Poor Public Consultation
Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
What we said at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
What we said at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
by Mediha Boran,
In January, when faced with a high density, 13-21-storey tower blocks local Residents decided to get together and respond to St George’s plans collectively. This is because we noticed that public consultation was not working. We still do. If it worked, we would not be here.
Councillors,
When you start to make your deliberations I would urge you to compare what St George’s plans looked like in October 2014 and what is offered 3 iterations later.
We have had this conversation with them already.
They are adamant that their plans have changed drastically.
They point out minute adjustments around the edges, height or even materials.
But all you have to look at is their marketing agent 40Shilling’s report published soon after the July 2014 consultation.
After seeing their original ideas, 83% of Kingston residents told St George that
They want improvement to public space
Preservation of heritage
More community facilities
Increased connectivity
Only 17% wanted upmarket shops and restaurants.
Ignoring all above, the October 2014 public exhibition showcased
17 floors of high-density mini tower city with absolute minimum attention to connectivity and local concerns.
Using the Heritage buildings on site as their shield, developers refused to accept their plans had a blind spot on the immediate conservation areas.
Public consultation they conducted during this exhibition also shows that 75% of residents concerned about 17 floor height and architectural language..
What did they do with that knowledge – you may ask?
They decided to raise it to 21 storeys and applied for planning.
You know the rest, 2 months later, after much public outcry, they had to revise the plans to 19 storeys and told us that they had listened. And in June, at the 11th hour, they deferred.
Then what happened? We don’t know. All we know is they disappeared for a few months and, despite all our efforts, we did not get any feedback on their development process.
Back in September, true to form, St George came back with another bulky, high-density impenetrable design. Yes, it was not 19 storeys anymore, the ‘fag packet’ was replaced by some 16 storey caged apartment blocks. But they failed to address any of the original issues we raised in numerous discussions. Such as heritage, density, affordability, connectivity.
Oh yes, they said, after the June deferral they changed the architect.
I am afraid the changes that the new architect brought to us were simply new clothes for the same emperor and he also have failed to provide any meaningful response to concerns we have raised.
Councillors
National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 66 states that applicants should evolve their proposals to take account of the views of the community. But the basic design has never truly evolved, changed in height like a yo-yo.
They failed to make clear their consultation is restricted to a closed list of alternative options. Like the bulky footprint and density would not change and permeability will not be allowed.
They confused 'Consultation' with 'Informing'. 'Consultation' on finalized and submitted plans is not consultation.
Now we are back to where we started: the appearance, height, massing and affordability are very similar to the first schemes we saw in the past 18 months.
This is a proof that consultation has NOT caused the design to change significantly.
It has merely been a marketing exercise, and to say otherwise is just 'spin'.
We feel Consultation has NOT take account of the views of the community and For this reason it should be refused.
In January, when faced with a high density, 13-21-storey tower blocks local Residents decided to get together and respond to St George’s plans collectively. This is because we noticed that public consultation was not working. We still do. If it worked, we would not be here.
Councillors,
When you start to make your deliberations I would urge you to compare what St George’s plans looked like in October 2014 and what is offered 3 iterations later.
We have had this conversation with them already.
They are adamant that their plans have changed drastically.
They point out minute adjustments around the edges, height or even materials.
But all you have to look at is their marketing agent 40Shilling’s report published soon after the July 2014 consultation.
After seeing their original ideas, 83% of Kingston residents told St George that
They want improvement to public space
Preservation of heritage
More community facilities
Increased connectivity
Only 17% wanted upmarket shops and restaurants.
Ignoring all above, the October 2014 public exhibition showcased
17 floors of high-density mini tower city with absolute minimum attention to connectivity and local concerns.
Using the Heritage buildings on site as their shield, developers refused to accept their plans had a blind spot on the immediate conservation areas.
Public consultation they conducted during this exhibition also shows that 75% of residents concerned about 17 floor height and architectural language..
What did they do with that knowledge – you may ask?
They decided to raise it to 21 storeys and applied for planning.
You know the rest, 2 months later, after much public outcry, they had to revise the plans to 19 storeys and told us that they had listened. And in June, at the 11th hour, they deferred.
Then what happened? We don’t know. All we know is they disappeared for a few months and, despite all our efforts, we did not get any feedback on their development process.
Back in September, true to form, St George came back with another bulky, high-density impenetrable design. Yes, it was not 19 storeys anymore, the ‘fag packet’ was replaced by some 16 storey caged apartment blocks. But they failed to address any of the original issues we raised in numerous discussions. Such as heritage, density, affordability, connectivity.
Oh yes, they said, after the June deferral they changed the architect.
I am afraid the changes that the new architect brought to us were simply new clothes for the same emperor and he also have failed to provide any meaningful response to concerns we have raised.
Councillors
National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 66 states that applicants should evolve their proposals to take account of the views of the community. But the basic design has never truly evolved, changed in height like a yo-yo.
They failed to make clear their consultation is restricted to a closed list of alternative options. Like the bulky footprint and density would not change and permeability will not be allowed.
They confused 'Consultation' with 'Informing'. 'Consultation' on finalized and submitted plans is not consultation.
Now we are back to where we started: the appearance, height, massing and affordability are very similar to the first schemes we saw in the past 18 months.
This is a proof that consultation has NOT caused the design to change significantly.
It has merely been a marketing exercise, and to say otherwise is just 'spin'.
We feel Consultation has NOT take account of the views of the community and For this reason it should be refused.