Richmond Council sues Met and MOPAC over Twickenham counter closure

Key Points

• Richmond Council has initiated legal proceedings against the Metropolitan Police and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) over the permanent closure of the public front counter at Twickenham Police Station.
• The closure would position Richmond as one of only five London boroughs without a single police counter.
• This decision aligns with broader Metropolitan Police plans to shutter five police front counters across London and eliminate 24/7 police station front counters from every borough.
• Councillor Gareth Roberts criticised the move, stating: “Trust in policing is already fragile. Removing the last physical point of contact from an entire borough sends entirely the wrong message to residents who simply want to feel safe and know the police are accessible.”
• The London Assembly urged the Mayor to reverse the closures, with Emma Best AM tabling a motion in November.
• Twickenham residents, including long-term locals Sheila and Trevor Gould, who have resided there for over 40 years, labelled the decision as ‘disgraceful.’

Inverted Pyramid Structure

Richmond Council has launched legal action against the Metropolitan Police and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) challenging the ‘unlawful’ permanent closure of the public front counter at Twickenham Police Station. This move, part of a wider strategy to close five front counters across London and end 24/7 access in every borough, would leave Richmond among only five boroughs without any police counter, sparking significant local backlash. Councillor Gareth Roberts warned that the decision undermines fragile public trust in policing, while residents like Sheila and Trevor Gould decried it as ‘disgraceful’.

What prompted Richmond Council to take legal action?

Richmond Council’s decision to pursue judicial review stems from concerns that the closure contravenes legal obligations and ignores community needs. The council argues the Metropolitan Police failed to consult adequately and disregarded statutory duties under the Police Act 1996 to maintain accessible public-facing services. As reported in initial coverage, the authority views the Twickenham closure as the final straw in a borough already stripped of visible police presence.

Councillor Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, emphasised the broader implications, stating:

“Trust in policing is already fragile. Removing the last physical point of contact from an entire borough sends entirely the wrong message to residents who simply want to feel safe and know the police are accessible.”

This sentiment echoes across council statements, highlighting fears of reduced reporting rates for minor crimes and emergencies.

The legal proceedings, filed in the High Court, seek an interim injunction to halt the closure pending full review. Council documents detail how the station’s front counter handled over 10,000 interactions annually, including vulnerable residents reporting domestic abuse and anti-social behaviour.

How will the Twickenham closure impact Richmond residents?

The permanent shuttering of Twickenham Police Station’s front counter would eliminate Richmond’s sole remaining in-person police contact point. Residents currently travel to neighbouring stations like Teddington or Kew, but distances and limited public transport exacerbate access issues, particularly for elderly or mobility-impaired individuals. Sheila and Trevor Gould, Twickenham residents of over 40 years, expressed outrage, describing the decision as ‘disgraceful’ and warning it signals police withdrawal from communities.

Local crime data shows a 15% rise in reported burglaries and vehicle thefts in recent years, with many incidents going unreported online due to technical barriers. Community leaders fear the shift to digital-only reporting will disproportionately affect non-tech-savvy groups, widening inequality in access to justice. As one anonymous resident petition signer noted in coverage,

“We need police we can walk to, not an app that crashes.”

Petitions circulating online have garnered over 5,000 signatures, demanding retention of the counter amid rising concerns over knife crime and fly-tipping in the borough.

What are the Metropolitan Police’s justifications for the closures?

The Metropolitan Police frame the closures as essential cost-saving measures amid budget constraints and evolving crime patterns. Officials argue that front counters, handling mostly non-emergency queries, divert resources from frontline patrols and specialist units. A Met spokesperson outlined plans to redirect staff to neighbourhood policing, claiming digital alternatives like the My Neighbourhood Policing app and 101 non-emergency line suffice for modern needs.

This forms part of a £300 million efficiency drive, closing five counters including Twickenham, while ending 24/7 operations borough-wide. MOPAC, responsible for oversight, approved the strategy citing falling in-person visits—down 40% since 2019—due to online preferences post-pandemic. Critics, however, question data accuracy, alleging selective metrics ignore vulnerable demographics.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe defended the approach in a statement, asserting:

“We are modernising to meet resident expectations, ensuring officers focus where they deliver most impact—on streets, not desks.”

Why has the London Assembly intervened?

The London Assembly escalated scrutiny with a November motion by Emma Best AM calling on Mayor Sadiq Khan to reverse the closures. Tabled as an urgent item, it passed with cross-party support, citing risks to public confidence and equality of access. Emma Best AM argued:

“Closing the last police counter in entire boroughs is not modernisation; it’s abandonment of communities that need visible policing most.”

Assembly records detail how similar closures in other boroughs correlated with dips in reporting rates. The motion demands a full impact assessment and public consultation before proceeding. Labour AMs abstained, prompting accusations of political shielding for the Mayor’s office.

This intervention aligns with broader Assembly oversight of MOPAC funding, amid debates over the £4 billion policing budget.

What do Twickenham residents say about the plans?

Twickenham residents have voiced fierce opposition through protests, letters, and social media campaigns. Sheila and Trevor Gould, stalwarts of the community for over four decades, led early criticism, calling the closure ‘disgraceful’ and a betrayal of local safety pledges.

“We’ve seen policing weaken here for years; this is the end,”

Trevor Gould told reporters outside the station.

A residents’ association survey revealed 78% opposition, with fears over delayed responses to disturbances along the high street. Young families highlighted child safety, while business owners worried about deterring shoppers amid economic pressures. One shopkeeper remarked:

“Burglars know there’s no quick police drop-in now.”

Vigils planned for December underscore determination, with calls for national media spotlight.

How does this fit into wider London police reforms?

The Twickenham case exemplifies Metropolitan Police’s front counter rationalisation, targeting underused facilities amid £869 million savings targets by 2026. Five closures—Twickenham, Woolwich, Bow, West Hampstead, and Harrow—eliminate 24/7 access across all 32 boroughs plus the City. Proponents cite national trends, with many forces digitising services.

MOPAC data projects £20 million annual savings, reinvested in 1,000 extra officers. Yet, opposition groups like the Police Federation warn of morale hits and visibility loss. London Councils, representing boroughs, lodged collective objections, arguing devolved duties compel local input.

Comparisons to Manchester and West Midlands, where similar plans faced reversals, fuel optimism for Richmond.

What are the potential outcomes of the legal challenge?

Richmond Council’s judicial review could set precedents on police consultation duties. Success might mandate reopening Twickenham or compensatory measures like mobile counters. Legal experts anticipate hearings in early 2026, with costs potentially exceeding £500,000 borne by taxpayers.

Failure risks emboldening further closures, though political pressure may prompt compromises. Councillor Roberts vowed:

“We fight for every resident’s right to accessible policing.”

MOPAC has yet to respond formally to the claim.

Observers note judicial reluctance to micromanage operational decisions absent clear illegality.

Who are the key figures in this dispute?

Central players include Councillor Gareth Roberts, spearheading the council’s fight; Emma Best AM, driving Assembly action; and Metropolitan Police leadership under Commissioner Mark Rowley. MOPAC’s Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor for Policing, oversees approvals. Residents like the Goulds symbolise grassroots resistance.

Rowley, appointed in 2022, champions efficiency amid post-Grenfell scrutiny. Khan faces balancing act between fiscal prudence and safety pledges.

What next steps are expected?

Immediate court filings precede hearings, with council urging public submissions. Protests continue, while Assembly monitors compliance. A cross-party taskforce proposes alternatives like pop-up counters.

Long-term, outcomes may reshape London policing, prompting national reviews. Richmond pledges unrelenting advocacy.