Due to its excessive height and form the proposed residential tower would cause harm to the settings and significance of many designated heritage assets;
Due to its excessive height and form the proposed residential tower would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area,
Due to its design, height and location it would conflict with planning policies on the location and design of tall buildings and the treatment of the public realm.
The recent Appeal Decision
The recent appeal decision of 2019 by the Secretary of State (1) is the starting point for evaluating these proposals. The site is the same, the location is within the settings of the same designated heritage assets and area, and the same planning policies apply.
The reasons why the previous scheme was so robustly refused:
In his Appeal Decision for the previous scheme the Secretary of State considered “the harm to the settings and significance of the designated heritage assets alone to be determinative in this appeal and on the basis of paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework I need go no further”.
“However, I have found that the proposal would have a number of other adverse impacts. I have concluded that the design of the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, in terms of its height, massing, bulk and form and its overall impact on the public realm. Given the scale of harm I have identified, I attach significant weight to this as an adverse impact of the proposal.”
It would “conflict with the design policies in the development plan, including Policies CS8, DM10 and DM11 of the Core Strategy and Policies 7.4,7.6 and 7.7 of the London Plan… Given the important role they play, together with the associated EQDB, in guiding the location and design of tall buildings in Kingston and in the treatment of the public realm, I attach significant weight to the proposal’s conflict with these policies and with the design expectations of paragraph 127 of the Framework”
(1) Planning inspectors, appointed by the Secretary of State and said ‘to stand in the shoes of the Secretary of State‘, are given power by Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Determination of Appeals by Appointed Persons) (Prescribed Classes) Regulations 1997
Like the previous proposals The Society objects to this Application. The plans represent a gross over development of the site and will seriously damage Kingston, its heritage assets and the town environs