Why it is wrong
This is a summary version of our Key Objections
14/13247 Development site at former post office, Ashdown road, Kingston upon Thames
We are a group of local residents with a shared interest in our local environment . The group came together over this development and has no particular political affiliation. We're all kinds of people from all sorts of backgrounds with this one shared concern.
We welcome the development of the Old Post office site and also the opportunity to present our views.
We feel that it is very clear that this proposal seeks to over develop this sensitive site. It is too dense, too high and there is little justification for the many and significant policy contraventions. Our council should not lose sight of its obligation to existing residents and our local community, to protect and enhance our existing environment. We feel we cannot support this application in its current form for the reasons set out below
1. Visual Impact and conservation areas
2. Height and scale
3. Aesthetics, architecture and heritage
4. Density
5. Affordable housing
6 .Parking, Transport, Infrastructure and services
7. Public realm
1. Visual impact and conservation areas The inclusion of tall buildings in this development plan will have a significant visual impact on the Ancient Market, Fairfield Recreation ground, All Saints Church and views from the surrounding area. St Georges images show the infringement that these buildings will have on our landscape. Policy 7.7 of the area action plan states "Primary landmarks within the OTCA include the towers to All Saints Church and the Guildhall and Kingston Bridge, which need to be protected, along with the important views and vista towards and within the OTCA. Protection should be through sensitive control of height and massing of any new development" The view from the market square is a case in point with a clear infringement of this policy shown as the new buildings clearly rise above the historic skyline. The development is also out of character with the adjacent conservation areas and has a hugely detrimental effect on Fairfield park, our only significant green space in the town centre . 2. Height and scale Due to its excessive bulk, scale, height and massing this proposal will be overbearing and dominate the surrounding area. At 61.6m high and 19 storeys, Tower J breaches current tall building heights in the vicinity with Unilever house at 35m approx. and Kingston college at 51m. It contravenes the London Plans requirement for" particular consideration" for tall buildings in sensitive places. This development would cause significant harm to short range views and the related public realm by overbearing and dominating the surrounding streets and buildings, in particular the two listed buildings on the site, Ashdown road and the Victorian conservation area to the south and east. The 13 storey tower on Ashdown rd will compromise the site to the north and dramatically overshadow and restrict daylight. Both the Landmark tower and Ashdown road tower fail to meet the guidelines set out in the Eden Quarter Development brief, with the Landmark recommended at 9+ and Ashdown at 6-8 storeys. Unbelievably, they have both ended up at approximately double the height suggested.. 3. Aesthetics, architecture and heritage " the development would detract from the setting of the Kingston Old Town conservation area and the Fairfield /Knights Park conservation Areas, failing to meet the statutory test to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of locally and nationally designated heritage assets" Historic England (Built environment) We couldn't have put this better ourselves and agree with Historic England that the harm this development will cause to both the listed buildings and Kingstons other historical assets, is just not justified. Whilst we all know that post war development in Kingston has left its scars and the higher rise development from this period is not notable in any way, that is no reason to lower our sights or standards. Kingston has a unique identity and this site deserves a unique design solution. The proposal should be in line with the Eden quarter Development brief which calls for" especially high quality of design" and an "exemplar standard of design for taller buildings." This proposal does not represent distinctive or successful architecture, which by its very nature would react with both the modern and historic buildings from the surrounding area. The viability of this site should not result in the council accepting a development that would otherwise be unacceptable. |
4. Density The proposals for this site are quite clearly over developed. A Planning submission Addendum item shows density exceeds the range given by the London plan.(650 -1100 habitable rooms) A more acceptable figure would be 875 rooms. The argument that if you include the listed building areas the figures are in line is really unacceptable. A recent House of Commons report concluded that "the proposition that tall buildings are necessary to prevent suburban sprawl, is impossible to sustain. They do not necessarily achieve higher densities than mid or low rise development and in some cases are a less efficient use of the space" Their contribution to urban renaissance was "very limited." Tall buildings should not be the optimal choice for Kingston. 5. Affordable Housing We strongly believe that there is insufficient affordable housing in this plan. RBK states its commitment to affordable housing as a key priority in its SPD, which states that the council will "maximise its provision." At 17% the council is falling well short of the 50% it claims to aim for on developments of this size. The council and St Georges claim that the reasons for this lie in the viability and that their hands are tied. We say affordable housing and the implications of restoring the listed buildings have or should have been factored into the price agreed for the land. We therefore see no excuse and would ask for more transparency on this. Greenwich council recently decided to publish viability figures for every development that does not meet the councils stated affordable housing target. This is an extremely strong concern for residents and the developers have failed to take this on board. 6. Parking, transport and infrastructure The submission largely underestimates the need for and impact on parking , transport, infrastructure and local services. The number of allocated parking spaces per home in addendum 3 does not comply with the London plan figures It is not acceptable to argue that the majority of residents who buy or rent these homes are to forgo the ownership of a car in favour of a bike. The planning application incorrectly states that the loss of 152 parking spaces on this site is negligible. In this vicinity it is very significant as parking is very strained and the majority of nearby streets are resident only parking. The Car Park management plan also makes further claims and we have concerns over tenants finding a way to obtain on-street permits. The Environment Statement Addendums assertion that there is a surplus of school places is highly questionable and the evidence used by St Georges is skewed. An examination of applications v availability figures shows; there is a serious shortage of places. Additionally the impact of 607 new residents on GPs surgeries needs to be tested to discover the real impact. It is clear that these proposals fail to provide a strategic transport and services solution. 7. Public Realm The new Post Office square features heavily in the selling of the proposal by St Georges, but in reality it will be overwhelmed by tall buildings which will cast almost permanent shade. The Apple market example that is used by St George is hardly comparable, with its characterful two storey buildings and sunny aspect. It really is not an appropriate example to use and the reality will be a sharp contrast to this. |
Despite consultation on the site and with its neighbours St Georges have failed to amend their plans according to the residents’ concerns. We appreciate the effort that it takes to rework a development of this scale but feel the concession of two floors of the tower block together with other very minor changes is insufficient.
It is for all the above reasons that we recommend that the council turn this application down
It is for all the above reasons that we recommend that the council turn this application down