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

Snap survey - the results

We all know Kingston's housing debate is not just about getting the height right but also building enough affordable housing with a density that the existing and planned infrastructure will be able to support  in the short, medium and long term. However, as St George's revised plans for The Old Post Office Site (TOPO) are submitted to Kingston Council and a number of differently sized tall and high density applications across the borough are currently being discussed  - e.g. Eden Walk, Tolworth Tower, Tesco Site, Gasworks, the list goes on - is it time to ask what type of housing would the residents of Kingston Borough really like to see in their neighbourhood?

What type of housing would the residents of Kingston Borough really like to see in their neighbourhood?

After all, we were never given a real answer as to why the Royal Borough of Kingston has no Tall Building Strategy, why 9+ storey planning guidelines can be interpreted by the developers as 19+, how a 50% affordable housing target can be met with deals that have no or negligible levels, and why we, the residents, are dragged into a myriad of pointless consultation processes where the developers have already been given planning briefs by officials or elected Councillors of this borough?  As the leader of the Council admitted in the Council Committee meeting in May 2015 "the problem is Developers came up with their planning applications much faster than the we expected". Could this be an excellent example of just bad planning?  Is this not a good time to stop and take stock?

Back in the summer, we decided to go DIY and held a modest 2-minute snap survey. It was conducted online by CreateStreets on our behalf and the results and contribution figures are below for all to see. We are not suggesting that this is what all Kingston Residents want. But we did ask the question: 'what height limit Kingston Town Centre should have" And the answer is 83% think it should be 9 storeys or less! 

83% think the height limit for Kingston Town center should be 9 storeys or less.

Let's hope the below will help contribute to the debate about around the height, density - and more importantly affordability - of these new housing projects dropping into our inboxes day after day. For those who have given a mandate to vet these plans and make expert opinions should not forget the infrastructure to back them up has to match the speed of the planning briefs given to developers.


Summary findings from the survey:

1. Kingston residents are very aligned in what they like in London. There is 88% preference for a ‘typical’ London neighbourhood as opposed to high rise or modern shopping centre

2.  And they know what they like in Kingston as well. 88% preference for historic parts of Kingston, 9% preference for recent Kingston Riverside and only 2% preference for 1960s components of the town centre

3. There is overwhelming support for a medium-rise approach to regeneration with 90% support. Only 5% support high rise

4.   Specifically, 83% support a height limit at 9 storeys or below, 9% support a height limit from 10-15 storeys and 8% support a height limit at 16 storeys or above

5.   More sympathetic design could change local hearts and minds on the Old Post Office Site. The current scheme only has 11% support. However, 83% are prepared to support a ‘more sympathetic’ scheme

6.   There is more uncertainty about the Eden Walk site with 70% opposition but also 19% uncertain of their views


Questions and full results:
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Further background: Commentary on the findings and Guidelines for Councillors published by Create Streets.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.