The weight of opposition
When two and a half thousand people sign petitions against...
When one hundred opponents swarm in the Market Square...
When five hundred letters reject...
When twenty groups oppose...
When twelve oppose at a Council meeting on a rainy night...
When sixty minutes of opposing reasons are spoken...
...yet our Council is ready to say yes
When one hundred opponents swarm in the Market Square...
When five hundred letters reject...
When twenty groups oppose...
When twelve oppose at a Council meeting on a rainy night...
When sixty minutes of opposing reasons are spoken...
...yet our Council is ready to say yes
Kingston Councillors - wake up! You can not say yes to this.
Listen to what these 20 groups have to say....
Historic England (Built Environment)
Encourages the Council to reject these proposals.
They welcome bringing back into use two Grade II listed buildings which are on the Heritage at Risk Register. The proposals would, however, cause B1 2 significant harm to the setting of the listed buildings on the site due to the 13, 10 and 9 storey elements in particular, and harm to the setting of the Market House due to the proposed 19 storey tower, notably the glazed top. The development would detract from the setting of the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area and the Fairfield/Knight’s Park Conservation Areas, failing to meet the statutory test to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of locally and nationally designated heritage assets. It would also cause unnecessary and undesirable harm to the setting of Richmond Park, Bushy Park and Hampton Court Park and Hampton Court Palace which is of international significance, by increasing the prominence of built form of Kingston town centre and reducing the sense of openness of these historic landscapes, in particular due to the proposed tower with its light box tip. The harm has not been justified. The proposal does not meet the Council’s detailed guidance for development on this site and should be in accordance with the Eden Quarter SPD. Insensitive post war developments have undue dominance in near and distant views in Kingston. Regretfully the tower would surpass these buildings in height. As this site would clearly benefit from development and is a key part of the Eden Quarter Masterplan, we would encourage the Council to reject these proposals and encourage the developer to return with a scheme that respects its context and the unique identity of Kingston. Disagree that the proposals represent distinctive architecture that respond to the prevailing rhythm and articulation of the historic and modern buildings in the surrounding area, as the proposal is similar to other developments across London. Click here to see more...
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Conservation Areas Advisory Committee:
Make the following comments: It appears that the density exceeds London Plan standards while many units are below the range in the London Plan. The size of the outdoor spaces appears to be limited and details of the proposed control and management of the space should be agreed and its impact on the living conditions of the residential properties. The buildings should not exceed 16 storeys, the equivalent of Kingston College and Kingston Riverside. The proposed buildings have limited architectural merit. The buildings should be designed to reflect light down to the ground to avoid shadows. Affordable housing provision should be revisited.
Historic Royal Palaces:
Despite the reduction in height to 19 storeys, the proposed residential tower remains a tall building and will still have an impact on views from Hampton Court Palace and Home Park and it remains difficult to understand just what the extent of that impact will be. Concern that the view from the west of Shepherds Cottages, within Home Park, underplays the impact of the development during the day and night. Measures should be put in place to ensure light form high level windows are automatically obscured after dark to prevent intrusive light emission. An additional view has been provided from the Queen's Apartments and agree that the residential tower would not be visible, being obscured by existing trees. Lighted windows in the tower would be visible after dusk and the tower itself would come into view should the existing trees be lost. No views have been taken from the third floor of the Palace above the Queen's Apartment. We consider this an omission as we intend to make these publicly accessible as soon as funding permits.
Design Review Panel (Design South East):
An independent review was undertaken. The design principles are generally sound, the mix of uses is appropriate for the location, and the re-use of the two listed buildings is welcomed. Support the argument for a taller building that could herald the town centre in the approach from the south. Regarding the tower, concern that the architectural quality is not sufficient to justify its very considerable prominence in the local and wider townscape: it should be kept simple, upper projecting balconies should be removed. Concern was raised that it was slab like from the east and west. The 13 storey building is considered to be bulky and ungainly, has an uncomfortable relationship with the adjoining Listed Buildings whilst not offering enough to Ashdown Road. Concern about residential quality of the units which are indicative of too much development on site. Concern about the orientation and light to the public space to be created adjacent to the former post office building. Would like to see the scheme go further in anticipating or leading change elsewhere in the Eden Quarter. The Wheatfield Way frontage is not yet convincing. It should anticipate or even stimulate the prospect of a much calmer thoroughfare than the present relief road. Would like to see the public areas brought forward early in the development as declaration of intent about the intended quality of the scheme as a whole. Click here to see more...
St John's C of E Primary and Nursery School:
As the nearest primary school to the site, there is concern regarding the provision that Kingston Council intend to make for children living in these properties, given that applications for primary schools in the Borough exceed places available. The cost implications should be factored into the project.
Kingston Upon Thames Society:
Welcome the proposed restoration of the Old Post Office and the Telephone Exchange, creation of a new public space, the intention to attract boutique shops adding to range of retail outlets in Kingston and use of bricks to match the predominant style of the town, the accommodation of the mini-Hollands scheme, the varied appearance to Wheatfield Way and the increased space around the listed buildings. Concern about the Telephone Exchange which appears hemmed in, excessive density and insufficient affordable housing at 15%. 21 storey tower is unacceptable being considerably taller than anything else and having an unacceptable impact on views from Richmond Park, the Fairfield and Hampton Court which would set a dangerous precedent for other locations in the town centre, such as Eden Walk.
London and Middlesex Archaeological Society:
Object to 21 storey tower due to intrusion into views from Market Square, the settings of the adjacent conservation areas and the two on-site listed buildings. Welcome conservation/conversion of the listed buildings but this is undermined by the new development which is out of scale with these and which would harm the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area.
The Victorian Society:
Object due to harm to setting of two listed buildings on site and the setting and character of Kingston Old Town and Fairfield/ Knights Park Conservation Areas. The restoration of the two listed building's fabric and re-use is welcomed.
Friends of Richmond Park:
The impact from Thatched House Lodge would be adverse (not beneficial) and would intrude greatly. Lights at night from the taller elements could be intrusive.
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames:
Stongly objects. The overall size, height and position of the proposed development is considered to be excessive as the extent and prominence of the projection above the skyline would appear visually intrusive and fail to preserve the context of the historic assets of this Borough, including Listed Buildings and Grade 1 Historic Parks.
Richmond Society
Grateful for reductions in height, however, the bulk and mass would be clearly visible from important points in Richmond Park and would remain a significant impact on the park which would reduce the enjoyment of the park for all.
Mill Street Residents' Association:
Overdevelopment: too dense, too high, visual impact including impact on conservation areas, the Fairfield, Richmond Park and Home Park, insufficient affordable housing, impact on parking, transport, infrastructure and services, public space will be dark and windy. No right of assembly granted to public space. No public art. Lack of public access to tower.
Riverside Residents' Association:
Object to 21 storey tower
Knights Park Residents Association:
Object: inappropriate scale in proximity to two storey conservation areas of Victorian Villas and other nearby buildings. Impact on infrastructure and services. Excessive density. Impact on views/ skyline from Fairfield, the Market Place, Bushy Park and setting of All Saints Church (Kingston's only Grade 1 building and impact on wind. Impact B6 on privacy.
Kingston Residents Alliance:
Welcome development including revitalisation of Old Post Office and Telephone Exchange buildings providing a great asset and centre of interest for local business, niche shops and the promotion of cultural activities. Despite this, we object on the following grounds: lack of design quality, excessive height, scale, impact on historical context, such as Ancient Market, Victorian properties on Wheatfield Way, Fairfield Park, All Saints Church, Richmond Park and Hampton Court contrary to the Protection of Key Views in the Area Action Plan. Insufficient affordable housing. Impact on schools, GPs, hospital provision and other local infrastructure. Development fails to achieve high standards for sustainability and improve ecology and the environment. Kingston Council have not provided a framework for tall buildings for this site or the wider town centre. St George exhibitions do not show tall buildings and therefore their engagement with the community has been misleading.
Housing:
Information has not been provided regarding the location of the intermediate affordable units. Housing Services is concerned about the service charges for the intermediate units and is concerned about the affordability of the intermediate units and would require that they are located around a single core in the same way as the affordable rent units. The affordable housing units should have pro-rata parking spaces and each wheelchair unit should have an allocated disabled parking space. Concern regarding the quality of the affordable units adjacent to the Telephone Exchange. These units should be reviewed.
Neighbourhood Engineer:
132 car parking spaces are proposed, which would result in a shortfall of 233 spaces for the site in an area which is heavily subscribed. The lack of parking would lead to added pressure for residents parking provision in the area and therefore on the basis that residents are not eligible to apply for parking permits in the Controlled Parking Zone or car parks they raise no highway objections. 152 public car parking spaces would be lost which contradicts the vision of having a larger car park at the edge of the town centre to intercept traffic on the approach roads. Object to on-street servicing. Further information required regarding cycle parking provision to ensure that it is secured, covered and practical. A travel plan, car club space and 20% active/ 20% passive Electric Vehicle Charging Points. The drop off/ pick up area is not long enough to accommodate HGVs. Need to understand how the drop off/ pick up area will be controlled/ enforced to ensure no illegal parking takes place. A Section 278 agreement will be required for the new crossover, the layby, the footway and the removal of existing crossovers at the applicant's expense. The height of the car park/access to it should be 4.65m in height to allow fire brigade access.
Thames Water:
The existing water supply and waste water infrastructure cannot accommodate the needs of this application.
Sport England:
Object: new developments should be required to contribute towards meeting the demand they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by a robust evidence base such as an up to date Sports Facility Strategy, Playing Pitch Strategy or other relevant needs assessment. If demand for additional sports facilities is not met, it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities thereby creating deficiencies. Sport England are seeking clarification regarding identification of sports facility provision.
CQRA (Landlord for Charter Quay):
Welcome redevelopment of site and listed buildings to be restored to active use. Concern re: impact on character of Kingston from intensity of development and scale of the tower. Balance required between residential environment for occupiers and for businesses to attract customers.
Salmon (SHP Opportunity Fund Ltd: Owner of Surrey House/ BoConcept/Hippodrome Nightclub/NCP Car Park/Lever House):
Support B8 principle, mix of uses and height, although the tall elements should not prejudice the future development/ regeneration of adjacent sites or impact on daylight, sunlight and over-shadowing. Object to loss of town centre parking.
- extract from Kingston Town Planning Sub-Committee Meeting 14 May 2015 Report & Appendix B: Late Material and Development Control Committee 2 & 23 June 2015 agenda reports
Click here to see the rejection letters...