Our response to the Old Post Office application, Jan 2016
Planning application 14/13247 ( Jan 2016 )
Viv Evans
Head of Planning & Transport
Development Management
Guildhall 2, High Street
Kingston upon Thames
KT1 1EU
Email: [email protected]
Reference: 14/13247
Kingston Resident's Alliance
KingstonResidents.com
February 2016
Response from Kingston Resident's Alliance
Dear Sirs
Here below is our response to the January 2016 amendments received in relation to planning application 14/13247 at DEVELOPMENT SITE AT FORMER POST OFFICE, ASHDOWN ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES
The small concessions the applicant made to local opinion in this latest scheme are welcomed. The slight reduction in height and improvements to the facade makes this scheme less bad than the schemes before it. However they still fail to address sufficiently the key concerns raised by local residents, nor the reasons planning permission was refused by the November DCC meeting.
1. It is immensely frustrating and disappointing to see the near identical 16 storey tower design recycled from the last scheme. We cannot comprehend the logic here. Everyone knows this is a poorly received and hugely contentious element; that it would not relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of its context; in a context of a mixed, suburban market town setting. Furthermore, given the failed design, why is the height not reduced to 12 or 9 storeys? It is not exemplar, so does not justify the excessive and uncharacteristic height. This is a complete failure to resolve this reason for refusal.
2. The proposed development does not provide a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units. The marginal improvement from 10 to 12% 3 bedroom flats can not be said to resolve the second reason for refusal.
3. The changes to the proposed 12 storey block between the two Grade II Listed Buildings is an improvement. The lowering to meet the Brief; the set back and more sympathetic facade treatment goes some way to reduce the harm to the setting of these historic assets. But the incongruous and unsympathetic form and bulk continues to congest and crowd the former Exchange Building, harming the historic setting and diminishing the importance of these historic assets within the townscape.
The applicant has failed to engage with the local community to develop a more acceptable solution as they are required to do by the NPPF. They are merely trimming elements off the same basic design in a war of attrition against local residents.
Yes the better choice of brick and the more sympathetic 'Victorian look' around Wheatfield way are welcomed. But our previously stated concerns remain substantially unaddressed: The proposal would over-develop this sensitive site and harm the character of our town. It is too dense, too high and fails to meet the Council's policies.
We therefore remain completely opposed to this incongruous monstrosity being forced upon the local area in the face of continuing and widespread opposition from those of us that actually live there. This planning application in this current form should be rejected.
Head of Planning & Transport
Development Management
Guildhall 2, High Street
Kingston upon Thames
KT1 1EU
Email: [email protected]
Reference: 14/13247
Kingston Resident's Alliance
KingstonResidents.com
February 2016
Response from Kingston Resident's Alliance
Dear Sirs
Here below is our response to the January 2016 amendments received in relation to planning application 14/13247 at DEVELOPMENT SITE AT FORMER POST OFFICE, ASHDOWN ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES
The small concessions the applicant made to local opinion in this latest scheme are welcomed. The slight reduction in height and improvements to the facade makes this scheme less bad than the schemes before it. However they still fail to address sufficiently the key concerns raised by local residents, nor the reasons planning permission was refused by the November DCC meeting.
1. It is immensely frustrating and disappointing to see the near identical 16 storey tower design recycled from the last scheme. We cannot comprehend the logic here. Everyone knows this is a poorly received and hugely contentious element; that it would not relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of its context; in a context of a mixed, suburban market town setting. Furthermore, given the failed design, why is the height not reduced to 12 or 9 storeys? It is not exemplar, so does not justify the excessive and uncharacteristic height. This is a complete failure to resolve this reason for refusal.
2. The proposed development does not provide a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units. The marginal improvement from 10 to 12% 3 bedroom flats can not be said to resolve the second reason for refusal.
3. The changes to the proposed 12 storey block between the two Grade II Listed Buildings is an improvement. The lowering to meet the Brief; the set back and more sympathetic facade treatment goes some way to reduce the harm to the setting of these historic assets. But the incongruous and unsympathetic form and bulk continues to congest and crowd the former Exchange Building, harming the historic setting and diminishing the importance of these historic assets within the townscape.
The applicant has failed to engage with the local community to develop a more acceptable solution as they are required to do by the NPPF. They are merely trimming elements off the same basic design in a war of attrition against local residents.
Yes the better choice of brick and the more sympathetic 'Victorian look' around Wheatfield way are welcomed. But our previously stated concerns remain substantially unaddressed: The proposal would over-develop this sensitive site and harm the character of our town. It is too dense, too high and fails to meet the Council's policies.
We therefore remain completely opposed to this incongruous monstrosity being forced upon the local area in the face of continuing and widespread opposition from those of us that actually live there. This planning application in this current form should be rejected.