A fresh look
Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
The September 2015 scheme has a redesigned tower, but aside from that it is substantially the same scheme we have been looking at for some time, with the same concerns and the same problems. It still fails to comply with our councils detailed guidance for development on this site, the Eden Quarter SPD (2015).
Is this Sustainable Development ?
Sustainable development is at the core of the English planning system. It is about positive growth – making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations.
So we must ask the key question - is the proposed scheme 'Sustainable Development' ?
So we must ask the key question - is the proposed scheme 'Sustainable Development' ?
|
Historic England did not believe it was. They considered - "in relation to the whole of the historic environment affected by the scheme - the proposal did not meet the Government’s definition of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)."
> Read more on Historic England's April response We agree and believe this remains true for the current scheme, but the failures are not limited to the historic environment alone. The NPPF states "There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental." The social role of the planning system the NPPF tells us is in "supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being;" NPPF paragraph 62 states "In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the recommendations from the design review panel." The Design Review Panel were critical. They had concerns over "the arrangement of the blocks, the quality of accommodation they will provide... the single aspect flats facing Wheatfield Road and deep north facing units elsewhere, with the consequent problems of aspect or daylight... There was little differentiation in the layout, size, balcony space or terrace of the units regardless of whether they faced in or out, north or south. Some units appear to straddle the discrete building components, giving the sense that the building's exterior is simply wrapped around an efficient layout, rather than responding genuinely to its context." > Read more on the Design Panel Review The same criticism applies. The arrangement of the blocks on the site remains unchanged and unaddressed by the current scheme. It is clearly not well designed and is not providing the high quality accommodation required for sustainable development. In terms of the social dimension this does not meet the Government’s definition of sustainable development. Sociological failings don't stop with poor design. The isolation of living in large blocks without a healthy relationship to the street brings risks of higher social costs. Given that social care is one of the largest costs within our shrinking Council budget - it is clear in terms of the economic dimension this does not meet the Government’s definition of sustainable development. By targeting a lesser BREEAM rating the development falls short on the environmental standards of sustainable development. The 12 storey Ashdown Road tower will overshadow and block light from the adjacent land. Land earmarked in Eden Quarter SPD for development. This scheme will compromise the supply of a well located brown field site coming forward for development. This is not sustainable development. > Read more on why this fails on sociological, economic and environmental grounds |
Design
The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. The NPPF states "Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning... planning decisions should ensure that developments establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; ... respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings ... while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; ... seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness." Residents have protested in the strongest way they know how - against the generic could-be-anywhere aesthetic which was present in this proposal from day 1 and has barely evolved. It does not "reinforce local distinctiveness." nor "respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings" as required by the NPPF. Kingston is a market town. Much has already been said about the developments' far reaching negative consequences for the future character of Kingston; its identity and sense of place - if it is allowed to go ahead. We believe this substantially remains the case for the current scheme. It is not distinctive, nor will it maintain or sustain Kingston's market town character. It fails as a sustainable development by its inappropriate aesthetic design. > Read more on why this fails on Aesthetics, Architecture, & Heritage > Read more on why this fails on Height & Scale > Read more on why this fails on Density Public Consultation NPPF 66 states "Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community." This has clearly not happened.
|
Clearly this is not sustainable development
Page updated on 26 Sept 2015
