Sustainability
Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
This is not sustainable development
From the 2011 Localism Act there is a 'Presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
This means if the development can be shown to be 'sustainable' then it should be GRANTED unless there are material reasons for REFUSAL. This is clearly good for developers, subject to establishing the meaning of 'sustainable' and depending on how local planning authorities will implement the policy locally.
What is sustainable development?
As Viv Evans explained to the North Kingston Forum on 23rd September 2015, sustainability has 3 parts that need to be satisfied: Social, Environmental and Economic.
This means if the development can be shown to be 'sustainable' then it should be GRANTED unless there are material reasons for REFUSAL. This is clearly good for developers, subject to establishing the meaning of 'sustainable' and depending on how local planning authorities will implement the policy locally.
What is sustainable development?
As Viv Evans explained to the North Kingston Forum on 23rd September 2015, sustainability has 3 parts that need to be satisfied: Social, Environmental and Economic.
Where this development fails on sustainability
1) The development fails on the social aspect of sustainable development.
In this increasingly globalised world people increasingly want a sense of place. Research shows that "Neighbourhood" and "External Appearance" are two of the most important things people value in their homes. Most people want to live somewhere fairly normal on a normal street. Nearly all of us aspire to the physical attributes of an old fashioned street, the pub, you can pop over the road, a strong neigbourhood (1)
This scheme fails to give its residents a healthy relationship to the street.
In the words of the Design Panel:
In this increasingly globalised world people increasingly want a sense of place. Research shows that "Neighbourhood" and "External Appearance" are two of the most important things people value in their homes. Most people want to live somewhere fairly normal on a normal street. Nearly all of us aspire to the physical attributes of an old fashioned street, the pub, you can pop over the road, a strong neigbourhood (1)
This scheme fails to give its residents a healthy relationship to the street.
In the words of the Design Panel:
"It was not clear where the main street entrances to many of the apartments would be, particularly for those units deep in the centre of the plan...It was also not clear how a visitor might find their way from the car park to a particular apartment without the use of extensive signage. Residents should be able to give clear and simple directions to their visitors. The depth of plan means that internal corridors will have little or no daylight."
At best - this is not the type of housing Kingston residents aspire to live (2) , but the darker problem is one of isolation.
It has been shown in as many as 60 sociological studies - that people living in poorly designed large blocks suffer more from isolation, depression and crime (1). This then is not sustainable development in sociological terms.
2) Socially unsustainable housing will strain future social care budgets.
The knock-on effect of the social failings on the economic aspect of sustainable development is easy to see.
Residents, possibly elderly residents, would be at greater risk of isolation in these apartments - adding in turn to the strain on our social care system - the largest cost within our shrinking Council budget. The risk to economic sustainability over the life of this development is clear. This then is not sustainable development in economic terms either.
3) The development falls short on the environmental standards of sustainable development.
The Council has committed to the following sustainability practices:
4) The development compromises the supply of development land.
The height and proximity of the 12 storey Ashdown Road 'bookend' tower compromises the potential for further development on the Ashdown Road carpark site immediately to the North. It will overshadow and block light to this sites southern, sunny edge.
With such a scarce supply of well located brown field sites coming forward for development, creating this kind of harm to such a site can not be described as sustainable development.
(1) - from createstreets.com
(2) - KRA popup survey
It has been shown in as many as 60 sociological studies - that people living in poorly designed large blocks suffer more from isolation, depression and crime (1). This then is not sustainable development in sociological terms.
2) Socially unsustainable housing will strain future social care budgets.
The knock-on effect of the social failings on the economic aspect of sustainable development is easy to see.
Residents, possibly elderly residents, would be at greater risk of isolation in these apartments - adding in turn to the strain on our social care system - the largest cost within our shrinking Council budget. The risk to economic sustainability over the life of this development is clear. This then is not sustainable development in economic terms either.
3) The development falls short on the environmental standards of sustainable development.
The Council has committed to the following sustainability practices:
- “Major developments should meet Code Level 5 from 2013”
- “From 2013 onwards: BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ “
4) The development compromises the supply of development land.
The height and proximity of the 12 storey Ashdown Road 'bookend' tower compromises the potential for further development on the Ashdown Road carpark site immediately to the North. It will overshadow and block light to this sites southern, sunny edge.
With such a scarce supply of well located brown field sites coming forward for development, creating this kind of harm to such a site can not be described as sustainable development.
(1) - from createstreets.com
(2) - KRA popup survey
Page updated on 24 Sept 2015