Vince Cable

After visiting the exhibition at the Civic Centre, MP Vincent Cable has posed 10 questions to the Chairman of the Planning Committee (see letter attached).

He said: "there are some interesting ideas but also some very worrying ones. As far as I can see, all the four options involve a reduction in Metropolitan Open Land. Residents will be horrified to see that the depot could be relocated onto the land adjacent to the A316 on a playing field and by the proposal to cover the Craneford Way playing field with a railway spur which has very little relevance to the transport needs of the borough".

"I have asked Councillor Marlow to explain how many houses are involved in each of the options. A densely populated part of Twickenham - especially close to the Mereway Allotments - is being allocated many more houses. "

"Yet the data available last week showed that 80% of the council's 20 year housing target is already being met by houses under construction or sites identified. There is a danger of quite excessive house building".

"I am also at a loss to understand why the council is pushing ahead with its UDP proposals when options are being considered which invalidate the change. Either the consultation is a sham or the UDP proposals have become redundant and should be shelved".

Letter to Councillor Marlow

Dear Councillor Marlow

I visited the exhibition today. There were some interesting ideas, which will stimulate local debate, I hope in a constructive way. Perhaps I can best respond by posing a series of questions to clarify the ideas for my benefit and local residents.

First: process. It seems that the UDP proposals prejudge the outcome of the consultation. If Option 2 were chosen for example (the nearest to the status quo) there would be no need to change the status of the Craneford playing fields or the Marsh Farm allotments. Would it not be more sensible - and restore the community's belief in good faith of the council

• to withdraw the UDP proposals until the consultation is complete?

Second, on substance:

(a) how many dwellings and of what kind ('affordable'/commercial) are entailed in each of the four options? You may have seen my comments last week that the council is already 80% of the way towards meeting its 2015

housing target agreed in 1997 on the basis of completion of work under construction and new sites already identified.

Adding new residential units in high density areas (as in the case with the Mereway allotments site in Options 1 and 2) and to central Twickenham in general would appear to be unnecessary as well as problematic in planning terms.

(b) what is the area of metropolitan open space in each of the options and at present? As far as I can see all involve a loss but of different degrees and types.

(c) how is the environment of a 'green corridor' going to be enhanced by resisting on a playing field a council garbage vehicle dept on the A316 where it will be high conspicuous to residents and passers by? (Option 1, 3, 4). The amenity of the A316 approaches is protected by conservation area status a little further along, on the Dene estate (a resident was recently asked to take down a red tile roof lest it offend the sensibilities of passers by) and there seems a complete absence of lateral

thinking here.

(d) has the College agreed to the idea of a - multi storey - development on the Post Office site? (Options 1, 3, 4). My impression was that the idea had little appeal. Why do none of the options include redevelopment of the College on the depot site?

(e) what has happened to the proposals discussed for many years, for a pedestrian route to the RFU which by-passes the residential Heatham Park estate? Has this idea now been abandoned?

(f) which of the options other than Option 3 allows for a green parkway corridor and improved access along the Crane/Northumberland River? The river banks and surrounding areas from the weir to the nature reserve, which are the council's responsibility and are often in very poor condition because of fly tipping, litter and general neglect.

(g) where do the rail development proposals come from, Option 4 (Sweltrac, the NRA? SW Trains? the council?). Of all the possible rail developments that are feasible, this seems, at first sight, to have the least attraction to local residents (as opposed to an extended tube/N London line or, more simply, the expansion of Twickenham station to accommodate more frequent trains on the Kingston loop or the Windsor line).

The blight the proposed development would cause in the Craneford Way area and the destruction of the fields would cause great alarm. Why is the council promoting this option?

(h) what other options are being considered for the Post Office site other than college development (i.e. what is 'mixed use' in Option 2)? I recall that in the long running battles over the Riverside it was frequently argued that various leisure developments ( a cinema for example) would be better here.

(i) what is the 'secondary school' now envisaged for the Clifden site? I take it that we are talking about the Catholic school? If not where is the preferred site?

In the spirit of open debate I am sending a copy of this letter to the local press.

Dr Vincent Cable, MP

Liberal Democrat Spokesman for Trade and Industry

Constituency office address:

7, Kestrel House

111 Heath Road

Twickenham TW1 4AH