Our response to the May 2017 amendments
Planning application 14/13247 ( May 2017 )
Viv Evans
Head of Planning & Transport
Development Management
Guildhall 2, High Street
Kingston upon Thames
KT1 1EU
Email: development.management@kingston.gov.uk
Reference: 17/12378
Kingston Resident's Alliance
KingstonResidents.com
1st June 2017
Response from Kingston Resident's Alliance
Dear Sirs
In response to application 17/12378 - the Variation of condition 2 (plans) of planning permission 14/13247/FUL at DEVELOPMENT SITE AT FORMER POST OFFICE, ASHDOWN ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES
We expected, given the strong and sustained opposition to the full application in 2014-16, that a responsible and responsive developer would take steps to alleviate concerns of residents who care enough to engage with the planning process as they have done. Instead we are being asked to consider amendments that do the opposite. The proposed amendments will add to the harm the scheme would inflict upon the setting of the Old Post Office.
The setback of the building to the south side of 'Post Office Square' will move forward, not back. Will this increase the encroachment and overbearing onto the setting of the Old Post Office and square? Yes it will. Will it increase the amount of shading on the Old Post Office and square? Yes it will. The developer argues it won’t increase the harm, but they also incorrectly pictured sunlight where the sun could never shine; and our own shadow modelling proved the devastating overshadowing of the proposed Post Office Square throughout the year, contrary to what was being claimed at the time, and was forced to be withdrawn.
The developer may argue the amount of additional harm is slight, but we must bear in mind that the level of harm from the scheme is already unacceptable. The scheme should not have been recommended to PERMIT on 25 Feb 2016, but it got through with the narrowest of margins: 6 votes to 5. Yet the reasons for previously refusing the scheme still stand. Take one of the reasons, not enough 3-bed flats: The assertion was made by the developer that the demand for 3 bed flats was low - but this was in fact incorrect. At the decision meeting the Conservative cabinet member for housing Cllr Roberts was quoted from the very same week : 'We have unprecedented demand for three bedroom properties within Kingston'. ( https://www.kingston.gov.uk/news/article/419/transformational_housing_conversion_project_for_kingston_families_completes )
On the developer's assertion that slower selling 3 bed flats would adversely affect the viability of the scheme - this was refuted by the council's own viability expert. In answer to a Councillors question at the meeting, the expert stated : "My viability assessment of the applicants updated report assumed that all of the units sold 100% off plan - so there wasn't any material effect in the cash flow in the finance costs from those 3 bed units. This was agreed with the applicants." - So the assertion by the developer that slow-to-sell 3-bed flats would adversely affect the viability of the scheme - was false and appeared to have been a blatant lie. There are still not enough 3-bed flats in this scheme.
Many things have been claimed in support of this harmful scheme. Not all have of them have been shown to be true. On principle, when amendments to a harmful scheme increase the harm instead of reducing it, the scheme should be refused. We urge you to be credible and refuse these amendments as they currently stand.
Sincerely,
Kingston Resident's Alliance
Head of Planning & Transport
Development Management
Guildhall 2, High Street
Kingston upon Thames
KT1 1EU
Email: development.management@kingston.gov.uk
Reference: 17/12378
Kingston Resident's Alliance
KingstonResidents.com
1st June 2017
Response from Kingston Resident's Alliance
Dear Sirs
In response to application 17/12378 - the Variation of condition 2 (plans) of planning permission 14/13247/FUL at DEVELOPMENT SITE AT FORMER POST OFFICE, ASHDOWN ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES
We expected, given the strong and sustained opposition to the full application in 2014-16, that a responsible and responsive developer would take steps to alleviate concerns of residents who care enough to engage with the planning process as they have done. Instead we are being asked to consider amendments that do the opposite. The proposed amendments will add to the harm the scheme would inflict upon the setting of the Old Post Office.
The setback of the building to the south side of 'Post Office Square' will move forward, not back. Will this increase the encroachment and overbearing onto the setting of the Old Post Office and square? Yes it will. Will it increase the amount of shading on the Old Post Office and square? Yes it will. The developer argues it won’t increase the harm, but they also incorrectly pictured sunlight where the sun could never shine; and our own shadow modelling proved the devastating overshadowing of the proposed Post Office Square throughout the year, contrary to what was being claimed at the time, and was forced to be withdrawn.
The developer may argue the amount of additional harm is slight, but we must bear in mind that the level of harm from the scheme is already unacceptable. The scheme should not have been recommended to PERMIT on 25 Feb 2016, but it got through with the narrowest of margins: 6 votes to 5. Yet the reasons for previously refusing the scheme still stand. Take one of the reasons, not enough 3-bed flats: The assertion was made by the developer that the demand for 3 bed flats was low - but this was in fact incorrect. At the decision meeting the Conservative cabinet member for housing Cllr Roberts was quoted from the very same week : 'We have unprecedented demand for three bedroom properties within Kingston'. ( https://www.kingston.gov.uk/news/article/419/transformational_housing_conversion_project_for_kingston_families_completes )
On the developer's assertion that slower selling 3 bed flats would adversely affect the viability of the scheme - this was refuted by the council's own viability expert. In answer to a Councillors question at the meeting, the expert stated : "My viability assessment of the applicants updated report assumed that all of the units sold 100% off plan - so there wasn't any material effect in the cash flow in the finance costs from those 3 bed units. This was agreed with the applicants." - So the assertion by the developer that slow-to-sell 3-bed flats would adversely affect the viability of the scheme - was false and appeared to have been a blatant lie. There are still not enough 3-bed flats in this scheme.
Many things have been claimed in support of this harmful scheme. Not all have of them have been shown to be true. On principle, when amendments to a harmful scheme increase the harm instead of reducing it, the scheme should be refused. We urge you to be credible and refuse these amendments as they currently stand.
Sincerely,
Kingston Resident's Alliance