Introduction
Council Officer Scott introduced scheme of proposed hotel and residential development.
Ran through late submissions.
Thames Landscape and English Heritage have now commented.
307 dwellings per hectare
A number of the potential reasons for refusal (3 out of 4) had been withdrawn due to late changes including energy efficiency, traffic safety concerns and the introduction of parking permits as opposed to the sale of parking spaces.
Noted Canbury Gardens as being a conservation area as well as being classed as Metropolitan open Land
Summarised all comments taken into account over whole extended consultation process including all earlier comments.
Scheme is in accordance with K+20 policy including requirement for additional 1000 dwellings in town centre.
Endorsing application and footprint including existing approved scheme to to build over substation (original scheme used as a reference point).
NB: Scheme does not include barge dock.
Some concerns over pinch point for daylight in Trent House, deemed acceptable.
All social housing located adjacent to EDF substation, next to and on top of block.
Objectors (limited to 20 minutes in total)
1. Cllr Arbour - GLA member for RBK and Richmond
Noted complaints from Hampton Wick residents who already complain that area is used as a car park for Kingston town centre.
Scheme would loom over Hampton Wick.
Concerned over impact on riverside.
Has lived within a mile of site, feels it will destroy character.
Proposed that instead of withdrawing reasons for refusal, committee should be adding reasons including (a) Contrary to SDR6 requirement to conserve and enhance environment and (b) B1 strategic requirement to preserve special views
Has no objection to uses proposed.
Made an additional comment that scheme was contrary to GLA Blue Ribbon strategy.
2. Mr Godding - Planning Secretary for Kingston Society
Objects to bulk and height - railway is dividing line between town centre and more natural riverside environment.
Intrusion on ambience.
Affordable housing is inadequate. Only 20% provided for. RBKs targets are 40%.
In additional larger family units are required as opposed to 1/2 units proposed.
Car parking is inadequate. Furthermore no car parking is made available to affordable housing units.
Traffic congestion
No increase in schooling provision.
3. Mr Chris Patterson - Fund Manager for Norwich Union who own Bentalls B and 7 Kings Car Parks
Welcome 4 star hotel but only one that provides proper facilities
Hotel visitors will use spaces designed for retail users
RBK has a retail focus and is in competition with Croydon, Crawley and Guildford.
In Support Of The Proposal (limited to 20 minutes in total)
1. Philip Villers - MD of Indigo Planning, consultants to NHP Development
Spin.
2. Tom Moran Business Development Director from Moran Hotels
Gave overview of their operations in Dublin, Cork, Cricklewood and Chiswick (Brent).
Focus on 4 Star Deluxe market
Obvious demand plus Olympics.
3. Philip Trim - NHP
Rebutted inaccuracies in papers regarding affordable housing.
30% of units are 3/4 bedroom not 23% as stated.
Meet Housing Corporation, Housing Quality Initiative and Lifetime Homes standards
Worked closely with an RSL - Moat Housing
GLA accept affordable housing proposals.
Used expert Chris Marsh (a specialist social housing consultant who has also in the past done some work for RBK) who values the properties at £240 per sq foot and in line with Saville's valuation of £204 per sq foot.
Completely disagrees with RBK officers valuation of £350 per sq foot based on advice given by "small Kent based" RSL.
Made an offer to increase affordable housing if values can be proved to be higher than those stated in the proposal.
4. Teddy Walker - Independent traffic consultant
Emphasized adequacy of material provided, having worked closely with RBK officers.
5. Steve Tunstall - Royal Quarter resident
Letter read out as absent due to ill health.
Closest resident, 100% behind proposals to improve the area.
Requests councillors ignore hard core of objectors who are against progress being made.
Questions For Objectors From Councillors
None
Questions For Developers
Cllr David Cunningham (DC)
To Mr Moran: To qualify what owner / operator means in terms of being tied in given comments 'dependent on planning'. Response was that if planning was permitted, Moran Group would commit to the hotel. A second query over the amount of car parking spaces for hotel. Mr Moran commented that their group do not like waste and that car parks are under utilised in their other properties so not a problem.
To Philip Trim: To clarify comments made at the Kingston Town Centre Management meeting that "height was to make more profit for the developer" and that he might be happy with a lower property. Response was that that the comments were probably not taken in context. Instead he was referring the original 6-8 storey construction which had been deemed acceptable by many but which would have been refused on there being a requirement for a more contemporary and iconic development plus stay away from canbury Gardens and increase density. The new scheme addresses these points and has been done in complete co-operation with council officers.
Cllr David Ryder-Mills
To Mr Walker: Comments that access on Richmond Road is congested.
Cllr David Edwards
To Philip Trim: Regarding his claimed inaccuracies in the officers report, could he be more specific? Furthermore their views on the comments raised by (a) English Heritage - a critical views analysis was done early on and provided by the developer as part of the supporting material
(b) Thames Landscape - the developers simply do not agree
Cllr Chrissie Hitchcock
To Philip Trim: Clarification on offer of additional affordable housing units
Special Representation (Accepted by Committee) by Cllr David Glasspool - Ward councillor
Objects to height. Questioned the long term suitability of high designs.
Traffic: Believes the scheme will move the situation from unsatisfactory to very unsatisfactory.
Questions 'who' raised the requirement for high rise?
Has a low rise development been considered?
Where is the high rise requirement coming from?
Responses to questions to Officers
Cllr Tony Arbour's point re Blue Ribbon Strategy - Mr Scott commented that whilst not mentioned specifically, referenced implicitly.
Concerns over design concerns raised by GLA have been addressed.
Cllr Osbourne: rejects comments on democratic rights of car ownership, clean natural environments also a valid right. Noted that car parks are for all used not just for retail. Also noted that Hampton Wick objects to everything. Overall does not like the height and does not like the design.
Cllr Cunningham: Asked Mr Scott to clarify linkage of schemes - hotel / Skerne Rd / substation and the two high rise residential blocks.
Mr Scott noted that the current recommendation was to Refuse. If the recommendation had been to Pemit then a Section 106 agreement would be put before the committee setting out many stringent conditions. Not prepared as not relevant given current recommendation.
Cllr Bamford: How did the disputed figures on affordable housing come to rise?Furthermore is there any evidence of extreme traffic congestion? No.
Cllr Smith: Asked officers to clarify the calculation on density. Note the site is 1.5 hectares.
Cllr Edwards: Believes the Skerne Road elevation whilst broken up is just far too long. Caroline Geary of Urban Design explained that the design is driven by the unique circumstances of the site.
Cllr Bamford: Questioned checks on Land Registry and access road. Response was that Land Registry checks was not a planning issue, rather a rights issue and would be handled by the developer. Paul Drummond confirmed that the design of the access road had been updated and deemed acceptable in one of the later submissions.
Cllr Ryder-Mills: Re flood assessment. Officers reported that no comments have been received from the Environment Agency since June 2007. Therefore no flood assessment or demonstration of dry access in event of flood conditions is available.
Cllr Osbourne: Re flood assessment. Knows there will be no dry access as even "Richmond Road would be under water"!!!
Open Discussion
Cllr Cunningham: Objects to height. Skerne Road proposal is welcome and a positive improvement and so supports that part of the proposal. However, feels the other sections should be less high. He therefore objects and would requests that the developer comes back with a lower proposal.
Cllr Ryder-Mills: Questioned rhetorically whether the design meet the criteria set out? Feels design is contemporary and elegant, not too high, deals with the problem of the substation. However feels hotel should be on the riverside. Furthermore the main issue is to do with the affordable housing. Feels the developer originally paid lip service and even now feels that given the demand for family housing there still too few and undersized "out of sync". Would like the developers to go back and turn the scheme around.
Mr Scott asked Cllrs to clarify what height means in terms of formulating any reason for refusal. Was likely to be along the lines of "height, mass and density out of proportion to the riverside".
Cllr George: Supports the views and objections raised by English Heritage.
Cllr Vicky Harris: Added her own comments and move to sum up. The location of affordable housing is questionable. Overall likes the design. Moved to pass reason for refusal as being affordable housing and height.
Decision
Refused unanimously(The meeting was closed)
No comments:
Post a Comment