Visual Impact & Conservation Areas
Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
Assessing the visual impact of a proposed development is a specialist skill that we do not claim to posses ourselves.
Heritage England are such specialists.
In Historic England's view, the proposals would still cause harm to the setting of the listed buildings on the site, and detract from the setting of the Market House. Historic England considers that the development would detract from the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area and the Fairfield/Knight’s Park Conservation Areas, failing to meet the statutory test to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of locally and nationally designated heritage assets. The harm to the setting of Richmond Park, Bushy Park and Hampton Court Park and Hampton Court Palace is still perceptible and still lacks a convincing justification.
> Click here for Historic Englands latest assessment
Heritage England are such specialists.
In Historic England's view, the proposals would still cause harm to the setting of the listed buildings on the site, and detract from the setting of the Market House. Historic England considers that the development would detract from the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area and the Fairfield/Knight’s Park Conservation Areas, failing to meet the statutory test to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of locally and nationally designated heritage assets. The harm to the setting of Richmond Park, Bushy Park and Hampton Court Park and Hampton Court Palace is still perceptible and still lacks a convincing justification.
> Click here for Historic Englands latest assessment
Fails the statutory test to preserve or enhance the character
The following are flawed claims made by the developer in their latest submission:
The developers visual impact assessment
In its latest incarnation the Townscape, Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment is presented in a very confusing manner, split into six parts which are not in any coherent order on the list of images on the Planning Database. Most people do not know how to access the information and have to rely on the carefully selected images used at the Public Exhibition on 18th and 19 September at the Old Post Office.
As before some of the information provided in the Townscape, Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment September 2015 is deeply misleading.
Even the assessments of the visual impacts where correct still lead to the most bizarre conclusions:-
(The numbers in red refer to the views in the Townscape, Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment April 2015.)
Taking for instance the views in the Market Place, in some the camera is not pointing in the direction of the development, (2, 6, 7) in one the Market House fortuitously obscures the view (4) and in the one ( 5) where the tower block is clearly in view the assessment states:
The view from the Kingston Bridge shows the tower block having the same visual weight as the historic church (9). In the opinion of the report:
There are views from Conservation areas (28, 29) where the development overwhelms the existing fabric, which can in no way be described as beneficial or neutral. †
The views from Richmond Park show the tower intruding on the horizon of the South Downs .
(1, 1∙1) but it clearly states:
There are views which clearly show how the proposed buildings dwarf the existing buildings (13, 21, 22) and are said to be beneficial † in all cases.
† The words beneficial and neutral are scattered throughout the text but they bear no relation to the accepted use of these words, it requires a five page lexicon to define their skewed meaning..
Other views though accurate geometrically are clearly misleading:-
The views show the tower and other buildings with glass upper storeys which blend with the colour of the sky and disappear. This very rarely happens; the all glass Shard, for instance, shows up as a strong silhouette against the sky. (13, 14, 15, 16, 31, 40)
There are views taken from one side of the road where the development appears to have least impact, from the opposite side it would be overwhelming. (17, 19, 20)
There is a view where with correct perspective but a carefully chosen viewpoint a tall building in the foreground makes the tower in the background look considerably shorter. (18)
There are views which are cropped so that it is not possible to estimate the full impact of the height of the proposed buildings. (28, 29, 30)
There are views from Home Park where a tree or two obstructs the view of the development, but by moving a few metres to one side it would clearly stand out. (35, 37, 38)
There are irrelevant views where the camera is not pointing in the direction of the development. (2, 6, 7, 8)
Most of these criticisms applied to the earlier versions of the Millerhare document. I contend that the public have been misled once again and as such any consultation conducted by St George is inadmissible.
Page updated on 1 Oct 2015
The developers visual impact assessment
In its latest incarnation the Townscape, Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment is presented in a very confusing manner, split into six parts which are not in any coherent order on the list of images on the Planning Database. Most people do not know how to access the information and have to rely on the carefully selected images used at the Public Exhibition on 18th and 19 September at the Old Post Office.
As before some of the information provided in the Townscape, Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment September 2015 is deeply misleading.
Even the assessments of the visual impacts where correct still lead to the most bizarre conclusions:-
(The numbers in red refer to the views in the Townscape, Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment April 2015.)
Taking for instance the views in the Market Place, in some the camera is not pointing in the direction of the development, (2, 6, 7) in one the Market House fortuitously obscures the view (4) and in the one ( 5) where the tower block is clearly in view the assessment states:
- This is a moderate change to a view of high sensitivity.
- The significance is moderate to major
- The effect is neutral.†
The view from the Kingston Bridge shows the tower block having the same visual weight as the historic church (9). In the opinion of the report:
- This is a moderate change to a view of medium sensitivity.
- The significance is moderate.
- The effect is beneficial. †
There are views from Conservation areas (28, 29) where the development overwhelms the existing fabric, which can in no way be described as beneficial or neutral. †
The views from Richmond Park show the tower intruding on the horizon of the South Downs .
(1, 1∙1) but it clearly states:
- Taking into account cumulative schemes and the Development Proposals there will be a change of moderate magnitude to a view of high sensitivity.
- The significance is moderate to major.
- The effect is beneficial. †
There are views which clearly show how the proposed buildings dwarf the existing buildings (13, 21, 22) and are said to be beneficial † in all cases.
† The words beneficial and neutral are scattered throughout the text but they bear no relation to the accepted use of these words, it requires a five page lexicon to define their skewed meaning..
Other views though accurate geometrically are clearly misleading:-
The views show the tower and other buildings with glass upper storeys which blend with the colour of the sky and disappear. This very rarely happens; the all glass Shard, for instance, shows up as a strong silhouette against the sky. (13, 14, 15, 16, 31, 40)
There are views taken from one side of the road where the development appears to have least impact, from the opposite side it would be overwhelming. (17, 19, 20)
There is a view where with correct perspective but a carefully chosen viewpoint a tall building in the foreground makes the tower in the background look considerably shorter. (18)
There are views which are cropped so that it is not possible to estimate the full impact of the height of the proposed buildings. (28, 29, 30)
There are views from Home Park where a tree or two obstructs the view of the development, but by moving a few metres to one side it would clearly stand out. (35, 37, 38)
There are irrelevant views where the camera is not pointing in the direction of the development. (2, 6, 7, 8)
Most of these criticisms applied to the earlier versions of the Millerhare document. I contend that the public have been misled once again and as such any consultation conducted by St George is inadmissible.
Page updated on 1 Oct 2015