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. 

What might be acceptable?

I speak today for myself, for the almost two and a half residents who signed petitions against this proposal, and for Kingston Residents' Alliance, one of many groups that agree this proposal has got to be rejected. 

You’ve heard many objections. But we all have agreed that Kingston does need more homes. So let me tell you what could be acceptable to the residents of Kingston, and to conclude. 

Height 

The proposed development simply must be modified - to comply with the already generous height guidance given by the Eden Quarter Development brief SPD. And it must respect existing building  heights in the vicinity. Landmark Tower J should be reduced to between nine and 13 storeys; and the  Ashdown Road Tower to between six and eight.  Those are heights that might be acceptable.

Affordable Housing 

The proposed development should, of course, provide 50% of the units as affordable housing, to comply with Kingston Council’s own Affordable Housing SPD.  

Density 

Density has to be lowered to fall well within the range given by the London Plan of 650 - 1100 habitable rooms per hectare. We, the community, do not accept that the density calculation should  include the public space, the square or the two existing listed buildings. And may I say, working in public health, I am very concerned about the effect of this density on community health.

Infrastructure 

The proposed development simply has to demonstrate plans for sufficient GP surgeries, schools and infrastructure. Increased public transport, cycle ways and pedestrian routes, and a reasonable amount of public and private parking, all need to be a coherent part of the proposal. These are not details. They will affect the well-being of every one of us.

Public Realm 

The proposed Post Office Square should be re-oriented to receive an adequate amount of direct sunlight, and be flanked by space, ideally green space, or else at least by elegant two to three storey  buildings of a similar scale to its own. 

Architectural quality 


The architecture should respond adequately its site and context - as required by the Eden Quarter Development brief SPD. It should be of exemplar standard of design - and not generic, which it currently is.  If the 'landmark' requires a tower, then its height and form should avoid harm to views of Kingston. And to justify any height above 9 storeys, a tower must have sufficient architectural merit. 


To conclude

Despite the many consultations on site and with its neighbours, St George has failed dismally to respond to residents’ concerns. Their amended proposal has struck residents as derisory and insulting. 

I put it to you, that there is a great wave of angry opposition in Kingston, which common sense tells us cannot be ignord. The multitude of policy and statutory shortcomings have also got to be addressed. To put it simply - too much is being asked of this site by this proposal. 

We urge St George to come back with a winning design that enhances the Kingston we are all so proud of, and which we all want to protect and preserve.  

For this proposal, we join the many others, in strongly urging our council to refuse this application for consent. 

Thank you.


Back to Speaker Notes 
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.