has been the enemy of every good idea in the making. I’m sure widening the
pavements and relocating the bus stops may seem like a good investment today
Lord True, but that is only because the investment hasn’t been happening on an
ongoing basis over the years.
What Twickenham (and Ham for that matter) have
needed for a long time is a “big idea” to truly “invigorate” the area. That is
where the Radnor Bridge idea stepped in, as long ago as the Barefoot
Consultation in 2010.
We had hoped the Council would grasp this
‘big idea’ back then and we would have had the bridge installed in time for the
Rugby World Cup (later this year), when Twickenham will once again be on the
global stage.
Clearly that opportunity has passed. But we
still keep campaigning. The team here at Radnor Bridge had a meeting last week with
a couple of councilors, to see if we could at least get the Radnor Bridge onto
the Council’s “Village Plans”. According to the councilors we met with, everyone
agrees that a pedestrian and cycle bridge between Twickenham and Ham will
happen one day, but there simply isn’t agreement about where that bridge should
be.
I ask you, if not Radnor Gardens, where is
the best location for this ‘inevitable’ bridge?
When the mini-Holland strategy was proposed
last year, Radnor Bridge was one of four locations being considered.
Unfortunately none of the other three locations are credible because of the
protected view from Richmond Hill, the flow of the river and layout of
surrounding streets and homes and then, perhaps most significantly, the obvious
lay of the land.
There simply isn’t another location in the
area that works as well. Only Radnor Bridge effectively satisfies the requirements
of the landscape strategy by working with (not against) the general topology of
the land.
Bridges are as much about the allocation of
run off on both sides of the river as they are about the crossing of the river
itself. Also, any pedestrian and cycle bridge between Ham and Twickenham will need
to have a certain amount of natural height to clear sailing masts without the
cyclists and pedestrians being forced to climb a steep slope on both sides. The
natural height of the land at Cross Deep to the Avenue on Ham Lands provides
this clearance and the required run off on both sides of the river.
Perhaps the biggest challenge to any ‘big
idea’ happening in the local area is “how much will it cost?”
This is not a project that has to be
covered entirely by local council taxes. Clearly this bridge will need to be
paid for by several stakeholders. After all, how else is any significant
infrastructure project funded?
In the article, Lord True says that “we are
talking millions” and adds that TFL, when approached, had said it was a nice
idea but were more interested in other things. And at that the council seems to
have shrugged its shoulders and given up.
Surely, if presented with the right
argument, it is only a matter of time before the Port of London Authority
(PLA), Transport for London (TFL) and perhaps even the Mayor of London’s budget
for improving London’s cycle routes, will be able to find the required sums. I
therefore challenge you Lord True to ask the TFL (and others) again, but this
time with a bit more conviction.
Procrastination is the enemy of all invigorating
big ideas.