The pre -decision meeting
The written comments you have made [so far] will be reported to the Committee
Members of the Committee
- Councillor Richard Hudson (Chair)
- Councillor Hugh Scantlebury (Vice Chair)
- Councillor Bill Brisbane
- Councillor Mike Head
- Councillor Malcolm Self
- Councillor Jack Cheetham
- Councillor Lorraine Rolfe
- Councillor Geoff Austin
- Councillor Paul Bedforth
- Councillor Rebekah Moll
- Councillor Gaj Wallooppillai
Format of the meeting
- The Developer will supply all presentation materials and these will be displayed in the meeting room.
- Officers will introduce the proposal and advise of issues arising.
- The applicant will be invited to make a presentation of the proposal.
- Local residents and organisations will have an opportunity to raise issues.
- Members will be able to comment and ask questions of the applicant and local residents.
- The applicant will have the opportunity to respond to questions from members of the Planning Committee, Ward Councillors and local residents and organisations.
- An attendance record will be kept, the discussion recorded and a note of the meeting reported to the Planning Committee as part of the final report when the application is submitted for determination.
Note: All information on this page are as stated by RBK.
> Click here for the meeting details - RBK council website
Please see the attached report pack below for more information. The actual objections make very interesting reading!
It is still not too late to respond:
> Click here to see our sample response
> Click here to see our concerns
Summary of Application
The application site is located in Kingston Town Centre on the site of the current Eden Walk Shopping Centre and multi-storey car park.
The application is for
- 380 homes
- 13,830sqm of Retail (A1-A2)
- 4,178sqm of Retail (A3-A5)
- 2,896sqm of Leisure (D2 Cinema)
- 3,223 Office (B1a)
- 408 public car parking spaces
- 171 residential car parking spaces
The key issues in the case are [ as identified by the Officer ]
- The redevelopment of a site within Kingston Town Centre
- The impact on the character and appearance of the area
- The impact on heritage assets and views
- The provision of affordable housing
- The cumulative impact of the development in the Town Centre
Groups objecting [ so far ]
- 141 residents' letters of objection have been received - so far
- Riverside Residents
- Friends of Bushy and Home Parks
- Kingston Upon Thames Society
- Kingston Residents Alliance (KRA)
- Kingston Town Conservation Advisory Committee
- Historic England
- Housing Services
- Greater London Authority (GLA)
- CABE design panel - to an earlier version of the scheme
Residents concerns [ so far ]
- Excessive height which is out of proportion with a historic market town should be reduced to 12 storeys in height
- Tallest building will impact on views from Richmond, Bushy and Home Park creating and obtrusive unsightly vista
- Height will shade adjacent streets
- Little benefit in shopping terms
- Kingston is not Croydon
- Assumption about .45 cars per residential unit is unrealistic
- Impact on local infrastructure schools, doctors etc
- Level of disruption to traffic and public transport due to building works
- Pressure on local sewers
- Existing tenants of Eden walk forced out
- No need for a boutique cinema
- Concerns about asbestos following discovery in Sainsburys
- Loss of office space across Kingston town centre
- Residential units should not be located in a town centre
- More buses should be provided and more frequent trains to Kingston Station
- Neville House Yard is too high and exceeds the brief. A cinema is fundamentally the wrong solution for a location with panoramic views
- Union Terrace the loss of the thoroughfare between Eden Circus and Crown Arcade is not acceptable and would compromise the commercial viability of the units in Crown Arcade
- Union Street frontage is monolithic and totally out of keeping with Apple Market Buildings
- The view from the Thomas Cook Passage presents a serious clash of scale and form
- Consideration should be given to incorporating brighter reflective surfaces on the south-east elevation of Core B to improve natural sunlight in the public realm.
- Access point should be moved from areas of high footfall.
- What are the plans for the shoppers car park during construction
- Construction traffic needs to be co-ordinated with TOPO
- The application for exceptional circumstances relief from Kingston CIL is a concern as a development of this size would be expected to contribute millions to the benefit of local people
- No affordable housing is to be provided
- Developments in Zone 3 should mitigate flood risk not increase run off
- Improvement to public spaces do not go far enough given the scale of what is being proposed
- 30% less tradeable shop space, 30% less office spaces and 100% loss of financial/ professional services replaced with 470% additional food and beverage space
- Southerly aspect of the scheme creates a cliff face which turns the southern part of Ede in Street into a shadowy, chilly, foreboding canyon
- Glass balconies do not look safe in addition they often become storage areas for bikes, bbqs and washing
- Access to the cinema look cramped.
- Kingston doesn’t need another cinema it could be used as performance space for music / dance / theatre
- Glass structure in central spaces with create an undesirable crowding effect
- Glazed canopy over dinning terrace will be a dark and gloomy overshadowed area
- The public spaces have severe lack of daylight/sunlight other than Memorial Gardens
- Issues of current problems with birds have not been taken into account
- Size of residential units are poor
- If we want to increase housing supply we should do it outside the town centre in Tolworth, Chessington and New Malden
- Scheme fails to deliver a landmark building The war memorial should not be moved just to create a pathway into the scheme Style of the building is too modern
- At 505 uph the development is above the London Plans density matrix
- Lack of disabled parking
- Loss of trees
- Basements will remove archaeology
- There needs to be modelled scenarios for emergency such as fire or terrorism
- Risk of items being dropped off balconies to the street below
- Development does not include a department store
- Scheme represents a loss of comparison floorspace in the prime shopping area
- Reduction in shoppers car parking spaces by 289 spaces
- Has the scheme been referred to a Design Review Panel
- Has 3D Modelling been used
- Licensed premises should only been on the ground floor to prevent intentional falls, jumps or malicious attacks