Middle Mill refused despite officer recommendation

Few expected Kingston University’s Middle Mill application to fail. Planning officers had recommended approval, while the University presented the scheme as a once-in-a-generation investment in Kingston School of Art, providing new teaching space, a public gallery, lecture theatre and café, together with significantly improved public realm.

Outside the Guildhall, however, the mood was rather different. A large group of residents gathered before the meeting carrying placards declaring “Too big” and “So ugly”. Inside, the public gallery was repeatedly reminded not to interrupt proceedings and remained largely respectful, although arguments supporting refusal were frequently greeted with enthusiastic applause, and the applicants comments with derisive snorts and laughter.

Four objectors, one broad message

The committee heard from four registered objectors, each approaching the proposal from a different direction but arriving at essentially the same conclusion.

Tom Gorrell opened on behalf of a campaign supported by more than 1,000 petitioners. He argued that independent reviews commissioned by residents had identified significant flaws in the daylight, ecology and design evidence, and maintained that the same educational accommodation could be provided within a considerably smaller building.

Adrian Treloar developed the planning argument. While recognising the benefits of the scheme, he contended that virtually all its adverse effects arose from unnecessary height rather than educational need. Arguing that the building’s description as “five storeys” was misleading because, in height, it was closer to three three-storey buildings stacked one upon another, he delivered perhaps the most memorable line of the evening:

“In what Orwellian world does three times three equal five?”

Toby Hiscock, speaking as Chair of the Kingston and North Kingston Conservation Area Advisory Committee, concentrated on heritage and townscape. He argued that the proposal amounted to an over-scaled civic landmark in entirely the wrong location, which would dominate neighbouring conservation areas and conflict with the borough’s own heritage policies.

Tracey Rust, the fourth speaker, , focused almost exclusively on planning policy. She questioned why officers had recommended approval for what she considered to be a tall building outside any designated tall-building location, and argued that London Plan Policy D9 had not been properly applied.

Despite their different emphases, all four speakers delivered essentially the same message. They supported Kingston University and accepted the need to improve the School of Art. They simply believed that this particular building was too large. and in the wrong place.

The University’s case

Professor Steven Spier, Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University and himself an architect, presented a robust defence. He argued that the School of Art required modern facilities if it was to retain its international reputation, and that the proposal would create a new creative quarter, provide public cultural facilities, improve biodiversity, increase employment and continue Kingston University’s long tradition of architectural excellence.

Importantly, he rejected suggestions that the University had failed to engage with local people. He described a year-long consultation involving eleven public events, Design Review Panels and discussions with planning officers and environmental bodies. The design, he said, had changed in response to the comments received, including reductions in height and alterations to the building’s massing.

His conclusion was simple:

“We build well because we are part of the community and we are here to stay.”

Roger Hayes crystallised the debate

The debate changed direction when Councillor Roger Hayes proposed refusal. His speech was notable for its moderation. He acknowledged the educational need, praised the University and accepted that the scheme offered substantial public benefits. His conclusion, however, was that those benefits could also be delivered by a different building.

He proposed three reasons for refusal. First, the proposal represented excessive scale, bulk and overdevelopment on a sensitive site. Second, its architectural form failed to respond appropriately to the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood. Third, it would cause unacceptable harm to nearby conservation areas and other heritage assets.

Crucially, Hayes was not asking councillors to reject Kingston University, its ambitions or its investment in the School of Art. He was asking them to reject this particular design.

Officers help draft the refusal

Perhaps the most fascinating procedural moment came after Hayes had proposed refusal. The Chair asked planning officers not whether they agreed with his judgement, but whether the reasons he had advanced could be supported by planning policy.

Officers quickly identified the relevant provisions of the London Plan, Kingston’s Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework for each reason, and confirmed that they were capable of being defended at appeal. They did not withdraw their recommendation for approval. Rather, once members had indicated that they had reached a different planning judgement, officers helped to ensure that the committee’s decision was expressed in planning rather than political language.

It was an instructive demonstration of the distinction between professional advice and democratic judgement. Officers had advised that the benefits of the scheme outweighed its harms, but councillors were entitled to reach a different conclusion, provided that conclusion could be justified within the planning framework.

Once Hayes’s motion had been seconded, the chair asked officers to identify the planning-policy basis for the three proposed reasons and to advise whether they could be defended.

For the scale, bulk and overdevelopment reason, officers identified:

• London Plan policies D3 and D4
• Kingston policies CS8, DM10 and DM11
• paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework

The officer described this reason as defensible because it clearly identified the harm arising from the building’s massing, scale, site coverage and oppressive relationship with its surroundings.

For the architectural design reason, officers again referred to London Plan policies D3 and D4 and Kingston policies CS8, DM10 and DM11, together with NPPF paragraphs 135 and 139. The officer acknowledged that judgements about design are necessarily subjective, but considered the proposed reason defensible because it explained the particular architectural and townscape harm alleged.

For the heritage reason, officers identified:

• London Plan policy HC1
• Kingston policies CS8 and DM12
• NPPF paragraphs 212, 213 and 215

The affected assets were identified as the Fairfield and Knights Park and Grove Crescent conservation areas, the Grove Lane Local Area of Special Character, and nearby listed buildings including the school and church. The officer observed that this reason was supported by the Council’s own heritage officer.

A surprise decision

Several councillors described the decision as finely balanced. No one questioned Kingston University’s importance to the borough, and no one criticised the School of Art. Indeed, much was made of the internationally acclaimed Town House building and the successful partnership previously achieved between Kingston University and Grafton Architects.

Yet the committee ultimately concluded that this proposal crossed the line. The application was refused on the three grounds advanced by Roger Hayes.

As the decision was announced, Grafton Architects’ Shelley McNamara appeared visibly shaken by the outcome, perhaps understandably after so much had been said during the evening about the practice’s earlier success with Town House.

An intriguing omission

One interesting technical point remains. The refusal relied on policies concerning design, scale, townscape and heritage, yet one policy repeatedly raised by objectors never appeared in the formal reasons for refusal: London Plan Policy D9 on tall buildings.

Whether this was because officers considered that the building did not technically fall within D9’s definition, or because they judged that the other policy grounds would provide a stronger defence, remains unclear. It may become an important issue should the decision proceed to appeal.

Opinion: Consultation is not the same as collaboration

Perhaps the most important discussion of the evening was not about height, heritage or even architecture. It was about trust.

Nobody seriously questioned Kingston University’s commitment to Kingston, nor did anyone portray it as a bad neighbour. Councillor Olly Nardelli explicitly described residents as having lived happily alongside the School of Art for generations. The University belongs in this part of Kingston, and there was little disagreement about either its importance or its right to invest in its future.

The disagreement lay elsewhere. The University quite properly pointed to a year of consultation, eleven public events and genuine changes to the design, and its critics largely accepted those facts. Their complaint was more subtle. By the time the consultation began, they believed that the essential decisions had already been made.

This distinction matters. Consultation asks people what they think about a proposal that already exists. Collaboration allows them to influence the assumptions from which the proposal will emerge. One may produce amendments to a design, while the other has the potential to reshape the design itself.

Architecture is not simply the production of a building. It is the shaping of a place. The most successful civic buildings are rarely those that emerge from endless compromise, but neither are they those presented to communities as accomplished facts. The best architecture is born from conversation.

That conversation need not dictate the design. Architects must remain architects, universities must remain ambitious, and planning committees must judge proposals on their planning merits rather than their popularity. Local opposition cannot become a veto on change, particularly when institutions must respond to genuine educational, cultural and economic needs.

Yet when engagement begins early enough, before the principal decisions about scale, form and disposition have hardened, it can produce something better than either side could have imagined alone. The community may understand the institution’s needs more fully, while the institution may discover possibilities embedded within the character, history and daily experience of the place.

Roger Hayes recognised this in his closing remarks. Even while proposing refusal, he invited Kingston University to return to the table and offered to begin discussions with the Council and the community immediately. That invitation may ultimately prove to be the most important decision taken that evening.

The planning application was refused, but the rejection need not be understood as the end of Kingston University’s ambitions for Middle Mill. It may instead mark the point at which consultation gives way to genuine collaboration.

The conversation, perhaps at last, has properly begun.