Kingston Residents' Alliance
We are active on social media:
  • Home
  • Planning Portal
    • EDEN CAMPUS >
      • EDENCAMPUS PRESENTATION
      • COMMUNITY WORK >
        • LETTERS
      • EDENCAMPUS SLIDESHOW
      • 2020 CONSULTATIONS >
        • KRA RESPONSE 10 January 2021
        • KRA RESPONSE 4th November
      • 2019 - APPLICATION
    • Seething Wells HELP >
      • SW_representation
    • Cambridge Road Estate >
      • CRE - Regeneration
    • SURREY COUNTY HALL >
      • RESIDENTS COMMENTS
      • KRA CONSULTATION RESPONSE
    • Eden Walk >
      • Eden Walk - submission in pictures
      • Eden Walk presentation 18 May
      • Eden Walk presentation 8 March
      • Eden Walk CONCERNS
      • Historic Englands Eden Walk response
      • Design Panel Review
      • Officers report - Eden Walk
    • New Local Plan >
      • Direction of Travel Consultation
      • Opportunity Area
    • Canbury Business Park
    • Old Post Office >
      • KRA response 5
      • TOPO - submission in pictures
      • Presentation notes 4
      • Old Post Office v4 Concerns
      • Historic England response v4
      • Q.C. OPINION
      • Our response to the Officers report >
        • Officers report
      • Zac Goldsmiths Response
      • Presentation notes 3
      • KRA response 3
      • A fresh look
      • Why it is wrong
      • Residents opposition
      • Notable opposition
      • What could be acceptable
      • Why some say yes
      • Who will decide
      • Other planning cases
    • Riverside Boardway
    • Market House >
      • Open Letter
      • April 2016 - Update
    • Fairfield
    • Archive >
      • Archive - Old Post Office #3
      • Archive - Old Post Office #2 >
        • Our response to Officers report >
          • Officers report
        • Historic England rejection
        • Why it is wrong
        • Weight of opposition >
          • Letters to Councillors >
            • Letter to Councillors 1
            • Letter to Councillors 2
            • Letter to Councillors 3
          • Speaker Notes >
            • Key Objections Introduction
            • Affordable Housing
            • Heritage
            • Urban design
            • Aesthetic Design
            • What might be acceptable
  • Historical Context
    • TOPO story
    • Before the final vote
    • KRA Snap Survey Findings
    • Create Streets Guide for Councillors
    • Planning documents >
      • EQDB Deputation by KRA
    • Kingston's Democracy >
      • Neighbourhood Forums
      • GROVEN >
        • Letter to Viv Evans
        • Grove Ward Neighbourhood Invite
      • North Kingston Neighbourhood Forum
      • Meeting Notes
    • RBK Councillors
    • Kingston Futures
  • Press
    • News Blog
    • In the Press
    • Letters
  • About
    • Our advisers
  • Contact
  • COMMS

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' ?
​
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.
  • The shock inclusion of 13 and 21 storey buildings in the first submission demonstrated that the residents’ views had not been taken into consideration;
  • Many were not notified or poorly notified with misleading glossy brochures;
  •  'Consultation' on finalized and submitted plans is not consultation. 'Consultation' has been confused with 'Informing'. 
  • Back to where we started: the appearance, height, massing and impact of this scheme is very similar to the first schemes we saw. This is proof that consultation hasn't worked. It has merely been a tick-box exercise, and to say otherwise is just 'spin'.
> Read more on why the consultation has failed...

Clearly this is not sustainable development



Page updated on 26 Sept 2015
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.