Planning Applications are submitted for the three towers cluster “Eden Campus” development proposed for the Surrey House Island Site. These applications are now live.

Online comments close on 4 Nov, or email: development.management@kingston.gov.uk

20/02495/FUL – 10 & 11 Storey Office Towers and Car parking Building

20/02499/OUT – 22 Storey Residential Tower

This is a Live 2020 Campaign

The Impact Analysis from the residents point of view is here: EdenCampusViews.co.uk

We strongly object to these two Applications

This Society, which promotes high standards of planning, conservation and design, strongly objects to applications 20/02495/FUL and  20/02499/OUT  for which we respond individually.

20/02495/FUL – Our main objections in summary: Click here to read our full response

  • Due to its height, scale, massing and form the current scheme would cause harm to the settings and significance of designated heritage assets;
  • Due to its height, scale, massing and form the current scheme would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area,
  • Due to its design, height and location the current scheme would conflict with planning policies on the location and design of tall buildings and the treatment of the public realm.

20/02499/OUT Our main objections in summary: Click here to read our full response

  • 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:

  1. 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”.
  2. “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.”
  3. 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

By |2020-11-03T12:32:21+00:00October 16th, 2020|
Go to Top