Just five out of eleven Councillors voted against the Old Post Office site application. It was not enough to stop this...
At the Development Control Committee re-decision meeting, five KRA & Kingston Upon Thames Society members presented in opposition; three Grove ward Councillors spoke in opposition; St George spoke for the development and the committee questioned, deliberated and voted.
At the final count 230 letters of objection had been received against this version of the proposal, this is up from 201 against the original submission over a year ago.
Not enough 3-bed flats
On the second refusal reason: not enough 3-bed flats, the applicants' reasons for under-providing were somewhat undermined during the evening.
The Officers were apparently incorrect on the demand for 3 bed flats, and more importantly gave what appears to be incorrect advice that slow-to-sell 3-bed flats would adversely effect the viability of the scheme.
Historic England mis-quoted by the head of Planning?
At 1:13 minutes in: the Head of Planning appears to mis-quote from Historic Englands' response and wrongly conclude they support the tower design. He quoted: "...this has not significantly mitigated the height of the building" but Historic England actually said "...this has not significantly mitigated the impact of the height of the building in the setting of the Market Place and Market house.".
This is important because this was the basis of his advice to the committee - that the third reason for refusal was resolved. But we believe the Officer mis-construed Historic Englands' response. Historic England do not support the design of the 16 storey tower.
Here is the quote in context. You can decide for yourself if Historic England are supporting the design of this tower or not:
The complete response is here: Historic England Response v4
Susceptible to judicial review?
The arguments of logic, consistency and democracy clearly pointed to a refusal. Instead for reasons we don't understand, the committee voted by 6 votes to 5 to approve scheme #4.
But we have serious concerns which put into question whether a decision to grant permission in reliance on the Officers advice would be susceptible to judicial review.
> Click here for the audio recording of the meeting
At the final count 230 letters of objection had been received against this version of the proposal, this is up from 201 against the original submission over a year ago.
Not enough 3-bed flats
On the second refusal reason: not enough 3-bed flats, the applicants' reasons for under-providing were somewhat undermined during the evening.
- "In a press release this week conservative cabinet member for housing Cllr Roberts stated 'We have unprecedented demand for three bedroom properties within Kingston'"
- "My viability assessment of the applicants updated report assumed that all of the units sold 100% off plan - so there wasn't any material effect in the cash flow in the finance costs from those 3 bed units" This was agreed with the applicants.
The Officers were apparently incorrect on the demand for 3 bed flats, and more importantly gave what appears to be incorrect advice that slow-to-sell 3-bed flats would adversely effect the viability of the scheme.
Historic England mis-quoted by the head of Planning?
At 1:13 minutes in: the Head of Planning appears to mis-quote from Historic Englands' response and wrongly conclude they support the tower design. He quoted: "...this has not significantly mitigated the height of the building" but Historic England actually said "...this has not significantly mitigated the impact of the height of the building in the setting of the Market Place and Market house.".
This is important because this was the basis of his advice to the committee - that the third reason for refusal was resolved. But we believe the Officer mis-construed Historic Englands' response. Historic England do not support the design of the 16 storey tower.
Here is the quote in context. You can decide for yourself if Historic England are supporting the design of this tower or not:
- "However, despite these positive changes not all of our concerns have been addressed. We welcome the further detailed design development that has taken place, particularly on the Brook Street elevation, of the 16 storey corner building, but this has not significantly mitigated the impact of the height of the building in the setting of the Market Place and Market house. Our comments dated 15th October 2015 (attached for reference) set out in detail why we consider the presence of the tower element harmful in the setting of the Market House."
The complete response is here: Historic England Response v4
Susceptible to judicial review?
The arguments of logic, consistency and democracy clearly pointed to a refusal. Instead for reasons we don't understand, the committee voted by 6 votes to 5 to approve scheme #4.
But we have serious concerns which put into question whether a decision to grant permission in reliance on the Officers advice would be susceptible to judicial review.
> Click here for the audio recording of the meeting
- Skip to 45 minutes in - to hear the Officer supporting the developers reasons for under providing 3-bed units. At 47 minutes in the Officer supports the claimed effect of slow-to-sell 3-beds on viability.
- Skip to 56.5 minutes in - to hear the question on the actual effect on viability.
- Skip to 58 minutes in - to hear the devastating answer - there is no effect.
- Skip to 1:06 minutes in - to hear the Cllr digest this information.
- Skip to 1:13 minutes in - where the Head of Planning appears to mis-quote Historic England
Who came
Many residents came along to show their steadfast opposition. It was an animated and "packed public gallery" at the Guildhall.
Members of the local press attended and provided a live stream of online updates and tweets. Many tuned in to follow on-line.
Thanks
Thank you to everyone who helped make a difference.
Thank you for emailing your response to each amended scheme.
We will continue to watch this development very closely.