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 might be acceptable

Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
We are not opposed to building, just bad building. 
In summer we ran a pop-up survey with the 'Create Streets' organisation to ask Kingston residents what kind of development might be acceptable. Here is what could be acceptable on this site:

Height
The proposed development must be modified to comply with the 
generous height guidance given by the Eden Quarter Development brief SPD; and to respect the existing building heights in the vicinity. Landmark Tower J should be reduced to 9-13 storeys and the Ashdown Road Tower to 6-8 storeys. 

Density
Density must be lowered to fall well within the range given by the London Plan of 650 - 1100 habitable rooms per hectare. We do not accept that the density calculation should include the public space, the square or the two existing listed buildings.

Public Realm
The proposed Post Office Square should be re-orientated to receive an adequate amount of direct sunlight, and be flanked by open space, gardens or 
2-3 storey buildings of a scale similar to itself.



Affordable Housing
The proposed development must provide 50% of the units as affordable housing to comply with Kingston Councils' Affordable Housing SPD. 

Infrastructure and parking
The proposed development must provide a reasonable amount of public and private parking.
It must also provide sufficient contribution for GP surgeries, schools and infrastructure. 

Architectural quality
The architecture must be improved to be less generic, of  'exemplar standard of design', and to adequately respond to the site and context - as required by the Eden Quarter Development brief SPD. 
If the 'landmark' requires a tower then its height and form must be improved to avoid harm to views and must have sufficient architectural merit to justify any height above 9 storeys.
> Click here to see the KRA summer pop-up survey results
> Click here to see the 'Create Streets Guide for Councillors' 

HOW TO MAKE AN ATTRACTIVE CITY: One could not go far wrong by applying the following 6 principles as explained in this video:

1. How buildings should look and cities laid out: Not too chaotic, not too ordered
2. Visible life - connection with people doing things is what makes successful streets, markets and squares
3. Compact with 
public spaces - avoid the isolation of dead dormitory suburbs. Instead enjoy good public squares that provide moderation and escape from the intensities of home.
4. Orientation and Mystery - provide some enclosure
and places to get lost. Strike a balance between small streets and large.
5. Scale - who has air rights? 5 stories is an ideal height, above which we feel insignificant. 
6. Make it Local - cities and their buildings shouldn't look the same everywhere. Cities need to have a strong local character. 
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.