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

Passing thoughts before the final vote.

5th November 2015
Final Decision Day

Most of us who live in Kingston would know Kingston Town centre is blotted with some brutalist architectural experiments and bizarre Council decisions. From time to time, we must have all looked at a building or an estate or a derelict site and asked ourselves ‘how did they allow this to happen?’.  Of course, again, most of us do not dwell too much on these matter because we have other more pressing worries. Besides, we all know why we live in and love Kingston. It is a fantastic place to live with its easy access to the Thames walk, green open spaces and even the shopping. It is very rare in London that you find a place where you can raise a family, study, commute and retire… If you can afford the housing, that is.
 
These days we cannot watch the news without hearing of the looming housing crisis and the lack of affordable homes across the country. Kingston is certainly not immune to these challenges. This is one of those places where an acute shortage of affordable homes makes the place even more unaffordable.
 
So, for an outsider, it must seem puzzling as to how a housing developer with a seemingly decent reputation can receive such a hostile public reception. What makes people come out and defend a large derelict site so close to public amenities and ripe for housing redevelopment for decade?  How come all these people do not want this jazzy housing development with glitzy shopping, community spaces and housing units. They even offer to protect and enhance the 2 heritage sites on the site for pity’s sake! ‘What is the residents’ problem?’ you might say.
 
Well, we would like to reverse the question: developers, councillors and planners in charge of growth, what is wrong with you? How could you get this process so wrong?
 
If you cannot answer this simple question tonight, we will be doomed to repeat this same debate over every planning application that follows tonight’s decision, irrespective of whether this particular application is permitted or refused.
 
Everyone has probably heard enough of our objections over the past 14 months. These have mostly been policy reasons – guideline breaches, policy breaches and legal implications, as our QC detailed in his 20 page opinion. We have deliberately tried to restrict the amount of subjective whining by local residents, although the inevitable accusations of NIMBYism have been levelled at us nonetheless. Here is a shorter take:
 
People are disgusted by this development not because, as some people like to believe, ‘people want housing developments but not close to their house’ but because ‘people do not want empty unaffordable homes next to them with poor gates leading to a few supposedly affordable homes’. For all those NIMBY accusers, please remember that in 2015 people do not welcome gated, impenetrable, tall and unsustainable identikit tower blocks on their doorsteps! These blocks will be massive headaches for future generations, just as the future of those ugly towers at Kingston College, New Malden and Tolworth vex current generations of residents. London is currently blighted by a new wave of these irresponsible and greedy designs, which attract mostly investment buyers, causing yet further property price inflation in the locality, and with practically no affordable housing for people to actually live in. We argued that it is possible to create more homes and a better urban environment if we concentrate on mid-rise houses and apartments rather than complex multi-storey buildings. That is the crux of our argument.
 
Also, during our campaign, it became very clear that St George’s application, if approved, will set a precedent for the rest of Kingston Town development plans. These include Eden Walk, Surrey House, the Old Cattle Market – described by the Council as a ‘blank slate’. If we did not respond to St George and pressure the Council on this application, we may as well let all the associated planning guidelines (which are applied to us residents so stringently) be flouted by future developers in the same manner.
 
We also know that the Council rushed their growth agenda and that they remain underprepared and ill-equipped to handle the volume of development interest attracted to this town. The farcical nature of this application, with committee meetings cancelled and bizarre interjections by the Leader of the Council, do not give us the confidence that they are actually able to cope with all this attention.
 
Whatever their motives are, somewhere, somehow Council planners and private developers have decided that the residents of Kingston would like a piece of Nine Elms or Canary Wharf here in Kingston. Maybe they are misled by an over-ambitious but under-prepared Council leadership. We will never know. We were never party to their ‘briefings’ to these large developers. Probably they all think that residents should not meddle in planning affairs that are none of our business and too ‘strategic’ and ‘complex’ for amateurs to comprehend. We would like to remind them that we are no longer living in the 1960s and we would actually like to avoid repeating the mistakes of past decades – such as the various Council-commissioned high-rise monstrosities that currently scar the borough.
 
So get used to hearing from local residents, we are watching your plans to remodel our town. We only ask that the Council and developers show a little imaginative and strategic flair and come forward with something appropriate for the needs of local people, such as sensitively landscaped, mid-rise buildings and homes we can actually afford to live in. Until that day, the residents of Kingston can and will fight to obstruct inappropriate, ugly property developments in this town we are are lucky enough to live.


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.