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

What we said at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015

Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
​

So we are back again. Scheme number 3.
The tower is redesigned and lower. That may be less bad than before.
But when you look at the model in front of you, and imagine walking around the site: 
You could be forgiven for asking what apart from the tallest tower, is different?
Most of this scheme is indistinguishable from the last.  
That is because this is in reality - just another iteration of the same flawed scheme.

Lets stop talking about comparisons. We are here to oppose this scheme, for much the same reasons we gave you last time.
We have not planned anything grand today. The 250 residents who over-filled this place in June, what we said; the sun-shade simulation: That is all on record. You know how we feel:
  • That the proposal would over-develop this sensitive site with a monolith of towers, generic and brutal in appearance, causing irreversible damage to our heritage, identity and sense of place.  
  • That we must remain resolute on this the first of many Eden Quarter sites coming forward. The damage to precedent can not be undone.
  • That we have more than just rhetoric: we have researched this and have sound and substantial reasons to back a REFUSAL - should you be minded to refuse, as we hope you will.

​
Today we have 7 speakers to make these 7 points:
  1. This is not sustainable development
  2. Harm to Heritage
  3. Eden Quarter SPD non-compliance
  4. Not exemplar architectural design
  5. Poor public consultation
  6. Poor Affordability
  7. Final opinion    
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.