We were extremely disappointed by the quality of the public event and lack of effort to advertise it or involve local community groups includingKingston Society.

15th July – letter to Nathan Chambers Between the  Bridges 

Our concerns fall into several areas:

1. Limited promotion and outreach

The consultation was poorly advertised. To our knowledge, no local residents’ associations or civic groups were directly contacted, and there was no engagement through local social media channels where many residents follow community news. A leaflet drop was apparently made but did not reach my own central Kingston address nor any resident on the neighbourhood WhatsApp group that includes The Bittoms, Milner Road and Woodbines Avenue. Only yesterday July 14th, for example, did the digital newspaper, Kingston Nub News, report on this event.

2. Inadequate public events

The public event at the Market House was held for only a few hours over 2 days with no external signage to alert passers-by. Staffing was limited. When I attended, only a single representative from Between The Bridges was present (along with an architect from ZAP), leading to long waits for those wishing to ask questions. Earlier a colleague waited for more than an hour and was even so unable to speak with anyone.

3. Clarity of presentation materials

The exhibition boards presented at the Market House combine three distinct elements into a single narrative:

• The future of the Grade II*-listed Market House (which makes it in the top 5.8% of all listed buildings)

• The redesign of market stalls and food vendor provision

• The reconfiguration of open public space around the Shrubsole Monument

At present, the boards do not clearly explain how these elements relate to one another or what the overarching vision is. While the accompanying film provided a more coherent overview, notwithstanding an entirely young and non-disabled demographic of orange people, the boards themselves, some seemingly randomly strewn about the room with one propped up against the window, would benefit from clearer narrative structure and improved legibility. The boards, self-evidently prepared by architects with professional peers in mind, were entirely inadequate for engaging and informing a broader public audience. The boards make reference to moving a statue but do not make clear which, and further confused matters by excluding the Queen Anne statue from the balcony on some of the visuals. 

4. Online materials and accessibility

The consultation website stated that exhibition materials and the questionnaire would be available from 10 July, but these were only accessible this morning. The website presents only the PDFs of the exhibition boards in reduced size, making them difficult to read on mobile devices. The omission of a QR link code on the exhibition materials further hindered digital engagement and is an extraordinary omission of an extensively available and understood short-cut function.

5. Timeframe and resources

The current consultation period is too short to allow for meaningful public input. We therefore urge an extension to give the community more time to engage. We also recommend reopening the Market House exhibition for a longer duration, properly staffed, and with clear exterior signage and an exhibition display strategy that is fit for purpose.

6. Additional observations

The consultation used no form of visitor logging, there was no way to leave feedback other than an unavailable on-line questionnaire. Notes were not being taken by either of the representatives. We do not believe that this make for accountable and transparent consultation standards.

7. In conclusion

We are concerned that the proposals are expected to proceed to a planning application by the end of August despite these issues in the consultation process.

We support the ambition to revitalise Kingston’s Ancient Market, but the current consultation process has not provided a fair or effective opportunity for local voices to contribute. We urge an extension of the consultation period, improvements to the clarity and accessibility of materials, and renewed efforts to engage with residents and civic groups.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further with representatives from the Council and Between The Bridges.

18th September – letter to Nathan Chambers Bridge to Bridge 

Please see below the comments of the Kingston upon Thames Society on your recent consultation proposals re the above. I apologise for the delay in submitting these comments. Please note these comments are on the substance of the proposals rather than the process of the consultation which were the subject of our previous comments.

The Society is pleased to see that proposals are being brought forward to attract more activity and people to one of Kingston’s primary heritage assets. However we are concerned that the setting of the listed market house building may not be enhanced by the proposals for the market place itself. In particular, the Society has the following concerns about the proposals for both the market house and the market place.

1. There appears to be a difference between the layout plan and the perspective drawing as to how densely packed the proposed restaurant/ cafe will be. Clearly variations wilt have an effect on viability.
2. The Society would like to be assured that all appropriate fire assessments will be carried out by appropriately qualified and experienced fire assessors given the open plan layout of the proposed restaurant/cafe use and the suggestion that this may be combined with some kind of wider community use on the first floor.
3. The repositioning of the Shrubsole Memorial must be clearly shown on the drawings to be submitted with any planning application or listed building consent application.
4. There needs to be clarity on how any new public conveniences located either underneath the Market Place or in the Market House or in new structures will be accessed.
5. It is not clear whether the pavement fountains which are popular with children are being retained and incorporated. Loss of these would be unacceptable. Not only should they be retained but a commitment should be given via a section 106 agreement or similar to ensure that they are operational for specified hours and properly maintained.
6. The creation of more stalls with associated storage needs and some upper floor use of the roofs of stalls is in danger of hemming the listed building in. Care needs to be taken in developing detailed plans that there is no detriment to the appearance and setting of the listed building.
7. There is a concern that physical alterations will need to be made to the internal and external appearance of the listed Market House building that will adversely affect key features such as the stone floor. These will need to be clearly indicated in the drawings and supporting information submitted with a listed building consent application. The Society reserves its position as to the comments it may wish to make when the application is submitted.