Questions still surround Gloriana boathouse plans

Questions still surround Gloriana boathouse plans

On display: The plans so far

Glorious: Malcolm Knight, events manager

First published in News This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

Last weekend, with the first drop-in sessions at Orleans House under way, the controversial Gloriana could be seen moored in the Twickenham sunshine.

The consultation has been open for just under a month and Richmond Council will continue to seek residents' views until the end of August.

Tuesday's full council meeting, held in Clarendon Hall to the backdrop of campaigners, saw 15 Gloriana-related public questions asked.

Mandie Adams McGuire, from Friends of Orleans Riverside, called on the council to consider changing its consultation to include a simple yes/no question.

However, leader of the council Lord True said he was not prepared to make changes to the consultation at this stage.

He said: "I don't think it would be justified to start it all over again, I think question two [of the consultation] asks very clearly if people think the site is appropriate.

"I think that is a clear question and allows for a clear yes/no answer."

Despite vocal opposition from residents' groups and campaigners, intrigued visitors turned up at the Hammerton's Ferry pier to admire the Queen's Royal Row Barge, used during the Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

But concerns continue to be raised about a lack of detailed plans and dimensions from architects, Fosters and Partners, for the boathouse which would provide a permanent home for the divisive vessel.

Lord True said: "This is a pre-planning consultation and detailed drawings will have to come forward for planning at a later stage.

"It would be quite wrong not to have some emerging conceptual designs prepared by the architects for consultation and that is what has been put forward."

Mary Farmer questioned the leader on whether it was appropriate for the council to be investing £1m of its own money into the project.

He replied: "This presented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enable the presence of that asset [Gloriana] in the borough."

The feasibility study into various different sites across the borough was published on the council's website last week.

It identified Buccleuch Gardens, the Gothic Site in Petersham Road, existing boatyards and Marble Hill Park/Orleans Gardens as potential locations but only the latter was deemed suitable.

Since the uproar about the plans, let slip early by Lord True at a council event, Hounslow Council has put Brentford forward as an alternative site.

A Freedom of Information request to the council from Sasha Katarina revealed a chain of emails sent from Lord True, dating back to April 2012.

In response to the sender, he described his ambitions of "a Crystal Palace for a fairy craft" and his will to create a unified riverside park within Twickenham.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:43pm Thu 24 Jul 14

JeremyRodell says...

Unbelievable. Lord True considers a "yes" answer to the question "Is the site appropriate?" to equate to a yes to the (deliberately omitted) question: "Do you think Richmond Council should spend £1 million on a borough home for the Gloriana?".

Personally I think the site is ok. But that's irrelevant when I don't think the Council should be spending so much of our money on something that is not meeting the needs of the borough. Apparently that view will be ignored.
Unbelievable. Lord True considers a "yes" answer to the question "Is the site appropriate?" to equate to a yes to the (deliberately omitted) question: "Do you think Richmond Council should spend £1 million on a borough home for the Gloriana?". Personally I think the site is ok. But that's irrelevant when I don't think the Council should be spending so much of our money on something that is not meeting the needs of the borough. Apparently that view will be ignored. JeremyRodell
  • Score: -2

1:02pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Susan Burningham says...

Actually Lord True's answers were all purposefully curt and for those of us brought up with a degree of decorum, rude. In his irritation he revealed from his manner just how ruffled he is. Gone was the Game Show Host style, 'so pleased to see you all' courtesy of Eric Idle, and in came the 'how dare you question my plans' attitude. (he's forgotten of course to read his own Council's documents on localism; forgotten too that he is there to serve the Community, not the other way round - been reading too much Burke again in between banqueting with Lords Sterling and Foster).
Good to see one of two worried faces in among the Conservatives - they all need to be very embarrassed.
Actually Lord True's answers were all purposefully curt and for those of us brought up with a degree of decorum, rude. In his irritation he revealed from his manner just how ruffled he is. Gone was the Game Show Host style, 'so pleased to see you all' courtesy of Eric Idle, and in came the 'how dare you question my plans' attitude. (he's forgotten of course to read his own Council's documents on localism; forgotten too that he is there to serve the Community, not the other way round - been reading too much Burke again in between banqueting with Lords Sterling and Foster). Good to see one of two worried faces in among the Conservatives - they all need to be very embarrassed. Susan Burningham
  • Score: 2

10:52pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Sparkythecat says...

Susan Burningham: I am so glad that you were not elected as a councillor as you are so typical of the local Lib Dems who have nothing positive to say and can only childishly criticise the opposition. Sorry, I forgot, you are going to vote Labour, or is UKIP this week?
Susan Burningham: I am so glad that you were not elected as a councillor as you are so typical of the local Lib Dems who have nothing positive to say and can only childishly criticise the opposition. Sorry, I forgot, you are going to vote Labour, or is UKIP this week? Sparkythecat
  • Score: 0

9:50am Fri 25 Jul 14

jeremyhm says...

Dr Burningham states that Lord True was "curt". For the past month he has been showered with abuse and highly denigrating personal remarks (some libellous in content) made about him on a public forum. His colleagues have been insulted and intimidated (I saw this at that first meeting). This behaviour, that blurs the expression of genuine worries, has been, to say the least, encouraged by her. And now she suggests *he* was "rude"!
Dr Burningham states that Lord True was "curt". For the past month he has been showered with abuse and highly denigrating personal remarks (some libellous in content) made about him on a public forum. His colleagues have been insulted and intimidated (I saw this at that first meeting). This behaviour, that blurs the expression of genuine worries, has been, to say the least, encouraged by her. And now she suggests *he* was "rude"! jeremyhm
  • Score: 1

12:17pm Fri 25 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

jeremyhm
Is this the same Lord True who has keep quiet about the gloriana for a couple of years, spending a considerable sum on a flawed feasibility study, ignored other options without explanation and kept his own people in the dark?
There has been no attempt to say where any of the monies are coming from, either for the construction of a boathouse and dock, except our capped one million( which apparently will be borrowed at a cost of eighty thousand extra) let alone the ongoing costs of upkeep.
At the drop-in sessions facts/rumours abounded, the marine engineer hinted that the gloriana would be "parked" in front of Orleans garden, then "just" slipped round the corner, "easy"
So is a jetty,mooring to be built in front of the gardens?. The cafe if left on the side nearest marble hill it will be in shade most of the day, with no view of the playground. Difficult to keep an eye your kids from there.
Lord True is a politician who keep this quiet during his election campaign, not exactly above board, and let slip by accident this scheme.
Of course he will get bad comments and brickbats, if you play fast and loose with the electorate thats what happens. If you don't like it don't do it, and if you do take the consequences as part of job.
jeremyhm Is this the same Lord True who has keep quiet about the gloriana for a couple of years, spending a considerable sum on a flawed feasibility study, ignored other options without explanation and kept his own people in the dark? There has been no attempt to say where any of the monies are coming from, either for the construction of a boathouse and dock, except our capped one million( which apparently will be borrowed at a cost of eighty thousand extra) let alone the ongoing costs of upkeep. At the drop-in sessions facts/rumours abounded, the marine engineer hinted that the gloriana would be "parked" in front of Orleans garden, then "just" slipped round the corner, "easy" So is a jetty,mooring to be built in front of the gardens?. The cafe if left on the side nearest marble hill it will be in shade most of the day, with no view of the playground. Difficult to keep an eye your kids from there. Lord True is a politician who keep this quiet during his election campaign, not exactly above board, and let slip by accident this scheme. Of course he will get bad comments and brickbats, if you play fast and loose with the electorate thats what happens. If you don't like it don't do it, and if you do take the consequences as part of job. dellboy twick.
  • Score: 3

1:02pm Fri 25 Jul 14

jeremyhm says...

I'm not addressing the pros and cons of the scheme. My point was if you have been very rude to a person, it is not surprising that they treat you somewhat coldly subsequently
I'm not addressing the pros and cons of the scheme. My point was if you have been very rude to a person, it is not surprising that they treat you somewhat coldly subsequently jeremyhm
  • Score: 9

4:15pm Fri 25 Jul 14

richmondcomments says...

The Gloriana is NOT the Mary Rose.
It was built just 2 years ago at a cost of about £500k
So if you build a boat house for it costing at least £1m, we might as well be going to view the shed rather than the contents...
The Gloriana is NOT the Mary Rose. It was built just 2 years ago at a cost of about £500k So if you build a boat house for it costing at least £1m, we might as well be going to view the shed rather than the contents... richmondcomments
  • Score: 12

5:29pm Fri 25 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

richmondcomments wrote:
The Gloriana is NOT the Mary Rose.
It was built just 2 years ago at a cost of about £500k
So if you build a boat house for it costing at least £1m, we might as well be going to view the shed rather than the contents...
For the record, Lord Stirling fronted over one million and others provided half a million for the build.
The projected cost for Orleans gardens is just under three million of which Lord True has committed us for one third, with no mention of ongoing costs.
[quote][p][bold]richmondcomments[/bold] wrote: The Gloriana is NOT the Mary Rose. It was built just 2 years ago at a cost of about £500k So if you build a boat house for it costing at least £1m, we might as well be going to view the shed rather than the contents...[/p][/quote]For the record, Lord Stirling fronted over one million and others provided half a million for the build. The projected cost for Orleans gardens is just under three million of which Lord True has committed us for one third, with no mention of ongoing costs. dellboy twick.
  • Score: 5

4:50pm Sat 26 Jul 14

alex twickenham says...

Well said jeremyhm.
I'm not quite sure why the organisers of the protest against the building of the Gloriana boathouse encourage Susan Burningham to keep posting vitriolic stuff about Lord True and why she is so surprised to receive short shrift in return. Decorum? What tosh! I know its the way one or two political parties have behaved in the past but most of us have moved on to a less personal and subtler method of putting our point across. It would seem that Dr Burningham has not yet made that move.
She might like to reflect on the popularity of a post by Clare King, posted on July 24th on "Twickerati". Its well worth a read. I hope others will have a look and decide whether that sort of impassioned articulate plea wins far more public support than the personal attacks of Dr Burningham and some of her LibDem chums. With a healthy Tory majority and 4 years to run, its public support or planning issues that will scupper this project.
Best you sideline Dr Burningham.
Alex
Well said jeremyhm. I'm not quite sure why the organisers of the protest against the building of the Gloriana boathouse encourage Susan Burningham to keep posting vitriolic stuff about Lord True and why she is so surprised to receive short shrift in return. Decorum? What tosh! I know its the way one or two political parties have behaved in the past but most of us have moved on to a less personal and subtler method of putting our point across. It would seem that Dr Burningham has not yet made that move. She might like to reflect on the popularity of a post by Clare King, posted on July 24th on "Twickerati". Its well worth a read. I hope others will have a look and decide whether that sort of impassioned articulate plea wins far more public support than the personal attacks of Dr Burningham and some of her LibDem chums. With a healthy Tory majority and 4 years to run, its public support or planning issues that will scupper this project. Best you sideline Dr Burningham. Alex alex twickenham
  • Score: 0

7:17am Wed 30 Jul 14

dellboy twick. says...

jeremyhm wrote:
I'm not addressing the pros and cons of the scheme. My point was if you have been very rude to a person, it is not surprising that they treat you somewhat coldly subsequently
Lord trues' attitude to those he is supposed to represent was the start of the rudeness, what followed was the consequence of his actions, no one elses.
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: I'm not addressing the pros and cons of the scheme. My point was if you have been very rude to a person, it is not surprising that they treat you somewhat coldly subsequently[/p][/quote]Lord trues' attitude to those he is supposed to represent was the start of the rudeness, what followed was the consequence of his actions, no one elses. dellboy twick.
  • Score: 1

1:11pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Twickenham resident says...

Has anyone canvassed Sir David about this monstrous proposal which will destroy a valuable area of nature conservation and very valuable ancient trees? (A site which Jeremy Roddell thinks is "ok" to destroy!! )

Sir David supported the Lib Dem proposal to flog off Twickenham Riverside for luxury housing and a "River Centre" so it would be interesting to know what he thinks of the destruction of this valuable piece of Twickenham for a deep pit and replica noah's ark.
Has anyone canvassed Sir David about this monstrous proposal which will destroy a valuable area of nature conservation and very valuable ancient trees? (A site which Jeremy Roddell thinks is "ok" to destroy!! ) Sir David supported the Lib Dem proposal to flog off Twickenham Riverside for luxury housing and a "River Centre" so it would be interesting to know what he thinks of the destruction of this valuable piece of Twickenham for a deep pit and replica noah's ark. Twickenham resident
  • Score: -1

1:38pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Sparkythecat says...

Who cares about his views? He's not a councillor.
Who cares about his views? He's not a councillor. Sparkythecat
  • Score: 2

2:11pm Thu 31 Jul 14

JeremyRodell says...

Twickenham resident wrote:
Has anyone canvassed Sir David about this monstrous proposal which will destroy a valuable area of nature conservation and very valuable ancient trees? (A site which Jeremy Roddell thinks is "ok" to destroy!! )

Sir David supported the Lib Dem proposal to flog off Twickenham Riverside for luxury housing and a "River Centre" so it would be interesting to know what he thinks of the destruction of this valuable piece of Twickenham for a deep pit and replica noah's ark.
As I don't think the proposal should go ahead at all, as it's not a proper use of £1 million of Council money, I'm fully supportive of everyone's attempts to stop it, whether on planning, conservation or financial grounds. If engaging a celebrity helps, then fine.

The fact that I expressed the minority personal view that I think the design and location are ok doesn't detract from that. Maybe the lesson here is to be less open!
[quote][p][bold]Twickenham resident[/bold] wrote: Has anyone canvassed Sir David about this monstrous proposal which will destroy a valuable area of nature conservation and very valuable ancient trees? (A site which Jeremy Roddell thinks is "ok" to destroy!! ) Sir David supported the Lib Dem proposal to flog off Twickenham Riverside for luxury housing and a "River Centre" so it would be interesting to know what he thinks of the destruction of this valuable piece of Twickenham for a deep pit and replica noah's ark.[/p][/quote]As I don't think the proposal should go ahead at all, as it's not a proper use of £1 million of Council money, I'm fully supportive of everyone's attempts to stop it, whether on planning, conservation or financial grounds. If engaging a celebrity helps, then fine. The fact that I expressed the minority personal view that I think the design and location are ok doesn't detract from that. Maybe the lesson here is to be less open! JeremyRodell
  • Score: -4

2:42pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Sparkythecat says...

David Williams a celebrity - since when?
David Williams a celebrity - since when? Sparkythecat
  • Score: 1

7:33pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Twickenham resident says...

Sorry to those of you have not lived in the Borough very long. I was referring to Sir David Attenborough not the ex Lib Dem Councillor David Williams who thankfully was booted into the long grass at the last election.

Jeremy - I wasn't meaning to have a pop - just re-inforcing the environmental importance of this area so sorry - no offence meant and you are of course entitled to your opinion.
Sorry to those of you have not lived in the Borough very long. I was referring to Sir David Attenborough not the ex Lib Dem Councillor David Williams who thankfully was booted into the long grass at the last election. Jeremy - I wasn't meaning to have a pop - just re-inforcing the environmental importance of this area so sorry - no offence meant and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Twickenham resident
  • Score: 1

7:41pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Sparkythecat says...

I don't know how long is very long but I have lived in the Borough all my life and I wasn't aware that you were referring to David Attenborough. As for the other one I would agree and not before time.
I don't know how long is very long but I have lived in the Borough all my life and I wasn't aware that you were referring to David Attenborough. As for the other one I would agree and not before time. Sparkythecat
  • Score: 4

3:08pm Fri 1 Aug 14

hampton-green says...

Gloriana was not even used by the Queen who preferred very sensibly a motorised barge with mod cons. It was a vanity project and should have no place in the borough.
Gloriana was not even used by the Queen who preferred very sensibly a motorised barge with mod cons. It was a vanity project and should have no place in the borough. hampton-green
  • Score: 2

3:45pm Wed 6 Aug 14

reefknot says...

I welcome the planned addition to the park. This area of the riverside is in need of redevelopment, and this plans are sympathetic to the historical use of this reach of the Thames. The current cafe and toilet facilities are a disgrace, and the steps to the river dangerous.
I'm a life long user of this stretch of the riverside, both on and off the water.
Rk
I welcome the planned addition to the park. This area of the riverside is in need of redevelopment, and this plans are sympathetic to the historical use of this reach of the Thames. The current cafe and toilet facilities are a disgrace, and the steps to the river dangerous. I'm a life long user of this stretch of the riverside, both on and off the water. Rk reefknot
  • Score: -6

12:58pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Susan Burningham says...

1)The area along the river needs to be cared for not redeveloped.
2) The bargehouse that is planned will rip the life from the garden and will be no more historic that any other modern building designed by Foster - it is not heritage and nor by the way is the 'barge'.
3) Clean up the cafe and lavatories by all means, make the playground safer for the children, but do not touch the garden.
4) We do not have to pay £1m for a bargehouse - it is the tax-payer's money.
1)The area along the river needs to be cared for not redeveloped. 2) The bargehouse that is planned will rip the life from the garden and will be no more historic that any other modern building designed by Foster - it is not heritage and nor by the way is the 'barge'. 3) Clean up the cafe and lavatories by all means, make the playground safer for the children, but do not touch the garden. 4) We do not have to pay £1m for a bargehouse - it is the tax-payer's money. Susan Burningham
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree