What we said at the re-decision meeting on the 25th of February 2016
Planning application 14/13247 ( Jan 2016 )
Keith Payne
The original submission attracted 201 letters of objection. This attracted 230. It has gone up.
Despite our overall objections, we have now been reduced to asking if the 3 reasons for refusal have now been addressed.
We are not anti-development. But we are here to tell you they have failed.
Anthony Evans
When the Committee considered this scheme last November, Councillors could have been directed by Planning Officers to refuse it on the grounds of ‘Bulk, height & massing’ – reasons often used by other Councils, when a scheme is clearly gross over development just like this one. But instead you came up with another 3 reasons, which we will now address:
The first reason for Refusal has regard to the impact upon the Listed Buildings
It is less bad than before. But the two Listed Buildings are still overpowered by the form, bulk & close proximity of the whole scheme. The sheer overwhelming height, the bulk & the density of this development quite clearly harms their setting, & that of the two adjacent Conservation Areas.
Therefore, it is contrary to all the advice given in the NPPF - & numerous advice documents by Historic England - that such a scheme as this cannot & must not be allowed if it might damage the importance & setting of very important heritage assets as these two buildings.
Therefore, the first reason for refusal has not been resolved at all , & the Kingston Society demands that this Application be refused.
Rory Mcmorrow
Refusal 2 - not enough 3 bed properties and not unjustified why.
The scheme does not provide a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units as required by policy. The meager addition of four extra 3-bed flats, only increases the proportion to 12%. Well short of the 30% minimum.
The developer has attempted to explain this shortfall, but have failed to provide robust reasons.
They cite estate agent's current demand; they cite under-provision in other developments; But as this committee said in November - if development these days is mostly flats, then the combined effect will be an unbalanced mix of housing stock in the longer term.
They cite difficulty in meeting guidance on balcony space - but this demonstrates that the intensity of the development is not fit for purpose. It is this scheme that is unsuitable - not the policy. ( And it’s interesting how “guidance” is being cherry-picked here )
The second reason for refusal is not resolved
Tony Lancaster
Reason 3 for refusal was that…… the proposed 16 storey element of the scheme would not relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of the surrounding buildings.
And that’s because it is probably not exemplar design. I say probably because you, the planners and me, we literally don’t know what we’re talking about. We don’t know what we’re talking about because in requiring exemplar design, since we haven’t defined it, we can’t say whether the requirement has been met.
What we can say beyond question is that the applicant has resubmitted the previous design with just a few minor tweaks! The same flawed design as before, with the same unjustified height contraventions of the EQDB policy. The tinkered with design has become a Janus, a two faced proposal with London stock facing one way and red bricks facing the other. Brick cladding on a tower block is both structurally and aesthetically dishonest. Brick structures should sit firmly rooted on the ground, they should be part of the clay from which they are formed.
We are very disappointed that the developer has failed to engage with the local community as they are required to do by the NPPF.
The expectation set at the November meeting was that the developer would come back with a new and acceptable design for this important corner of the scheme.
This component of TOPO failed before and it fails still because it is, in every respect that matters, effectively the same.
Therefore the third reason for refusal is not resolved
George Rome Innes
Democracy - That form of Government in which the sovereign power resides in the people.
Democracy is based on trust. The will of the people can only be exercised if they are fully informed. These Developers talk of Consultation; there has been no true Consultation. Plans presented as a fait accompli with misleading images have been revealed for comment and minor alterations made.That is not true Consultation this is not Democratic.
All along there has been strong local and borough wide opposition to this overdevelopment of Kingston And against the building of a tower, a meaningless icon. You cannot allow this scheme to go ahead against the will of the local people. It would be open season for the speculators. Speculators invited in to have their way with our town.As our elected Councilors it is your duty and responsibility to represent our views and protect Kingston from this desecration.We rely totally on you to save the day.
Democracy: - That form of Government in which the sovereign power resides in the people,and is exercised by officers elected by them..
The original submission attracted 201 letters of objection. This attracted 230. It has gone up.
Despite our overall objections, we have now been reduced to asking if the 3 reasons for refusal have now been addressed.
We are not anti-development. But we are here to tell you they have failed.
Anthony Evans
When the Committee considered this scheme last November, Councillors could have been directed by Planning Officers to refuse it on the grounds of ‘Bulk, height & massing’ – reasons often used by other Councils, when a scheme is clearly gross over development just like this one. But instead you came up with another 3 reasons, which we will now address:
The first reason for Refusal has regard to the impact upon the Listed Buildings
It is less bad than before. But the two Listed Buildings are still overpowered by the form, bulk & close proximity of the whole scheme. The sheer overwhelming height, the bulk & the density of this development quite clearly harms their setting, & that of the two adjacent Conservation Areas.
Therefore, it is contrary to all the advice given in the NPPF - & numerous advice documents by Historic England - that such a scheme as this cannot & must not be allowed if it might damage the importance & setting of very important heritage assets as these two buildings.
Therefore, the first reason for refusal has not been resolved at all , & the Kingston Society demands that this Application be refused.
Rory Mcmorrow
Refusal 2 - not enough 3 bed properties and not unjustified why.
The scheme does not provide a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units as required by policy. The meager addition of four extra 3-bed flats, only increases the proportion to 12%. Well short of the 30% minimum.
The developer has attempted to explain this shortfall, but have failed to provide robust reasons.
They cite estate agent's current demand; they cite under-provision in other developments; But as this committee said in November - if development these days is mostly flats, then the combined effect will be an unbalanced mix of housing stock in the longer term.
They cite difficulty in meeting guidance on balcony space - but this demonstrates that the intensity of the development is not fit for purpose. It is this scheme that is unsuitable - not the policy. ( And it’s interesting how “guidance” is being cherry-picked here )
The second reason for refusal is not resolved
Tony Lancaster
Reason 3 for refusal was that…… the proposed 16 storey element of the scheme would not relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of the surrounding buildings.
And that’s because it is probably not exemplar design. I say probably because you, the planners and me, we literally don’t know what we’re talking about. We don’t know what we’re talking about because in requiring exemplar design, since we haven’t defined it, we can’t say whether the requirement has been met.
What we can say beyond question is that the applicant has resubmitted the previous design with just a few minor tweaks! The same flawed design as before, with the same unjustified height contraventions of the EQDB policy. The tinkered with design has become a Janus, a two faced proposal with London stock facing one way and red bricks facing the other. Brick cladding on a tower block is both structurally and aesthetically dishonest. Brick structures should sit firmly rooted on the ground, they should be part of the clay from which they are formed.
We are very disappointed that the developer has failed to engage with the local community as they are required to do by the NPPF.
The expectation set at the November meeting was that the developer would come back with a new and acceptable design for this important corner of the scheme.
This component of TOPO failed before and it fails still because it is, in every respect that matters, effectively the same.
Therefore the third reason for refusal is not resolved
George Rome Innes
Democracy - That form of Government in which the sovereign power resides in the people.
Democracy is based on trust. The will of the people can only be exercised if they are fully informed. These Developers talk of Consultation; there has been no true Consultation. Plans presented as a fait accompli with misleading images have been revealed for comment and minor alterations made.That is not true Consultation this is not Democratic.
All along there has been strong local and borough wide opposition to this overdevelopment of Kingston And against the building of a tower, a meaningless icon. You cannot allow this scheme to go ahead against the will of the local people. It would be open season for the speculators. Speculators invited in to have their way with our town.As our elected Councilors it is your duty and responsibility to represent our views and protect Kingston from this desecration.We rely totally on you to save the day.
Democracy: - That form of Government in which the sovereign power resides in the people,and is exercised by officers elected by them..
