Category Archives: Activities

New Thames Bridge consultation response

On 4 January 2019, the Richmond Society submitted its response to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames’s consultation about the possibility of building a new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Thames.

Questions 1 and 2 covered the details of who we are.  Our answers to the subsequent questions comprise our response.

3  Do you support the idea of a new pedestrian/cycle bridge across the River Thames in the borough?
Don’t know

4  Do you have a preferred location for a bridge from the five areas shortlisted in the feasibility study?
Bridge 13 (between Radnor Gardens and Ham Lands)

5  Of the five shortlisted locations, the feasibility report identified two potential sites as the most beneficial. Do you have a preference between these two locations?
Yes, bridge 13 (between Radnor Gardens and Ham Lands)

6  What do you think would be the benefits of your preferred location?
Provides Ham residents with easier access to the local facilities and greater transport options available in Twickenham. Strawberry Hill and Twickenham residents would gain easy access to green space at Ham lands. Allows easier access to a wide range of accommodation in Ham for St Mary’s students and staff.

7  Do you have any concerns about the sites and locations?

The capital cost comparisons appear to have been based on a cable tied construction with supports of up to 21m, approach ramps with a 1:20 gradient and a deck width of 4.5m. While this may not be the final design it is apparent that any option would require substantial space and be intrusive into the landscape. Furthermore, we understand that the height requirements of bridges in the tidal stretches may have been underestimated by up to 2m as they are not allowing for navigation during high tides. Based on a 1:20 gradient that adds significant extra length to the approach ramp requirements, most especially if they are also designed to offer a dry route during high tides.

At Richmond Bridge the police have expressed concerns about the risk of a pedestrian and cyclist collision resulting in someone being pitched into the river. This risk must be mitigated for these bridge proposals and open clearance of 3.5m on the over water deck may feel a bit tight for a combined two way flow of pedestrians, pets and cyclists.

With regard to bridges 15 and 13, the consultants appear to have used a narrow interpretation of the width of the protected views from Ham House and Richmond Hill and determined that neither of these bridge options would have an impact. We think this is optimistic and, while designs are yet to be produced and the impact is not known, The Richmond Society could not support any proposal that impinges on protected views. The views from the riverbanks back towards Richmond Hill are also important.

These bridges and their approach routes would need lighting at night. This creates concerns about light spillage into the river and/or into currently dark areas used by nocturnal wildlife (which includes protected species).

The report notes a possible impact of bridge 15 on Hammerton’s Ferry which would represent a loss of heritage and be contrary to the economic benefit aims. The Council should also consider the applicability of views raised during the campaign against developing a boathouse at Orleans Gardens..

8  How often do you think you might use a bridge at your preferred location?
Don’t know

9  Do you think a bridge would help you walk or cycle more?
Don’t know

10  Please tell us about any design elements that should be taken account of:

Designs must not impact on the views from Richmond Hill protected by an Act of Parliament.

Irrespective of any legal issues around permitting cyclists to use the towpath careful consideration should be given to mitigating the environmental impact that will arise from a more intensive use. There are particular issues at Petersham where the path is narrow, underwater at high tide and has retained its undeveloped appearance.

11  Please use the space below to provide any final comments or tell us of any considerations you think the Council would need to examine.
The Richmond Society is a civic amenity group representing over 1,200 residents across an area of benefit extending from the Thames in the west to Chalker’s Corner in the east and including Richmond’s town centre. None of the bridge proposals is physically located in the Society’s area of benefit and our concerns therefore relate principally to the visual impact from Richmond Hill and repercussions for the towpath.

Bus route changes consultation response

The Richmond Society has responded to Transport for London’s consultation about proposed bus route changes in Richmond.

1) Loss of service along the A316 corridor between Richmond and Manor Circus.

The proposals to withdraw the H22 and 493 service along this stretch would appear to remove 11 buses per hour between Richmond and Manor Circus during peak periods (a reduction of 40% in the current service).

TfL state that, because routes 190, 391, 419/110 and R68 offer 17 buses per hour, this will continue to provide sufficient capacity to meet demand. However, that capacity would only be available at a reduced frequency, meaning longer wait times and more passengers having to change buses to complete their journey.

It seems particularly inappropriate to consider reducing capacity when significant population growth is occurring along this stretch of the A316 corridor. The fact that Sainsbury’s large supermarket is located at Manor Circus, serves this expanded population, and is highlighted for residential development in the Local Plan should all be relevant considerations.

Furthermore, a loss in bus service frequency negatively affects the PTAL of other nearby development sites for which planning decisions have recently been taken, or are forthcoming. It would especially affect a current proposal to develop 400 units on the Homebase site immediately south of Manor Circus. This development (see www.avanton-manorroad.com) is proposed to be car free, but a reduction in bus services to Manor Circus potentially reduces the site’s PTAL from 5 to 4 – causing it to fall below the council’s stated threshold for acceptability as a car free development. Reducing bus services to Manor Circus therefore works against a coherent and sustainable Mayoral strategy for new housing.

2) Comments on specific routes

i) H22 – The loss of bus capacity connecting Richmond and Twickenham town centres via Marble Hill would be retrogressive and mean a reduced service to Orleans School and the Civic Centre. It is important to know what repercussions this change could have for a modal shift away from public transport, for congestion in both town centres and across Richmond Bridge and consequently also for the reliability of other bus routes.

ii) 493 – At present this route assists a significant population cluster around the A316 who need to visit the hospitals at Tooting and Roehampton. If the service to Manor Circus is withdrawn as suggested then TfL is expecting potentially less able residents to transfer buses and/or walk substantially greater distances to connect with an essential service. The Hopper Fare cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity and does not mitigate against the added difficulty while breaking a journey to transfer buses will never represent a better service.

iii) 419 – Incorporating this service into a substantially lengthened route 110 is a concern if the extended journey time negatively affects service reliability. However, the proposed routing via Chertsey and Whitton Roads is very welcome, not least because it simplifies the ability of Richmond students to reach the new Richmond upon Thames School on A316. However, Richmond residents travelling to and from West Middlesex Hospital will get a worse service.

iv) 371 – Although not part of this consultation, it is worth reiterating requests for this route to connect with Kingston Hospital. This becomes even more pertinent if travel to other hospitals is more difficult.

3) Existing service deficiencies are not addressed

These proposals do not address the poor bus service currently offered along the Lower Richmond Road (i.e. between Manor Circus and Mortlake). This existing service deficiency will become more acute once the large Stag Brewery development and secondary school are built in Mortlake.

We support the representations to extend the 219 bus service from the Avondale Road terminus, past the Stag Brewery site and Chalker’s corner either to Kew Retail Park (itself also due to be redeveloped for housing), or to Richmond. The Mortlake school is planned to serve students living in Kew and North Richmond and they will need a much improved bus service between these areas.

In summary the Richmond Society does not support curtailing existing services. We do not consider that this meets TfL’s stated objectives of providing a better bus service by improving the experience for customers, or in supporting housing growth.

Response to LBRUT 20mph Consultation

This is The Richmond Society’s response to the Council’s consultation about implementing a borough wide 20mph speed limit. The Society is a civic amenity group representing over 1,200 residents across an area of benefit extending from the Thames in the west to Chalker’s Corner in the east and including Richmond’s town centre and part of the A316.

The Society has promoted the Council’s consultation and associated press releases to its members throughout the process but will not take a position either for or against 20mph limits. We do, however, want to comment on the consultation itself.

General Observations

The relevant element of the consultation consists of only three questions (numbered 3 to 5). Questions 3 and 5 ask respondents for a personal and subjective view and, as such, are reasonable.

Question 4 asks respondents about the extent of their agreement or disagreement that the introduction of a 20mph borough-wide speed limit would:

i. Reduce the incidence and seriousness of road traffic accidents;
ii. Reduce car use by encouraging alternative forms of transport;
iii. Improve air quality.

Quite rightly the Council provides summary evidence to help residents who want to form an objective opinion on these issues. However, it is somewhat disappointing to find that, throughout virtually the entire three month consultation period, the Council only promoted information that tended to endorse 20mph limits. Most residents will be unaware of contradictory evidence, or that some of the Council’s extracts from research and data should have carried a qualification.

The choice of questions was very limited in scope and did not encourage residents to consider whether they might rate alternative solutions more highly to achieve equivalent aims. These could have included targeted interventions (e.g. 20mph outside schools, or by re-engineering accident black spots), or to gauge residents’ support for alternative ways of encouraging modal shift and reducing air pollution. The value of running an expensive consultation becomes questionable if the Council only wants to hold up a mirror that reflects a pre-determined position.

Caveats ought also to be attached to the consultation’s results due to the ability of anyone to submit an anonymous response online and without any apparent control to prevent multiple submissions.

The quality of the consultation results has also been affected by releasing different evidence and reference information during the time that it has been open and at “Community Conversations”. New material provided after the start of the consultation means that respondents had different information on which to base their opinion at different times within the consultation period. This might be unavoidable when important new information emerges but, in this case, it feels more like the consultation was started prematurely – or perhaps that, early responses were slow to arrive or not in line with the expected outcome, and more effort was needed.

In that regard, the report from Public Health dated November 28th was added more than two months after the consultation started and the DfT commissioned report on the effectiveness of 20mph limits (also published in November) was added about a week before the closing date. As possibly the most extensive study of 20mph limits across the country, the DfT report was long awaited and ought logically to be a key reference.

It is of some concern that the first consultation leaflet sent to residents did not specify the costs of the scheme stating only: “There will be no extra charges passed onto residents to pay for this.” Clearly there are costs with any proposal and, if there is to be no extra charge on residents, then funds must inevitably be diverted from other budgets. Later in the process the costs were announced at £0.7m – £1.5m but it remains unclear what other Highways projects must be scaled back (or stopped, or not progressed) to cover this expenditure. Residents’ views about these costs and alternative budget options were not sought. No estimate of the higher costs of maintaining repeater signage, or roundels painted on the road, has been provided.

The council measured speeds across a cross sections of roads to compute an average borough speed of 21.9mph but only released this information after the start of the consultation. We would request that, prior to completing the Cabinet report, the data underlying this computation (i.e. to include the survey dates, the individual roads tested and average speeds recorded) be published alongside other 20mph reference sources. This data can then be considered to represent a base case against which progress in reducing speed and accident rates could be measured in a few years.

Comments on the Component Elements of Section 4

i) Reduce the incidence and seriousness of road traffic accidents

The laws of physics dictate that, because slower speeds allow more reaction time, some accidents may be avoided and that, in the event of a collision, personal injuries and/or property damage are much reduced. It is therefore difficult for respondents to disagree that 20mph would not reduce the incidence and seriousness of accidents making the value of this question somewhat doubtful.

The Council’s initial leaflets, commentary and presentations have reiterated that improving safety is a key objective for introducing 20mph limits across the borough. However, the historical accident statistics used by the Council included TfL and Royal Parks routes although these are not part of the 20mph proposals.

This created a material mis-representation of the safety gains achievable given that, over the last three years, about 25% of KSI accidents and 37% of slight injuries occurred on TfL roads. The latest leaflet hand delivered to residents has compounded this mis-representation by stating that fatal and serious accidents (including TfL routes) have risen by 12% in the borough over the last three years. Although serious accidents on TfL roads are 88% higher in this period and a major contributor to the statistics, the leaflet rather misleadingly concludes that “You can stop this.”

The Atkins report commissioned by the DfT recognises the public’s concern about the lack of police enforcement and is inconclusive about the benefits of 20mph limits on reducing collision rates. It reports that there is tentative evidence to support concerns that lowering the speed limit may increase driver frustration and distraction as evidenced by a significant increase in the proportion of collisions that have been categorised as ‘careless / reckless / in a hurry’.

In this regard it is important to recognise that a borough wide 20mph limit may restrict opportunities to draw drivers’ attention to areas of vulnerability (particularly near schools) where a 20mph sign that currently helps to flag the need for care is removed. Ideally this loss would be offset by installing alternative signage.

If 20mph limits result in modal shift then it must be expected that, perversely, the number of incidents involving cyclists will increase. Headline accident rates may therefore not reduce as desired and with a risk that they include a greater number of vulnerable road users.

ii) Reduce car use by encouraging alternative forms of transport

Throughout essentially all of the consultation period the Council has only promoted a single viewpoint and most respondents do not have the wherewithal to look in detail at the evidence presented.

The Council’s first leaflet stated that “in Bristol, slowing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph contributed to increasing walking and cycling by over 20%.” This disregards the caveat in the UWE’s BRITE report that it is not possible to state with certainty that the 20% modal shift to cycling and walking was related to the introduction of 20 mph.

Anecdotal evidence in Richmond similarly seems to show significant increases in the numbers of people cycling locally since 2012. This has been achieved in the absence of 20mph limits although, because cyclists justifiably prefer lower vehicle speeds, it is impossible to know if uptake might have been higher.

The Atkins report for DfT suggests a net 1% of people cycling more as a consequence of 20mph limits, but that walking and cycling rates are essentially unchanged.

The Council has gone to some lengths to show that 20mph limits should not materially increase car journey times and so, by applying this logic, lower speeds should not of itself cause a driver to abandon their car. This question therefore seems to miss an opportunity to probe drivers about adopting alternative travel modes.

iii) Improve air quality

Most pundits agree that vehicle type and driving style have far more influence on reducing air pollution than lower speeds. Lower levels of braking and acceleration with 20mph limits should reduce particulate pollution, but the evidence linking 20mph to improved air quality remains fairly inconclusive.

Again the Council has presented information selectively. The first Council leaflet highlights the April 2013 research on behalf of Cross River Partnership which found lower emissions by diesels at 20mph. However, this statement has not been qualified by the fact that the same research also found emissions are 8% worse for petrol vehicles.

Conclusion

How this consultation presented its questions and the underlying evidence suggests a desire from the Council to drive responses that would show support for 20mph limits.

Given that 20mph limits has cross party political support locally this consultation seems to have missed a valuable opportunity for collecting feedback from residents that might have better helped the Council with its active travel planning.

Walking and cycling in Richmond – can you help?

This is an opportunity for you to feed back your views.

There is plenty in the press about the importance of getting more people walking and cycling and the Richmond Society promotes active travel.

Street scene with police and cyclist

With more people walking or cycling ever greater levels of care and tolerance will be needed between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Many of us use these different modes at different times and so developing a mutual understanding should not be difficult. Nevertheless, too many people in Richmond (most especially the elderly and infirm) live in fear of being knocked over while out on foot.

It is vitally important that everyone can use Richmond’s pavements and roads safely – even if they are narrow and heavily parked. There are many locations where pavement parking is permitted (these are signed), but we have all seen instances of people parking inconsiderately and making the pavement impassable for anyone walking with a pram, a wheelchair, shopping bags, etc or who is in any way disabled.

The Richmond Safer Pavements campaign has been formed by a group of residents with support from the South Richmond Police Liaison Group, local Councillors and the Richmond Cycling Campaign. Its aim is to promote pedestrian safety on the footway by trying to curb incidences of illegal parking and dangerous cycling on the footway.

The group would like to identify where and when the pressure points for parking and pavement cycling exist. From that work they hope to identify where better signage and/or enforcement is needed.

If you would like to help this campaign please email Alan Laird
at richmondsaferpavements2018@gmail.com.

He would particularly like details (not rants!) relating to the following:

1) Have you been involved in a cycling:pedestrian accident yourself? If so, when and where? Please explain what happened.

2) Where in South Richmond have you personally come across people cycling on the pavement (i.e. the road or alley name?) If it’s a regular occurrence is there a particular time of day, or day of the week, when this happens?

3) Pavement parking – can you identify pressure points (using the same criteria as above for pavement cycling)?

4) Signage – where do you think “no cycling” signs should be deployed and what form should these take? There is a range of signage across the area.

5) Directional signage to help cyclists – where do you feel signage should be used to help cyclists get to the town centre, the river etc.?

6) Anything else you would like to contribute including something innovative. For example is there a specific road where the pavement on one side could be for pedestrians with the other for cyclists?

7) Would you be interested in joining the working group to help gather the facts, crunch the statistics and help us find solutions?

Richmond Society Forum – Under New Management

Our Autumn Forum on Thursday 18thOctober provided an opportunity for Society members to meet the new administration running Richmond upon Thames Council since May’s elections.  We were pleased to welcome Council Leader Gareth Roberts, together with Deputy Leader Alexander Ehmann who has responsibility for Transport, Streetscene and Air Quality, and Martin Elengorn who looks after Environment, Planning and Sustainability.

Councillor Roberts opened the forum by setting out the administration’s three main priorities: making Richmond fairer, greener, and safer.  These would have to be delivered in the context of the scope of the limited powers available to local authorities and the financial constraints under which they operate.

A good example of these limitations was the central government cuts in policing that have led to the disappearance of routine police presence in Richmond and measurably reduced police performance against targets. Councillor Roberts recognised that this was unsatisfactory, both from the perspective of reported crime and low-level anti-social behaviour.  However, the Council had no powers to increase police resources so instead was focussing on crime prevention.

In response to questions, Councillor Roberts spoke about the merger of services with Wandsworth.  Some departments had good local knowledge of Richmond borough; others were still shaking into place.  It would not be practical, nor indeed affordable, to return to a more localised arrangement, so his focus was on making the current situation work well and delivering the best possible services within cost constraints.

Councillor Ehmann then spoke about the current consultation on introducing a 20 mph speed limit on all roads in the borough other than its two trunk routes, the A316 and the A205.  This proposal had been included in the LibDems’ manifesto in response to mounting evidence that at slower speeds far fewer accidents take place, there are far fewer injuries, and far fewer deaths.  This applies even more so to main roads than side roads, which is why routes such as the A307 Kew Road are included in the proposed 20 mph zone. Additionally, a piecemeal implementation of the zone could as much as double its cost with the extra signage needed, and make it less straightforward for motorists to follow.

It was expected that overall air quality would improve as a result of implementation.  In addition it would encourage walking, cycling, and the use of public transport.  Councillor Ehmann was keen to point out that the administration was not anti-car, but that its aim was simply to encourage people to shift to more sustainable forms of transport.

In response to questions, Councillor Ehmann explained that enforcement of the 20 mph zone would be as for 30 mph. There would be no additional police. Compliance by most drivers would lead to an overall reduction in speed, which would deliver the expected improvement in road safety.  In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposal, and to optimise it if it goes ahead, the Council has already started gathering speed measurements to establish a baseline.  They would not be implementing the modern-day equivalent of speed bumps, as these often lead to an increase in emissions when cars brake to avoid them and then accelerate to the next one.

Former councillor Frances Bouchier asked about the budgetary plans for improving safety for cyclists.   Councillor Ehmann responded that though the budget was limited this was an important priority.  They were reviewing the acclaimed Tower Hamlets scheme, and there was also a bid being made to the Mayor of London to improve the cycling route from Ham to Richmond. In response to a question about dangerous cyclists, he explained that his focus would be more on providing an environment where cyclists did not feel the need to misbehave than on enforcement.

Regarding the length of housing lists, Councillor Elengorn explained that this was a challenge.  The Borough of Richmond had a target of 300 new homes per year, rising to 800.  Failure to meet this target would result in the Council having to relinquish planning powers.  Their approach to resolve this is a “Green Growth Strategy”, which aims to provide quality homes on larger sites.  One site currently under evaluation is at Homebase by North Sheen Station. Additionally he reconfirmed that the Friars Lane Car Park, which was controlled by Property rather than his department, is still zoned for residential development.

Other areas covered included: possible reversion of the Old Town Hall to community use; providing the Museum of Richmond with a more accessible site; consolidation of Richmond’s libraries on the site of the current lending library on Little Green utilising the adjacent Queens Hall; increased pedestrianisation of George Street; the hope that over time the TfL buses that cause most of the air pollution will become greener; the future of the House of Fraser site; and the dilapidated state of some areas of the Riverside, which Councillor Elengorn promised to escalate.

We would like to thank Councillors Roberts, Ehmann and Elengorn for their time, and for providing a very informative evening.

Annual Awards 2018

Annual Awards 2018 logo. The Richmond Society’s Annual Awards for 2018 were presented on Thursday 20th September by the Mayor of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, Councillor Ben Khosa.

Paul Velluet, who founded the awards programme forty years ago, introduced the evening with a review of the more significant winners over the four decades in which they have been presented.

This year’s brass plaques were given for the renovation of the Temperate House in Kew Gardens, and the renovation of the Great Pagoda, also in Kew Gardens.

Brass Plaque Award – The Temperate House, Kew Gardens:
Renovation

Annual Awards 2018: Temperate House, Kew Gardens.

Client
Royal Botanic Gardens
Andrew Williams		 Architect
Donald Insall Associates
John Dangerfield		 Contractors
ISG
Ramboll
Hoare Lea
Land Use Consultants
Butler and Young

Brass Plaque Award – The Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens:
Renovation

Annual Awards 2018: Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens. Client
Historic Royal Palaces
Rob Umney
Lee Prosser
Craig Hatto

Architect & Landscaping
Austin Smith Lord
David Millar
Catherine Cosgrove

Contractors
3D Systems – Nick Lewis
Hockley & Dawson
Blue Sky Building
PMJ Woodcarving Ltd

Commendation – Ancaster House, Richmond Hill:
Conversion and restoration, and development of new houses

Annual Awards 2018: Ancaster House.

Client
London Square
Mark Smith		 Architect
PDP
Simon Gazzard		 Contractor
London Square
John Fitzhenry

Commendation – Hogarth House, Richmond:
Conversion and restoration from offices to residential use

Annual Awards 2018: Hogarth House.

Client
Berwick Hill Properties		 Architect/Designer
Donald Insall Associates
Jonathan Carey		 Contractor
Birkby Construction

Commendation – Gothic Cottage, Richmond Circus:
New side extension

Annual Awards 2018: Gothic Cottage.

Client
Mr Damon Crane		 Designer
Just Extend Your House Ltd
Malgorzata Kurzownik

 

With many thanks to Michael Izett for the photos.

 

Heathrow Airspace Design – Summer 2018 Update

At the start of this year, Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) issued two consultations, covering Airport Expansion and the Principles of Airspace Design.  These are part of the process that Heathrow must go through to gain approval for expansion and for airspace changes that are needed for it.  Additionally, the principles for airspace changes will apply even if a third runway is not built.

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign responded to both consultations in March and our responses can be found on our website.  Our response to the Principles of Airspace Design was particularly critical of the apparent lack of strategy and the vagueness of Heathrow’s proposals. Heathrow have since provided further information on their proposals, to which the Richmond Heathrow Campaign responded in July.

The threats to Richmond are

(i) The potential for flights to take off overhead

(ii) Less hours of respite from the noise of planes coming in to land

(iii) A higher proportion of heavy, noisier aircraft approaching the airport overhead

(iv) A potential increase in night noise

The opportunities include noise reductions arising from improved technology and changed flight operations.

Our response covered Heathrow’s Noise Objectives and Airspace Design Principles, and also recommended an overall decision framework.

Noise Objectives

Heathrow’s Airspace principles currently have three noise objectives:

(a) Limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK adversely affected by noise

(b) Share benefits from future noise improvements between the aviation industry and local communities

(c) Strike a fair balance between the negative aspects of noise and the positive economic impacts of flights

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign believes there should be the following two crucial updates to these objectives.

1. Amend Noise Objective (a) to incorporate WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines, establishing their legal status, and a UK strategy and timetable for meeting them.  In particular, these guidelines recommend that a fixed interval of 8 hours is a minimal choice for night protection from the effects of noise.

2. Add a fourth Community Noise Objective: Where there is a reduction in overall noise the benefit should be applied to those already most affected and where there is an increase in overall noise the dis-benefit should be applied to those already least affected.

Airspace Design Principles

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign’s response also made 13 further recommendations on airspace design principles. These cover safety, flight dispersion, flight frequency, noise respite, flight path separation, flight path concentration and performance based navigation (PBN), less noisy aircraft fleet, ICAO* land use requirements, runway length and parallel operation, ICAO* flight operational requirements, London’s parks, night noise, and altitude based priorities.

* ICAO is the acronym for the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organisation.

Integrated Decision Framework

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign also recommended that there should be an integrated decision framework to bring together design principles and stakeholder interests in order to minimise noise impact the share the costs and benefits of noise mitigation both rationally and fairly.

 

We continue to play a leading part in the Heathrow Community Noise Forum (HCNF) to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on Heathrow, and to minimise or eliminate the impact of any changes to airspace design.

A more detailed summary of our response, the full response, and a presentation of the response to HCNF can be found here on our website.

 

Two new Telescopes on Richmond Hill

Congratulations to our friends at Thames Landscape Strategy on the opening of two new telescopes on Richmond Hill.  These are in memory of Air Commodore Robin Spaight CBE, whose wife Pat is Secretary of TLS and also of the Richmond Society.

Richmond upon Thames Mayor Cllr Ben Khosa performed the honours with Pat and Ellen LeCompte, a Trustee of Scenic Virginia, who is currently visiting from Richmond, Virginia.
Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith also dropped by.

The telescopes replace an earlier one which was installed on the Terrace in 2014 to mark the 20th anniversary of TLS. That one was stolen after a few months.

Heathrow Third Runway – the fight goes on

Picture of British Airways over Richmond on approach path to HeathrowThe Richmond Heathrow Campaign has continued to work tirelessly on your behalf to oppose the proposals to build a Third Runway at Heathrow. Of necessity our work over the past few years has focussed on responding to Government consultations and lobbying those parts of government involved in the process. In 2018 alone so far, we have submitted seven responses to consultations amounting to over 150 pages of detailed research (link).

Much of our work has aimed to highlight the weakness of the economic and commercial cases for Heathrow. Is the runway financeable, or will we taxpayers be expected to pay up eventually? Is it justifiable, given that according to recent DfT estimates barely any of its activity would be for business passengers and much would cannibalise growth from other UK airports or be wasted in international transfers?  That these ideas are now entering mainstream discussion is at least partly due to our efforts.

On Monday night, the House of Commons voted in favour of Heathrow expansion.  This vote was not unexpected, and in many respects all it does is to initiate the stage where judicial reviews will be sought and popular action planned.  It’s also worth noting that although the Labour Party allowed a free vote, it is now officially opposed to expansion (link).  The SNP, which had originally stated they would vote in favour, abstained.  Time is against Heathrow expansion as more decision makers become aware of the poor case for it.  Our campaign continues.

Richmond Heathrow Campaign communiqué
following the House of Commons Vote on Monday 27 June 2018

It is disappointing that Parliament voted last night in favour of the Government’s National Policy Statement on Heathrow expansion. All the evidence shows a third runway at Heathrow to be a costly mistake, bringing no benefit for UK business connectivity, perpetuating an outdated model of “hub” airports rather than anticipating demand for point-to-point travel, and ignoring the effects on public health from noise and air pollution for the substantial numbers of people living under the flight paths and near roads leading to the airport.

There is a high chance the scheme will not be delivered as Heathrow and the Government face the reality of the financial costs, the impacts on international climate change obligations and the failure to show how legal requirements on air quality can be met

The Richmond Heathrow Campaign (RHC) will continue to work with Local Councils, the London Mayor and others to support the legal challenges which will start now. We base our objections to expansion at Heathrow on the clear evidence against the decision contained in the Government’s own documents which we have examined in great detail. This has been a flawed consultation, failing to look at the facts.

We will also be continuing to look at how Heathrow and the Government can be held to account for promises made to the local community on noise reduction. Heathrow has already formally applied to the Civil Aviation Authority to change the airspace to accommodate more flights. The decisions may take several years and we are actively engaged in the process, having already lodged an objection concerning Heathrow’s lack of proper engagement with local communities and the way flight path decisions are being made.

Whilst most commentators have been focussing on the decision to expand Heathrow, few have noted the significant impact that new flight paths currently being considered will have on thousands of Londoners, with or without Heathrow expansion. Some areas will be overflown for the first time, some will have increased noise and a few less. Decisions on the location of flight paths will be fraught. Communities exposed to arrivals on the southern runway will probably see the 8 hours of daily respite cut in half.

We will continue our fight for a night time ban on flights, no increase in flights in the “shoulder periods” (23.00-23.30 and 06.00-07.00), no loss of respite periods, no increase in noise for those already exposed to noise and a cap on the number of flights and passengers, adequate compensation/mitigation from Heathrow to communities affected by noise and no increase in noise and other pollutants affecting the Royal Botanic Gardens which could threaten its status as a World Heritage Site. We will also continue to campaign for noise limits to be placed on a legal footing, based on World Health Organisation standards so that the public has better protection from the effects of noise on health.

The next stage in the decision process (apart from a judicial review by local authorities and the flight path design) is for Heathrow to prepare a detailed business plan and submit it to the UK planning inspectorate. We expect to participate and strongly object during the course of the planning process over the next two years.

Notes

RHC represents three amenity groups in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames: The Richmond Society, The Friends of Richmond Green, and the Kew Society, which together have over 2000 members. The members of our amenity groups are adversely affected by noise from Heathrow Airport’s flight paths, poor air quality and road and rail congestion in west London. We acknowledge Heathrow’s contribution to the UK economy and seek constructive engagement in pursuit of a better Heathrow. We are an active participant in the Heathrow Community Noise Forum.

The RHC has a substantial body of evidence based reports on its website here: http://www.richmondheathrowcampaign.org

The future of Richmond’s surviving red telephone kiosks

K6 telephone box at St MatthiasMany months down the line and after repeated requests, details are still awaited from the Council of its scheme for the adoption of redundant, former BT, K.6-type telephone kiosks in the Town and potential funding for their repair and restoration.

Some thirty years ago, at the time that BT was proposing the removal of the long-familiar red kiosks from cities, towns and villages across the country and their replacement with inferior models, the Richmond Society was directly involved in securing the listing of four of the then almost forty Giles Gilbert-Scott designed kiosks in the Town and their restoration – such as the two outside The Prince’s Head on The Green.

Years later, the few surviving kiosks are once again threatened – this time with redundancy and disuse.

Whilst the recent successful restoration of the two kiosks on The Green is to be welcomed, the future of others, such as the listed kiosks in The Vineyard and on Richmond Bridge and the unlisted kiosk at the head of Albany Passage near the top of King’s Road, for which the Council rightly but unsuccessfully sought listing remains unclear. The Council’s acquisition of these kiosks from BT is a welcome first step. However, adoption by one of more groups in the local community and their potential conversion for other appropriate purposes, together with their restoration and future maintenance have yet to be pursued.

The Society’s Executive Committee has agreed to support the Council in seeking to persuade Historic England to review its decision to reject the listing of the kiosk outside St Matthias’ Church and looks forward to hearing from members interested in the potential adoption and re-use of this and the listed kiosk in the Vineyard.