Market House to Pizza House
Our Plea to Kingston Councillors and Planning Officers:
Since Leader of the Council's comments, a further 5,000 people have signed the petition to object to the application and they may not know how to address the exact planning policy violations. Overwhelming feeling is The Growth Committee got this issue completely wrong and this should be stopped before it is too late.
If you really want planning reasons to reject this application, you only need to look at your own planning policies, such as Core Strategy (2012), the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (2008) and the Eden Quarter Development Brief. Surely one of these documents are worth the paper (funded by us council tax payers we presume) they are written on?
In the applicant’s planning statement, policy violations are there to see. For example, Policy CS12 says “The Council will maintain and enhance the attractive and distinctive character of Kingston Town Centre and its role as a sustainable Metropolitan Centre, through the implementation of the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan.”
Policy K11 says “The Council will seek a range of enhancements to the Old Town Conservation Area (OTCA).”
Or take a look at the Eden Quarter Development Brief (EQDB). By hook or by crook, you are implementing this. As you know, as part of the EQDB, there are at least two major housing/retail/office schemes soon to be arriving within a few minutes’ walk of this venue. Between them they will bring additional 7,000+ square metres of food and restaurant space to the area. Now the Market House is going to be another chain restaurant very soon. It is true that ‘what the Council should not be doing is making judgments about the business rationale of the restaurant business.” However, the Council might also show some business acumen and hold on to family silver until the best option arrives. Not the best of what is available in the short term. There are 9 pizza restaurants and 11 bars within the immediate vicinity of the Market Square. Just because KingstonFirst or other past schemes failed to look after the building on behalf of the people, this does not mean no one else can. Think again. This will not bring the best return to council tax payers.
Remember, the Market House has a majestic presence in the centre of this ancient town. It has a unique appeal to all visitors. and takes a centre space regenerated with great promises only couple of years ago. Once the “STABLES” signage finds its way onto the building frontage and the tables outside fill with paying customers, no matter how good their pie, you diminish the core offering of this town. Surely one of you will note the applicant’s planning statement (p8) “Signage proposals will be submitted in due course under separate cover.”
Back in June 2015 Kevin Davis said:
“The borough has a fascinating history and rich heritage. However, this fantastic story is not explained or promoted well to residents and visitors. If we really want to invest in the future of our borough and underpin its growth, we have to start by remembering that our past defines our future and we should be better exploiting our richest assets as the borough grows… A new Heritage Strategy will help us achieve our objectives and help us remember our past as we build our future.”
Absolutely agree, but residents need deeds not words, Mr Davis. This is your moment.
If the issue is about cost containment – which we understand, as we are the taxpayers funding it after all – then surely the public need to be involved in what the priorities are and perhaps the Council should look more closely into the spending of KingstonFutures?
In the last budget announcement, we learned that the total funding available in 2016/17 for Kingston Futures is about £3.7 million. We also note £2.2m of s106 payments obtained from local developments are going back to KingstonFutures funding as “Strategic Payment”. If the Council can find £1.7m for “other estimated expenditure” why can it not find a small trickle of heritage spending to fulfil this lovely building’s purpose for the greater good of the town?
True, £150k per annum is not a small amount to snigger at, but having a look at the some of the numbers bandied around by the Council above, residents have the right to ask: how can you find all this money for KingstonFutures but not for Kingston’s Heritage?
Despite Mr Davis’ best efforts to blog away all the concerns raised, residents will continue to object to the making over of our town centre into Destination Pizza and the Council should likewise reject this application because of its undue harm to our precious Heritage Assets.
Since Leader of the Council's comments, a further 5,000 people have signed the petition to object to the application and they may not know how to address the exact planning policy violations. Overwhelming feeling is The Growth Committee got this issue completely wrong and this should be stopped before it is too late.
If you really want planning reasons to reject this application, you only need to look at your own planning policies, such as Core Strategy (2012), the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (2008) and the Eden Quarter Development Brief. Surely one of these documents are worth the paper (funded by us council tax payers we presume) they are written on?
In the applicant’s planning statement, policy violations are there to see. For example, Policy CS12 says “The Council will maintain and enhance the attractive and distinctive character of Kingston Town Centre and its role as a sustainable Metropolitan Centre, through the implementation of the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan.”
Policy K11 says “The Council will seek a range of enhancements to the Old Town Conservation Area (OTCA).”
Or take a look at the Eden Quarter Development Brief (EQDB). By hook or by crook, you are implementing this. As you know, as part of the EQDB, there are at least two major housing/retail/office schemes soon to be arriving within a few minutes’ walk of this venue. Between them they will bring additional 7,000+ square metres of food and restaurant space to the area. Now the Market House is going to be another chain restaurant very soon. It is true that ‘what the Council should not be doing is making judgments about the business rationale of the restaurant business.” However, the Council might also show some business acumen and hold on to family silver until the best option arrives. Not the best of what is available in the short term. There are 9 pizza restaurants and 11 bars within the immediate vicinity of the Market Square. Just because KingstonFirst or other past schemes failed to look after the building on behalf of the people, this does not mean no one else can. Think again. This will not bring the best return to council tax payers.
Remember, the Market House has a majestic presence in the centre of this ancient town. It has a unique appeal to all visitors. and takes a centre space regenerated with great promises only couple of years ago. Once the “STABLES” signage finds its way onto the building frontage and the tables outside fill with paying customers, no matter how good their pie, you diminish the core offering of this town. Surely one of you will note the applicant’s planning statement (p8) “Signage proposals will be submitted in due course under separate cover.”
Back in June 2015 Kevin Davis said:
“The borough has a fascinating history and rich heritage. However, this fantastic story is not explained or promoted well to residents and visitors. If we really want to invest in the future of our borough and underpin its growth, we have to start by remembering that our past defines our future and we should be better exploiting our richest assets as the borough grows… A new Heritage Strategy will help us achieve our objectives and help us remember our past as we build our future.”
Absolutely agree, but residents need deeds not words, Mr Davis. This is your moment.
If the issue is about cost containment – which we understand, as we are the taxpayers funding it after all – then surely the public need to be involved in what the priorities are and perhaps the Council should look more closely into the spending of KingstonFutures?
In the last budget announcement, we learned that the total funding available in 2016/17 for Kingston Futures is about £3.7 million. We also note £2.2m of s106 payments obtained from local developments are going back to KingstonFutures funding as “Strategic Payment”. If the Council can find £1.7m for “other estimated expenditure” why can it not find a small trickle of heritage spending to fulfil this lovely building’s purpose for the greater good of the town?
True, £150k per annum is not a small amount to snigger at, but having a look at the some of the numbers bandied around by the Council above, residents have the right to ask: how can you find all this money for KingstonFutures but not for Kingston’s Heritage?
Despite Mr Davis’ best efforts to blog away all the concerns raised, residents will continue to object to the making over of our town centre into Destination Pizza and the Council should likewise reject this application because of its undue harm to our precious Heritage Assets.
