Taggs Boatyard

So what's happening with this planning, Craig?

Personally, l think the houses on Summer Road are very drab/bland, it will be good to see some interesting changes. I like some of the Island houses but not all - the new ones are cool, l think Taggs will be similar.

No idea about house on Summer Road but l guess you can't please everyone

It's pretty simple, a sustainable working boatyard built into a sensitive and cohesive design in keeping with the location and one which enhances the village and riverside rather than detracting from it. If a residential element is a part of this which for financial reasons it would undoubtably need to be, then again, one which blends in harmoniously with those overlooking it and doesn't cause a loss of privacy for those affected. As far as the dwelling on Summer road then I don't see how this can be built without causing significant ongoing distress and a loss of standard of living for the family in the house next door.

Craig - l can't really understand what you want/driving at, the current building is falling down and is an eyesore. Surely, redevelopment or shall l say regeneration is best for all.

The Petetsham boatyard is a good example, it has Richmond canoe club below and some boat matineance facilities.

Totally agree with your last point, activity from rentals and a working boatyard are a very important part of our part of the Thames.

The financials I shan't comment on as it would be remiss of me but suffice to say, I don't believe the boatyard would be sustainable with this development

Surely the current owner will be in a far better financial situation as he would of received the receipt of the sale hence securing the future/retention of the boatyard.

Day hire boats is not a great issue, and its nice seeing activity on the River.

unsure about 2nd meeting

Don't understand your second comment, of course it was obvious what you said, it was just uncalled for.

Ref the sustainability of the boatyard, both myself and many others believe that in fact, this scheme does not add to that but in fact detracts from it. Whilst we recognise that investment into the boatyard buildings is needed and would like to see the current owners survive and indeed flourish. This scheme with a much smaller boatyard premises would be harder to make profit from but also, once residents are living in these exclusive and desirable apartments above, it wouldn't be long before they objected to the natural noise a working boatyard generates and also being woken up on weekends by people coming to rent boats directly below them. I live very near the boatyard and accept the noise it generates, however, I do not believe others would and have seen this scenario before and the subsequent consequences.

Is there another meeting tonight?

I've deleted obvious quote, but l have to say l would of thought the rest was obvious to you.

I like this scheme, because it's a nice upmarket mixed use scheme which will make the site sustainable. The boatyard future is in danger if not developed, it's not about being bland or exciting , it's about survival for these businesses.

Will reply properly in time as its late tonight, but will just say that regardless of your views I believe your last comment about Ms Bland and juvenile pun is not in the spirit of community or the forum and is rude and lacking in decorum. A shame.

As a river user, I actually think there is a good case for approval - the current site is very dilapidated and to continue it needs redevelopment/thats presumably why the Boatyard have done a JV......There is an alternative with no planning gained; in future years the Boatyard company could go bust and therefore the planners will accept that the yard is non-sustainable, so the developer will seek alternative use for the entire site which eventually happened in the Docklands....

I thought the case for development was/is strong, its a nice looking scheme and is not as bulky as Albany Reach. I did not think too much of Ms Bland speech.

Just an update, was at the planning meeting last night and both Karen Randolph and Tricia Bland made compelling arguments for the refusal of planning. More reasons for refusal will be added at the next meeting.