Dear Councillors,
I am writing about the forthcoming decision on the planning application for the Old Post Office Site (14/13247/FUL) (14/13248/LBC) (14/13250/LBC) and about housebuilding in Kingston more generally....
I am writing about the forthcoming decision on the planning application for the Old Post Office Site (14/13247/FUL) (14/13248/LBC) (14/13250/LBC) and about housebuilding in Kingston more generally....
As you know, Members of Parliament have no decision making role in the planning process. Having been approached for support by constituents on both sides of the same planning dispute, it quickly becomes apparent why it is not appropriate for an MP to “take sides”. However, on large development proposals that have the potential to change the shape of our Borough, I think it is appropriate for me to make my views known.
I am acutely aware that you have an independent function to perform in considering a planning application. I am also aware that you are constrained by planning law and both London and local planning policy and that you would not wish to reject an application only for it to be appealed successfully by the developer, with the Kingston taxpayers left footing the bill.
Housing in London
London is in the grip of a housing crisis, with demand vastly outstripping supply. In Kingston, the ratio of median earnings to median house prices has risen from 4.83 in 1997 to 11.86 in 2013, making the dream of home ownership illusory for many local residents. More than 8,000 people are on Kingston’s social housing waiting list. About 40% of the cases I deal with in correspondence or in my weekly advice surgeries are housing related; typically people being evicted from privately rented accommodation (because the landlord wants to sell) and unable to find anywhere affordable to rent.
It is clear that we need to build a significant number of new homes in London. Each of the Parliamentary candidates said this at the Kingston & Surbiton hustings earlier this year. The vast majority of local residents I have spoken to also agree with the principle that we need to build more houses to tackle the housing crisis. But their views sometimes change when a site near where they live is proposed for housebuilding. A careful balance must be struck between the views of the people living in the direct vicinity of a proposed development and the responsibility of a Local Authority to ensure there is sufficient housing, including affordable housing for local people in the Borough as a whole.
The record on housebuilding in Kingston is disgraceful. Kingston has one of the worst housebuilding records in London and one of the worst records for affordable housebuilding in London in recent years. When this was put to the former Leader of the Council by the Surrey Comet, Cllr Green is reported to have replied “hindsight is a wonderful thing”. Hindsight does not enter into it. There is a London Plan which sets an annual housebuilding target for every Borough in London. You are either on track to meet that target, or you are not. Kingston cannot have been on track for a number of years. There is now a lot of catching up to do if Kingston is to meet the London Plan and tackle the housing crisis.
Acceptable Development
The need to build houses does not mean that local residents should have to accept development that does not promote their aspirations for the shape of our Borough.
For me, acceptable development is development that: (i) is architecturally attractive and appropriate for the area; (ii) takes account of the impact on our stretched infrastructure (e.g. such roads and primary schools); (iii) meets BREEAM environmental standards; and (iv) offers sufficient affordable housing. In some cases, it may be appropriate accept less affordable housing e.g. because the developer is providing a community asset of similar financial value that the Council is not in a position to provide (eg. a swimming pool, a school extension or significant public realm etc.).
The best development proposals are ones where developers begin with a proper engagement with the community about their aspirations for the site within the context of the Borough’s housebuilding needs. Few large development proposals will attract unanimous approval from local residents but, approached in this way, they have a much better chance of commanding broad support.
TOPO
Wheatfield Way provides a terrible vista for anyone entering to our historic market town, confronted as you are by Combined House and the derelict Old Post Office site. When I heard that TOPO was being developed, I was hoping for a development of real character that would enhance our town by providing a distinctive gateway to Kingston. Sadly, that is not what St George’s proposals deliver.
Height
As I have made clear many times, personally, I do not like tower blocks. I wish the towers in Kingston, Tolworth and New Malden had never been built. I welcome the reduction in height in the new plans to the height of the nearest tall building (Kingston College), but this does not change my view on tower blocks.
Density
To meet the housebuilding target in the London Plan, it is inevitable that the density of new housing is often going to be greater than the density of existing housing. Density limits are set in the London Plan. Even at the maximum permitted density, a development does not need to have the appearance of a dense mass of buildings that TOPO does.
Permeability
The plans to create new public realm in Kingston are welcome. However, it is disappointing that the design is not permeable. It does not allow light or pedestrian traffic through from Wheatfield Way / the Fairfield to the Town Centre.
Design
Design is a very subjective thing. I wince as I pass the towers going up in Nine Elms on the train to London every morning and I do not think that TOPO is much better architecturally in the main. Moreover, on the Wheatfield Way aspect, TOPO is hardly in keeping with the Victorian villas in the conservation area on the opposite side of the road.
Affordable Housing
Most worryingly, the proposals include less than 15% affordable housing. I appreciate that the viability of the development is likely be affected by the welcome proposals to restore the Old Post Office and the Telephone Exchange rather than replace them with housing and the reduced height of the tower.
Nevertheless, 15% affordable housing is well below the target of 50% in local policy. It is much too low at a time when Kingston is crying out for affordable housing, and I find it very hard to accept that on such a big development this is the maximum that St George can offer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if I were one of the decision makers, I would not accept TOPO without significant modification to make the plans more acceptable to the people we have been elected to represent. I have no doubt that Kingston Council can meet the requirements of the London Plan to tackle the housing crisis. But it can do so by approving developments that are much more suitable for our Borough than TOPO.
Kingston can do far better on this site, meeting both local residents' aspirations for the shape of our Borough and the pressing need for new homes.
With best wishes,
James Berry MP
Kingston & Surbiton
I am acutely aware that you have an independent function to perform in considering a planning application. I am also aware that you are constrained by planning law and both London and local planning policy and that you would not wish to reject an application only for it to be appealed successfully by the developer, with the Kingston taxpayers left footing the bill.
Housing in London
London is in the grip of a housing crisis, with demand vastly outstripping supply. In Kingston, the ratio of median earnings to median house prices has risen from 4.83 in 1997 to 11.86 in 2013, making the dream of home ownership illusory for many local residents. More than 8,000 people are on Kingston’s social housing waiting list. About 40% of the cases I deal with in correspondence or in my weekly advice surgeries are housing related; typically people being evicted from privately rented accommodation (because the landlord wants to sell) and unable to find anywhere affordable to rent.
It is clear that we need to build a significant number of new homes in London. Each of the Parliamentary candidates said this at the Kingston & Surbiton hustings earlier this year. The vast majority of local residents I have spoken to also agree with the principle that we need to build more houses to tackle the housing crisis. But their views sometimes change when a site near where they live is proposed for housebuilding. A careful balance must be struck between the views of the people living in the direct vicinity of a proposed development and the responsibility of a Local Authority to ensure there is sufficient housing, including affordable housing for local people in the Borough as a whole.
The record on housebuilding in Kingston is disgraceful. Kingston has one of the worst housebuilding records in London and one of the worst records for affordable housebuilding in London in recent years. When this was put to the former Leader of the Council by the Surrey Comet, Cllr Green is reported to have replied “hindsight is a wonderful thing”. Hindsight does not enter into it. There is a London Plan which sets an annual housebuilding target for every Borough in London. You are either on track to meet that target, or you are not. Kingston cannot have been on track for a number of years. There is now a lot of catching up to do if Kingston is to meet the London Plan and tackle the housing crisis.
Acceptable Development
The need to build houses does not mean that local residents should have to accept development that does not promote their aspirations for the shape of our Borough.
For me, acceptable development is development that: (i) is architecturally attractive and appropriate for the area; (ii) takes account of the impact on our stretched infrastructure (e.g. such roads and primary schools); (iii) meets BREEAM environmental standards; and (iv) offers sufficient affordable housing. In some cases, it may be appropriate accept less affordable housing e.g. because the developer is providing a community asset of similar financial value that the Council is not in a position to provide (eg. a swimming pool, a school extension or significant public realm etc.).
The best development proposals are ones where developers begin with a proper engagement with the community about their aspirations for the site within the context of the Borough’s housebuilding needs. Few large development proposals will attract unanimous approval from local residents but, approached in this way, they have a much better chance of commanding broad support.
TOPO
Wheatfield Way provides a terrible vista for anyone entering to our historic market town, confronted as you are by Combined House and the derelict Old Post Office site. When I heard that TOPO was being developed, I was hoping for a development of real character that would enhance our town by providing a distinctive gateway to Kingston. Sadly, that is not what St George’s proposals deliver.
Height
As I have made clear many times, personally, I do not like tower blocks. I wish the towers in Kingston, Tolworth and New Malden had never been built. I welcome the reduction in height in the new plans to the height of the nearest tall building (Kingston College), but this does not change my view on tower blocks.
Density
To meet the housebuilding target in the London Plan, it is inevitable that the density of new housing is often going to be greater than the density of existing housing. Density limits are set in the London Plan. Even at the maximum permitted density, a development does not need to have the appearance of a dense mass of buildings that TOPO does.
Permeability
The plans to create new public realm in Kingston are welcome. However, it is disappointing that the design is not permeable. It does not allow light or pedestrian traffic through from Wheatfield Way / the Fairfield to the Town Centre.
Design
Design is a very subjective thing. I wince as I pass the towers going up in Nine Elms on the train to London every morning and I do not think that TOPO is much better architecturally in the main. Moreover, on the Wheatfield Way aspect, TOPO is hardly in keeping with the Victorian villas in the conservation area on the opposite side of the road.
Affordable Housing
Most worryingly, the proposals include less than 15% affordable housing. I appreciate that the viability of the development is likely be affected by the welcome proposals to restore the Old Post Office and the Telephone Exchange rather than replace them with housing and the reduced height of the tower.
Nevertheless, 15% affordable housing is well below the target of 50% in local policy. It is much too low at a time when Kingston is crying out for affordable housing, and I find it very hard to accept that on such a big development this is the maximum that St George can offer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if I were one of the decision makers, I would not accept TOPO without significant modification to make the plans more acceptable to the people we have been elected to represent. I have no doubt that Kingston Council can meet the requirements of the London Plan to tackle the housing crisis. But it can do so by approving developments that are much more suitable for our Borough than TOPO.
Kingston can do far better on this site, meeting both local residents' aspirations for the shape of our Borough and the pressing need for new homes.
With best wishes,
James Berry MP
Kingston & Surbiton