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
On 2nd June, we attempted to present this in the short time given. Here is the Full Text version. 

Urban design

Non-Compliance of St George Scheme with RBK’s Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD
See below for text only version.
What is the existing character of Kingston centre?
A historic, riverside market town;
A range of new and old buildings;
Generally low-rise and architecturally diverse;
A vibrant and attractive place to live, to work and to visit.

What objectives were defined in the SPD?
We support all the Objectives defined in the SPD;
We would like to see the existing character of the town centre maintained and improved;
Where poorer quality buildings and re-development sites exist, we would like to see schemes that fulfil this.

How can Kingston town centre effectively be announced with a “gateway building"?
We support the idea of a “gateway building” that draws visitors into the centre of the town.
A suitable gateway for Kingston would be one that reflects the existing character shown in the slide above;
A modern tower-block bears no relation to the town’s scale and character and would be incongruous;
Many of the residents opposed this aspect during the consultation for the SPD;
We therefore disagree with the one of the Development Parameters set in the SPD, and its proposed implementation in St George’s scheme;
We nevertheless note that the SPD suggested 9+ storeys, not 19 storeys.

What is the SPD’s guidance on Building Heights?

We agree that “any new buildings must take the sensitivity of the historic core of the town centre into account”. The St George scheme does not fulfil this.
The KCFE tower has been cited by St George (ref. public meeting, All Saints Church, May 2015) as a precedent for additional tower blocks; it is a hideous building, conspicuous from some distance (Richmond Park; Hampton Court Home Park; etc.); it shows the adverse impact of any new tower block nearby; it should not be taken as a precedent for a new tower block on the TOPO site, or anywhere else in Kingston.

How can the TOPO site be enhanced?

We support other aspects of the Development Parameters set in the SPD;
The reference to the Apple Market is appropriate;
The proposed St George scheme bears no resemblance to the Apple Market and is therefore inappropriate.

How does the scheme impact on the site and its environs?

The proposed development comprises several tall buildings, all of which dwarf the existing surrounding buildings;
This overly-dense, high-rise scheme would create an impermeable block, through which there would be no public access;
The residents would be looking out of their windows directly into someone else’s windows – a most intrusive and un-homely sensation;
The nearby houses in Wheatfield Way and Grange Road would be overwhelmed.
The wind would be funnelled along Brooke Street and Ashdown Road, making the street-level walkways cold and unattractive;
The buildings would prevent the sun penetrating the communal residents’ gardens and the public areas, depriving the area of warmth and brightness (ref. shading analysis);
The new public open space would be cold, windy and shady due to its aspect and the surrounding blocks; in all seasons it would be an unattractive place to linger and wholly unsuitable for outdoor restaurants.

In Conclusion
The scheme proposed by St George is unsuitable for the TOPO site and does not comply with the SPD:
It is wholly out-of-character with Kingston.
It will not provide an effective gateway to Kingston town centre.
It will not enhance the site from its present condition.
There is no meaningful precedent for its proposed tower blocks.
It will significantly detract from the area by creating a cold, dark and windy environment.
It does not satisfy the SPD requirement to create an attractive new public space.
It is a gross over-development of the site.

We therefore request that the Councillors reject St George’s application.


Back to Speaker Notes 
urban_design.pdf
File Size: 1303 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.