Riverside redevelopment amendments at 1, 1a 1B And 1C King Street;, Twickenham

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Richmond Upon Thames Planning Committee on 25 Nov 2025.

PA25/1854Approved

The site and surroundings

The site covers 1.34 hectares between King Street, Wharf Lane, Water Lane and the river, including highways, buildings, gardens and public realm.

“Official application site area is 1.34 hectares and comprises public highway (Wharf Lane, Water Lane, The Embankment and service road to the rear of King Street); the two storey buildings at 1 – 1c King Street and its rear car park; former Diamond Jubilee Gardens, including café; Electric substation to the rear of King Street; Disused buildings to the east of Diamond Jubilee Gardens and public realm.”

“Apart from the highways, that form part of the application site, the site is now a construction site for the parent application 21/2758/FUL. However, former land uses included: a. Diamond Jubilee Gardens – Use Class F2 (c) b. Café within Diamond Jubilee Gardens – Use Class E (b) c. King Street – vacant bank - Use Class E (c) d. 1a King Street – retail unit (currently occupied) – Use Class E (a) e. 1b King Street – retail unit (currently occupied) Use Class E (a) f.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the amendments broadly complied with planning requirements and the identified harms were outweighed by significant housing, public realm and community benefits.

“As with the parent application, the amended application continues to deliver clear benefits. The layout and design remain responsive to context contributing to local distinctiveness and sympathetic to settings of surrounding heritage assets and the amendments do not alter the fundamental design principles of the parent application, continuing to deliver benefits, which is given great weight.”

“Officers consider the development complies with the Development Plan as whole and therefore should be approved without delay. In addition, whilst weight is given to the harms identified, having regard to the development delivering a high-quality scheme making effective use of this brownfield sustainable site, these are deemed to be outweighed by the significant wider community and public benefits as summarised in earlier paragraphs.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An architect spoke about the application, and an interested ward councillor addressed the committee.

Members’ discussion

Members viewed the amendments as relatively minor, understood the regulatory reasons for changes and supported river transport during construction.

“Official Members expressed a view that the proposed changes were relatively minor and were primarily the result of changes to building regulations. The Committee had been strongly in support of the original parent application and there did not appear to be any grounds to refuse the changes proposed in the current application.”

“Members noted that there was potential for the river to be used for transportation during the construction period and were supportive of this.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted in favour of the officer recommendation, with an additional informative about exploring social-rent homes.

“The Committee noted that discussions about London Affordable Rent for the social housing element of the development were ongoing and proposed that an additional informative be added encouraging the applicant to explore the potential for affordable rented home to be ‘social rent’.”

“The Committee went on to vote on the officer proposal as set out in the report with the agreed informative about social housing, voting in favour with the officer recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to the recommended conditions and informatives, adding encouragement to explore social rent for affordable rented homes.

“RESOLVED that the Planning Committee APPROVED the application subject to Conditions and informatives set out in Sections 12 and 13 of the report and an additional informative as below:”

“Informative: The applicants are encouraged to explore the potential for the affordable rented homes to be ‘social rent’.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

“Members considered that it would be preferable for there to be more natural light in the kitchens of some properties but did not consider that this was a reason to vote against the application.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Richmond Upon Thames Planning Committee minutes, 25 November 2025
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Richmond Upon Thames's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Tuesday 25 November 2025
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)