Reader views (21)

 Add your view

Any boat needs to be ballasted appropriately to take account of the weight distribution on-board, this is standard practice and the responsibility of the owner and nothing to do with Mr Tuckers design. If the owners are unable to work out that you can't put heavy things on one side of a boat without it listing then perhaps they are ill suited to life aboard a boat

- Chris, Hampton Court, 10/03/2009 09:18
Report abuse

Maggie is right, the new building has the makings of a stylish and ultra-modern structure. I can't see it as a house, as it looks more like designer office block.
But, however nice and modern Germanic it looks, it is definitely not right for this stretch of the river. Opposite Battersea, yes, but it at total odds with everything nearby on the island or the land. Good design also has to fit in its surroundings - otherwise it is just a statement.

- Liz Guettier, Teddington, 08/11/2008 17:22
Report abuse

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. When I look at the houseboat under current construction I see something reminiscent of the Huf Haus, which I admire. The rather vicious comments demonstrate a staggering lack of imagination and vision.

- Maggie, hampton, england, 08/11/2008 11:27
Report abuse

Some very interesting comments here. I see these large floating buildings on the Thames are sometimes advertised as holiday lets and others are used for B&B. It's just a matter of time before a terrible accident occurs. And it's not just at Taggs island, similar structures are appearing on the Thames in Kingston, Eel Pie Island and Richmond. The Evening Standard should investigate how come these floating buildings are exempt from the planning system and what is going to be done to prevent them proliferating without safety precautions. The very good points made here in these comments, most of which I agree with, show how strongly people feel about it.

- Ginger, Kingston upon Thames, 04/11/2008 14:00
Report abuse

I seem to have lost the end of my previous comment. It was supposed to be: In the case of Taggs island, if Richmond Council cannot or will not do anything about these unauthorised buildings, then maybe the Environment Agency, which manages the river, should be given powers to do something; or possibly the Crown, as the river at Taggs Island comes within the catchment of the Thames around Hampton Court Palace and is owned by the Crown Estate. Time to lobby the Prince of Wales maybe? At the same time you could mention the monstrous building approved this week for the Jolly Boatman site opposite the Palace in a complete and utter planning stitch-up. What is happening to our riverside?

- Former Councillor, Twickenham, 31/10/2008 15:53
Report abuse

The traditional floating houses on the upper Thames are attractive single story structures with a low centre of gravity and inherent stability. Whether for greed or simply because they can, developers are buying up traditional houseboats on a mooring, scrapping the houseboat and building two and three story structures on a raft in their place. These can easily be unstable as the centre of gravity is higher and there is much more weight to support. To be safe they have to be designed by marine engineers and have sufficient mass and buoyancy in the supporting raft. Building regulations exist to make habitable structures safe for us all and exempting oneself from this is a huge risk. As far as aesthetics and appropriateness is concerned, the planning system allows neighbours and interested parties to express their views in public so these can be considered before an independent committee. But with no planning permission and no building regulations applying, the developers can do more or less whatever they want without heed to safety, tradition, the environment or what their neighbours think.

- William, Greenwich, 30/10/2008 15:40
Report abuse

The vexed issue of these floating houses has been taken up by the MP for Twickenham, Vincent Cable and by Richmond upon Thames council although what they are doing about it remains unclear. The problem has been that the houses can be moved but as they are just rafts and they have neither steering or engines this has to be done with tugs. They are consequently classed by the landlubbing planning system as boats and are not, in planning terms, permanent structures do not come under the planning laws. This of course is a nonsense as they have permanent service connections to the land, some of the large ones even sit on the river bed and are permanently tied to stanchions. They rarely if ever move since this would be an expensive undertaking and to do so the owners would need to find an alternative large mooring somewhere. Exploiting this loophole in the UK planning laws, if unchecked, will result in the end of the riverside as we know it which was so well described in the Thames Landscape Strategy fifteen years ago. Currently there are unauthorized 150ft long 3 storey high metal monstrosities under construction for this part of the river Thames and it seems nothing can be done to stop it. In the case of Taggs island, if Richmond Council cannot or will not do anything about it, then maybe the Environment Agency, which manages the river, should be given powers to do something; or possibly the Crown, as the river at Taggs Island comes within the area of the Thames a

- Former Councillor, Twickenham, 30/10/2008 15:01
Report abuse

I row out of Molesey Boat Club and we have our own names for some of the new boats on Taggs Island.
Opposite the club is "Southfork" (only old TV Dallas fans will understand), a bit further upstream "The Big Blue", towards to the top of the island "The Pizza Hut" and coming down on the Middlesex side, the subject of the article, which we know as "Rapunzel's Castle" and the behemoth-cow shed-car park we refer to as "Terminal 5A"
And to put on my pedant's hat; David Gilmour's lovely boat Astoria, to me, the way a houseboat should look, is not on Tagg's Island but a few hundred yards upstream.

- Coxless 4, East Molesey, 29/10/2008 18:11
Report abuse

This houseboat is a bulging statement that money can bully it's way through anything which is the owner's philosophy. The structure is an eye-sore. Nothing wrong with change - when controlled and in-keeping. Everything wrong with change when it's a statement of - 'it's only all about us' and doesn't include any consideration of impact on the existing island structure or residents or indeed any form of consideration when having their parties either! So no - I don't feel sorry for bullies - poor Mr Tucker - he didn't see them coming. Another court case to bully someone else then......when the client specification was incorrect to start with.

- Hamptonite, Hampton, UK, 29/10/2008 15:19
Report abuse

Stephen & Ailsa have raised a good point.
The behemoth 'cowshed' at the other end; I always saw it as a multi-story car park; sits so badly on this very pretty stretch of the river, that it is amazing that the council and other locals have not done more to stop its construction which seems to have been going on for 3 years.
Perhaps the ES should revisit Taggs Island and find out who is building that - and why.

- Timothy Davidson, Twickenham, 28/10/2008 17:14
Report abuse

I agree with Ailsa, it is not as bad as the ones that are being built now particularly the huge double width triple height metal behemoth she mentions, but this particular one was the first to show how to get around planning laws and it started the trend. A beautiful part of the River Thames is gradually being destroyed by people getting around the planning regulations and it is creating a lot of anger amongst river users. The reason they have a problem with safety on this floating house is probably because they have not had to adhere to any building regulations. It really is a disgrace and the Planning Authority should do something before there is another terrible accident.

- Stephen, Hampton, Middlesex, 28/10/2008 11:53
Report abuse

This particular houseboat is not as vulgar and tasteless as the behemoth being constructed a few metres down Taggs Island, very visible from the main road. It must be 100 feet long, dark grey, corrigated iron, covered in scaffolding for over a year and absolutely hideous. It looks like a huge cowshed, not a boat. Why are the planners allowing it to be built? Grotesque!

- Ailsa, Hampton, Middlesex, 27/10/2008 15:20
Report abuse

Having read the vitriolic comments I must say that some of the uninformed views must really hurt the owners of this property. It feels like there is a great deal of resentment and jealousy towards anything different. It would be advisable that anyone who professes to have objections be furnished with the facts around building on Taggs Island. It is a beautiful island and one would not expect in 2008 to it being surrounded by Edwardian houseboats change is progress and progress is change. I must admit I wish it were mine.

- Margaret, Hampton, Middlesex., 23/10/2008 21:04
Report abuse

I see this hideous building from the Hampton Court Road as it sticks out like a sore thumb in the delightful conservation area of Taggs island. That it was allowed to be built at all demonstrates a complete failure of the planning system in Richmond upon Thames. If it were a real boat it would have to meet stringent safety regulations, if it were a house it would have to meet building regulations, but it is neither. So it seems you can build absolutely any structure you like, even a hideous building that has no chance of getting planning permission, and ignores all building regulations, as long as you build it on a platform in the River Thames.

- Geraldine, Twickenham, 23/10/2008 12:21
Report abuse

This looks like poor design with the result you have a tottering wooden tower, built on water! What is the council thinking of saying that these buildings don't need planning permission? This is the cause of the problem here because there are no building regs either one must assume. People can go ahead and just build what they think they want - something very unsuitable in this case. It looks to me to be high risk. You can see from the photo that the building is not on an even keel, it's leaning out into the river, probably sitting on the sloping riverbed. Imagine sixty people on the top deck having a good time at a party! This is the Thames, it's a river, and if this is a boat it should be fit for purpose. The council would do well to bear in mind how uncontrolled situations can lead to major tragedies in such circumstances, like happened with the Marchioness disaster.

- Jolly Roger, Esher, Surrey, 23/10/2008 10:51
Report abuse

These owners built a inappropriate house on the river Thames simply because they could. They took advantage of a loophole in the planning system which allows a house built on pontoons to be classed as a boat and therefore exempt from planning permission. The local Council are trying to get the law changed and say they are about to make them apply for retrospective planning permission which will not stand much chance of being granted. Their house is not even floating as it actually has concrete foundations sitting on the river bed which had to be dredged to accommodate it. It was the subject of a Sky TV documentary a while ago. These people have really tried it on and cannot expect sympathy from the rest of us now their gamble has failed. The house has no steering or means of propulsion so it will have to be demolished or dragged away by a tug and put somewhere more suitable on dry land.

- Stephen, Hampton, Middx, 22/10/2008 15:17
Report abuse

I bet they had a "sinking feeling" when they realised their problems.

- Mike Melbourne, Bedford England, 22/10/2008 12:29
Report abuse

I'll bet the neighbours are pleased they can't hold parties for 60 people. Those houses are made of wood and they look like they're really close together.

- Isabel, Woking., 22/10/2008 09:04
Report abuse

There are millions of people who won't be able to afford their heating bills this winter and this is the greatest stress they have in their sad little lives.

- Job, London, 21/10/2008 18:33
Report abuse

Seems the customer didn't specify its anticipated 'load' correctly and trying to claim the costs of a re build.

Bit like the UK government misquoting their IT needs and then increasing their demands after the contracts are exchanged.

- Tony Islander, Herts, 21/10/2008 16:45
Report abuse

Am I reading this right? They paid Mr Tucker £9,000 but want £370,000 damages? Why?

- Marianne, S W France, 21/10/2008 11:39
Report abuse

Add your comment