On Thursday 27 August 2015, British Land hosted a meeting with representatives from KRA and the Kingston Society. They talked us through their plans for the transformation of Eden Walk with new shops, homes, offices and public realm which will come with a 20 Storey Tower Block...
Our objective is to have a dialogue with the developers, putting our concerns across before it’s too late in the process to do something about it. It is important to note that, as their Planning application is not in yet, we were not able to discuss important matters relating to exact infrastructure obligations and/or visual impact.
After a walk around the site, the slide presentation was similar to that shown at the Kingston Society - we will provide a new link for this presentation as soon as British Land updates their page. In addition, the proposed choice of materials was described with samples including brick, perforated copper panels, and cedar, GRP. Details of the external aesthetic design were withheld until after discussions with CABE and Historic England (on 21st Sept ). Shadow studies were shown for the main two public spaces. In the remaining time we raised our concerns and asked questions
Our Key Concerns:
1. Affordable Housing: The proposed plans do not provide any fixed affordable housing units. Instead the Council is offered an unspecified percentage share of the profit at the end of the construction process. We have been told Kingston would be the first town in the country to try this new approach to affordable housing and this particular proposal came from British Land.
We asked for further clarification on the risks the Council is taking on behalf of residents (i.e. the Council takes the risk of procuring the necessary affordable housing rather than the developer in exchange for a cash sum) and queried why there is no minimum requirement for affordable housing.
It is also unclear at what point the sum being offered will be quantified (even as a planning estimate) and if the amount will be made public at any point. Back to the ‘commercial in confidence’ nature of the financial viability assessment again!
2. Impact on infrastructure: we need real answers from developers and RBK on how the combined impact of the many proposed developments on existing services and infrastructure will be sustained.
3. Height: The height of the Residential Tower Blocks was not discussed at BL’s request. We will have another opportunity to discuss the height and bulk after English Heritage provides an expert opinion. We were not allowed to see the Visual Impact Study either. Even so, we stated that the proposed 20-storey residential towers above the shopping complex are too high and would set a damaging precedent.
4. Density: Proposed 400 residential units is the equivalent of placing the whole TOPO proposal - and more - on top of the shops. It is immense.
Summary of Q & A part of the meeting:
Q. Impact on public transport?
A: They believe impact on transport will be Negligible
Q. Impact on health provision?
A: No data available as yet
Q. Impact on local schools? in particular on primary schools within walking distance.
A: No data available. However potential ‘Child Yield’ study will be published.
Q Impact on Town Centre Road Layout?
A. No immediate road changes proposed. However traffic leading to Brook Road and potential additional commuter traffic towards Wheatfield Road/one way system is noted.
Q. Sun Shade Study.
A. Yes. Impact study is done and will be published.
Q: Can they provide sunshade studies for the existing site for comparison?
A. No
Q. Existing sun studies include proposed TOPO tower?
A: No
Q: Unlike TOPO, will they conduct proper wind tunnel tests on a scale model?
A: Yes
Q: Are the proposed variety of different building materials too much ?
A: Don’t agree
Q: Should they take cues from the smaller plots in the neighbourhood and introduce vertical variation to break down the monolith scale?
A: Don’t agree
Q: Do they think the massing on north of Eden St competes with 20 storey tower landmark?
A: Don’t agree
Q: Do they know what the anticipated people flow will be?
A: No.
Q: Will they provide comfortable non-commercial seating?
A: Yes
Q: What is the proposed structure in the centre of Eden Square?
A: ‘State of art’ glass sculptured stair and lift access down to a basement restaurant.
Q: Is the Public realm really public? e.g. a student was recently prevented from taking photos in Eden Square by a security guard.
A: Disappointed to hear this and shouldn't be the case.
Other points discussed:
1. Residential Flats will have a ratio of 1 parking space per 2 units. Although it is claimed no net change in number of car parking spaces, we are seeking further clarification of 200 less car park spaces for Kingston shoppers (due to change in the layout of Eden Walk Car Park)
2. We were told that net employment as measured in Planning terms increases from 600 to 1100, but there was no data to support this yet.
3. Existing service basement will be a valuable asset during construction.
4. Planned start date for construction could be 2017 with a 2.5 year duration.
Next meeting: A further round table meeting is planned for mid September. So watch this space! and If you want to find out more about regeneration proposal please visit our Eden Walk Page.
After a walk around the site, the slide presentation was similar to that shown at the Kingston Society - we will provide a new link for this presentation as soon as British Land updates their page. In addition, the proposed choice of materials was described with samples including brick, perforated copper panels, and cedar, GRP. Details of the external aesthetic design were withheld until after discussions with CABE and Historic England (on 21st Sept ). Shadow studies were shown for the main two public spaces. In the remaining time we raised our concerns and asked questions
Our Key Concerns:
1. Affordable Housing: The proposed plans do not provide any fixed affordable housing units. Instead the Council is offered an unspecified percentage share of the profit at the end of the construction process. We have been told Kingston would be the first town in the country to try this new approach to affordable housing and this particular proposal came from British Land.
We asked for further clarification on the risks the Council is taking on behalf of residents (i.e. the Council takes the risk of procuring the necessary affordable housing rather than the developer in exchange for a cash sum) and queried why there is no minimum requirement for affordable housing.
It is also unclear at what point the sum being offered will be quantified (even as a planning estimate) and if the amount will be made public at any point. Back to the ‘commercial in confidence’ nature of the financial viability assessment again!
2. Impact on infrastructure: we need real answers from developers and RBK on how the combined impact of the many proposed developments on existing services and infrastructure will be sustained.
3. Height: The height of the Residential Tower Blocks was not discussed at BL’s request. We will have another opportunity to discuss the height and bulk after English Heritage provides an expert opinion. We were not allowed to see the Visual Impact Study either. Even so, we stated that the proposed 20-storey residential towers above the shopping complex are too high and would set a damaging precedent.
4. Density: Proposed 400 residential units is the equivalent of placing the whole TOPO proposal - and more - on top of the shops. It is immense.
Summary of Q & A part of the meeting:
Q. Impact on public transport?
A: They believe impact on transport will be Negligible
Q. Impact on health provision?
A: No data available as yet
Q. Impact on local schools? in particular on primary schools within walking distance.
A: No data available. However potential ‘Child Yield’ study will be published.
Q Impact on Town Centre Road Layout?
A. No immediate road changes proposed. However traffic leading to Brook Road and potential additional commuter traffic towards Wheatfield Road/one way system is noted.
Q. Sun Shade Study.
A. Yes. Impact study is done and will be published.
Q: Can they provide sunshade studies for the existing site for comparison?
A. No
Q. Existing sun studies include proposed TOPO tower?
A: No
Q: Unlike TOPO, will they conduct proper wind tunnel tests on a scale model?
A: Yes
Q: Are the proposed variety of different building materials too much ?
A: Don’t agree
Q: Should they take cues from the smaller plots in the neighbourhood and introduce vertical variation to break down the monolith scale?
A: Don’t agree
Q: Do they think the massing on north of Eden St competes with 20 storey tower landmark?
A: Don’t agree
Q: Do they know what the anticipated people flow will be?
A: No.
Q: Will they provide comfortable non-commercial seating?
A: Yes
Q: What is the proposed structure in the centre of Eden Square?
A: ‘State of art’ glass sculptured stair and lift access down to a basement restaurant.
Q: Is the Public realm really public? e.g. a student was recently prevented from taking photos in Eden Square by a security guard.
A: Disappointed to hear this and shouldn't be the case.
Other points discussed:
1. Residential Flats will have a ratio of 1 parking space per 2 units. Although it is claimed no net change in number of car parking spaces, we are seeking further clarification of 200 less car park spaces for Kingston shoppers (due to change in the layout of Eden Walk Car Park)
2. We were told that net employment as measured in Planning terms increases from 600 to 1100, but there was no data to support this yet.
3. Existing service basement will be a valuable asset during construction.
4. Planned start date for construction could be 2017 with a 2.5 year duration.
Next meeting: A further round table meeting is planned for mid September. So watch this space! and If you want to find out more about regeneration proposal please visit our Eden Walk Page.