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.
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
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
