KINGSTON AND NORTH KINGSTON NEIGHBOURHOOD

Conservation Areas Advisory Committee

PLANNING APPLICATION COMMENT FORM UPDATE: 17 Mar 2021

N/A

RBK ref: 20/02499/OUT

Address: Unilever Kingston 3 St James Road Kingston Upon Thames Planning Officer: Toby Feltham

Description of proposed works: Outline planning permission for the demolition of Lever House and the erection of a Residential (C3) building not exceeding 16 storeys comprising of a maximum of 115 units, along with a ground floor cafe/retail pod (Use Class - E (c)) with all matters reserved except for access, layout and scale. This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement. This application is Phase 2 of a 2 stage development - Phase 1 is covered by application reference 20/02495/FUL. Amendments have been made including a reduction in the maximum height from 22 storeys to maximum 16 storeys and a reduction of residential units from 156 units to 115 units. Revised supporting documents/addendums have been submitted in support of these changes at Unilever Kingston, 3 St James Road, Kingston upon Thames.

APPRAISAL

By full committee on …… 11 November 2020 …… with …… 7 …… members present

Issued on 13 Nov 2020

1. Positive support		2. No objection
3. Objection	X	4. Objection unless revised as below
5. No comment/neutral		6. Lack of detail
7. Decision already issued

Reason for objection:

Kingston Town Neighbourhood Conservation Areas Advisory Committee strongly objects to applications 20/02495/FUL and 20/02499/OUT, referred to henceforth as the Eden Campus development, for the reasons outlined below. For the sake of determining the applications I have summarised our conclusions on each below:

Our principal reasons for objecting to the proposals outlined in 20/02495/FUL are:

• The height, positioning and provisions of the development are contrary to the Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD and the conclusions of appeal decision APP/Z5630/W/19/3223667 given just last year.
• The height, massing and scale of Eden Campus would have an overbearing impact on nearby listed buildings and would result in less than substantial harm to the Grade II United Reformed Church, Former Head Post Office, 24-24A Market Place, 30 Market Place, 41 Market Place, 4 Eden Street and Guildhall and also the Grade II* Market House.
• The height and scale of Eden Campus would impact views within the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area (CA1) and result in a high degree of less than substantial harm.
• The proposal would cause harm to the setting of a number of locally listed buildings in Kingston, in particular 3 and 18 Eden Street.
• The design of the Eden Campus development is particularly poor and would result in the loss of public realm in the centre of Kingston and harm circulation between this and the surrounding developments.
• There are insufficient economic benefits to justify the harm to the historic built environment. As such any economic benefits should be considered low and would not outweigh the above harm.
• On the basis of the above, the proposal does not meet paragraphs 196 or 197 of the NPPF and is also contrary to policies CS 8, DM 10, DM 11 and DM 12.

Our principal reasons for objecting to the proposals outlined in 20/02499/OUT are:

• The height, positioning and provisions of the development are contrary to the Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD and the conclusions of appeal decision APP/Z5630/W/19/3223667 given last year are also relevant as the tower is an integral part of the master plan of the overall development submitted under 20/02495/FUL.
• The height of the tower element to Eden Campus would have a harmful impact on the setting many listed buildings including the Grade I Church of All Saints and Grade II* Market House. Other heritage assets particularly affected by the proposal include the Grade II Guildhall, United Reformed Church, Former Head Post Office, 24 and 24 A Market Place, 30 Market Place, 41 Market Place, The Former Old Crown Public House, 4 Church Street, 6– 8A Church Street, 14-16 Church Street, 4 Eden Street and Kingston Sorting Office. This would result in less than substantial harm under paragraph 196 of the NPPF to many heritage assets and their settings and significance including a Grade I and Grade II* building as well as numerous Grade II buildings.
• The proposal would cause harm to the setting of a number of locally listed buildings in Kingston, in particular 3 and 18 Eden Street.
• The height and massing of Eden Campus tower would cause substantial harm to the setting of Kingston Old Town Conservation Area (CA1) under paragraph 195 of the NPPF.
• The height of the tower would result in a high degree of less than substantial harm to the setting of Conservation Areas around the Eden Campus site, in particular Fairfield/Knights Park Conservation Area, Grove Crescent Conservation Area and Riverside South Conservation Area.
• There is insufficient justification for the incredibly high degree of harm to the historic built environment.
• On the basis of the above the proposal does not meet the tests set out in paragraphs 195, 196 and 197 of the NPPF and is contrary to CS 8, DM 10, DM 11, and DM 12.

We have set out the reasoning for our objection below.

Recent Background and Heritage Statement

The two applications have been conceived and designed as one comprehensive redevelopment of the Surrey House / Lever House island. They should be made as a single planning application.

Application 20/02495/FUL is a new proposal for essentially the same site where a previous proposal was dismissed on Appeal by the Planning Inspectorate only August last year on the basis of “ harm to the settings and significance of the following designated heritage assets alone:- the Old Post Office, the United Reformed Church, the Guildhall, the listed buildings on the east side of Market Place, the Grade II* listed Market House and the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area”. The Inspector considered this to be determinative in the Appeal on the basis of paragraph 11(d)(i) of the framework and explained that he did not need to go any further. As such the harm to heritage assets was central to the decision and his reasoning should be applied to the current proposals.

Application 20/02499/OUT is an outline planning application for the demolition of Lever House and the erection of a residential tower not exceeding 22 storeys- on the same site - with all matters reserved except for access, layout and scale.

Both Applications ignore the clear development plan context for the design and building heights guidance as set out in the Eden Quarter Development Brief (EQDB), the relevant SPD as provided by Policy CS8 of the RBK LDF Core Strategy 2012. The latter clarifies that “relevant SPD’s would provide further guidance on this matter” , namely identification of location(s) if any of tall buildings where tall buildings could be suitable. CS8 further states that the criteria in the English Heritage/CABE guidance on Tall Buildings (2007)* and the London Plan(2016, now Dec 2019) would provide the basis for determining planning applications. (*Historic England advice note 4 (Tall Buildings) replaces the above mentioned EH/CABE document.)

The EQDB sets out guidance on building heights. These generally range from one to eight floors to ‘reflect the generally low rise of the town centre, significant heritage assets, viewing corridors, building typology and enclosure of spaces. This requirement should therefore be seen as possibly the central principle which is aimed at protecting heritage assets in the town centre.

In only three specific places, is more significant height proposed in the EQDB due to ‘lower impact’ or for the beneficial impact of establishing a landmark benefiting the townscape and to improve legibility and wayfinding. None of these three locations identified are on the Applicants site.

It is important background to reflect that in light of the increased heights approved for Eden Walk (EW) and Royal Exchange (RE) developments, the Inspector considered the perceived ‘direction of travel in the EQDB’ and how the design guides contained therein were interpreted for these schemes and how the ‘general datum of 6-8 storeys became 10-11 storeys’ and the ‘2 specific locations suitable for heights in excess of 9 storeys became 14-16 storeys.’

He pointed out however, that both schemes ‘generally accord’ with the approach to heights, scale and massing and that the tallest elements in each scheme are in locations identified in the EQDB and where they would create landmark buildings when viewed from Wheatfield Way from the south and east.

He went on to confirm the importance in the EQDB that where maximum heights are specified, ‘schemes would be expected to achieve a modulated roof line to further reflect the character of the Old Town Conservation Area rather than being built out to the maximum possible height'.

For the Eden Walk (EW) and Royal Exchange (RE) developments he stressed that although each pushes the 9+ storey guide for the heights of landmark towers to 16 storeys, the EW scheme steps down to 4-6 storeys to reflect the lower heights on Union Street adjacent the United Reformed Church. It is worth noting that the RE scheme also steps down with distinct facade articulation to similar heights of 4-6 storeys on Wheatfield Way opposite the lower scale of the Knight’s Park/Fairfield Park Conservation Area.

Importantly, the Inspector referenced the height of these facades in meters. For the EW scheme on Eden Street, which is composed from separate identifiable 10 and 11 - storey urban blocks as required by the EQDB as 33m and 36m. (Average storey height of a residential development is approximately 3.2m)

It is fair to say therefore, that on the basis of the clear, thorough and methodical assessment of the Planning Inspectorate, that the 6-8 storey height guidance set out in the EQDB SPD and which is applicable to the whole of the Applicants site, should be equated to a reasonable maximum of 33-36m with the caveat that such heights are not built out to the maximum across the entire site, but feature built forms with an articulated and modulated roof line.

The heights of 3 of the buildings proposed as measured from street level are taller than this: -

1. Eden Street Block: - 36.9m to roof / 40m to top of roof plant enclosure.
2. Brook Street Block: - 45.8m to roof / 49.1m to top of roof plant enclosure. (this is only 2m shorter than the tower at Royal Exchange)
3. Residential Tower: - 72.2m to roof. No roof plant enclosure.

The Inspectors decision went on to identify further considerations that are equally applicable to each of the current Applications with respect to protecting heritage assets. He cited Policy CS8 of the RBK Core Strategy 2012, which ‘seeks to ensure that new development recognises local character, relates well to its surroundings and seems opportunities for sensitive enhancements to areas of poorer environmental quality’.

3 of the buildings proposed are over 30m and so are ‘tall buildings’ as per the London Plan 2012, policy 7.7, now policy D of the new current London Plan. Both the previous and the current policies are clear that tall buildings should only be considered in areas whose character would not be adversely affected by the scale, mass or bulk of a large or tall building, and that they should relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of surrounding buildings. Policy D further confirms referencing the Local Development Plan, i.e., the EQDB.

The latest London Plan draft December 2019 is geared towards the protection of the settings of historical assets and their settings and controls tall building development. Paragraph 2.1.22 discusses Kingston’s Opportunity Area (OA) and the 4 areas identified as capable of accommodating development and intensification, including Kingston Town Centre.

It stresses that ‘Kingston town centre with its ancient market is rich in heritage and forms an important part of the setting of Hampton Court Palace, its gardens, the Thames and surrounding Royal Parks.'

It goes on to explain that any development should avoid inflicting harm on London’s Heritage Assets and their settings ‘unless alternatives have been explored, and the benefits outweigh the harm. Any such potential harm on these assets and their settings can only be justified if there are no alternatives, has clear and convincing justification, there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm and the buildings should contribute positively to the character of the area.'

It is not apparent that any alternatives have been considered by the applicant nor is any convincing justification for the proposals provided.
The applicant has provided a detailed heritage assessment which identifies the many heritage assets affected by the development in section 4. As noted in the statement, Eden Campus was the site of Kingston Brewery and a number of other small buildings until these were demolished in the 1970s. It is acknowledged that Surrey House, Lever House and the remaining buildings on the site are of no heritage value, although the space around the BoConcept building does provide some public realm providing access from Eden Walk to St James’ Road. The site lies outside any conservation area.

Despite the detail in the heritage statement, the assessment fails to identify what the Eden Campus site contributes to the setting of numerous heritage assets in Kingston and therefore fails to identify the harm the proposals would cause to the settings and significance of those same assets.

In the list of documents the Applicants state they have referred to, they appear to have omitted the RBK ‘View Study Report 2018’(VSR) which forms part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan 2020-2041 and is stated to be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Nonetheless, the views the Applicants have selected and presented do include a number of views in the VSR rated as Very Highly Important Views (VHIV’s).There are 13 VHIV’s in RBK and they are defined as those ‘which epitomise the importance of Kingston’s townscape and assets’ and their identification would enable the enduring protection and enhancement of views towards landmarks, historical assets, their settings and backdrop and skyline features.

The summary assessment of the impact of the proposals in ‘Heritage’ upon the settings of multiple listed buildings and two conservation areas is that the impact ranges from 'negligible to moderate' and 'neutral to beneficial', i.e. no harm.

We set out below how in fact the actual harm is equal or greater than that described in the Appeal Decision for the previous scheme for Application 20/02495/FUL and equal or greater for 20/02499/OUT.

This is most evident when the statement claims that the Eden Campus site “contributes little to the ability to be able to appreciate the visual qualities of the United Reformed Church (Grade II)” despite being directly opposite it. The statement omits that the low height of the BoConcept building and the public realm space around this allows visitors to appreciate the grandness of the church’s south elevation – previously acknowledged by the planning Inspectorate under appeal APP/Z5630/W/19/3223667. More confusing is when the statement discusses All Saints Church and notes that “The [Eden Campus] Site does not contribute to the setting of the Church, but buildings on the Site that have a presence on the skyline have the potential to change the relationship between the church spire and the buildings in Kingston generally.” Using the NPPF definition it is very clear that the site does impact the setting of the heritage asset, as viewed from a number of VHIV’s including those from the other side of the river and upon Kingston Bridge.

Further to this assessment, the conclusions on how the development would affect built heritage assets in Section 7 are similarly erroneous and dismissive. Notable examples include when the statement argues that the proposed 9 storey Honey Building, which replaces the 2 storey BoConcept, would have a minor to moderate beneficial [sic] impact on the setting the United Reformed Church despite the development having an overbearing and oppressive visual impact on the heritage asset. A similarly erroneous conclusion can be seen when the statement notes that a 22 - storey tower would preserve the setting of the Grade II* Market House and Old Town Conservation Area despite being visible from both and neither having views of modern development.

In light of these inaccuracies, we would encourage the Planning Officer to dismiss the conclusions of the heritage statement and make his/her own assessment on how this would impact the heritage assets. We have outlined our key concerns on each application below.

20/02495/FUL - Heritage Impact

The proposal would result in significant harm to the surrounding heritage assets and would be contrary to local and national policy and legislation. It should be noted that many of the relevant issues are the same as appeal APP/Z5630/W/19/3223667 which was unequivocally refused by the Planning Inspectorate last year. At the time the Inspector noted that ‘the harm to the settings and significance of the designated heritage assets alone to be determinative in this appeal.’ Owing to the scale and positioning of the Honey and Hive buildings and loss of amenity space we consider this harm to be equal if not greater than the previous scheme. We have outlined how this harm is evident below:

• As part of the previous appeal the Planning Inspector acknowledged the prominent setting of the Grade II United Reformed Church formed a key part of the building’s significance, particularly as it ‘acts as a landmark at the entrance to the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area.’ The Honey Building would cause significant harm to this prominence through its overbearing impact as a result of its height, massing and its positioning so close to the Eden Street. This would result in a high degree of less than substantial harm as the United Reformed Church is swallowed by the surrounding townscape. The harm to this prominence must be given serious consideration, particularly as it was noted by the Inspector as part of the previous application. It should also be noted that the mitigation in the form of ‘Eden Square’ from the previous application has now been removed and as a result the scheme is in fact more harmful than that previously refused.
• Similarly, the Honey and Hive Buildings would visually cramp the setting of the Grade II Former Head Post Office. As noted in the previous appeal decision, the Old Post Office acts as a landmark within the town centre and an important part of its setting is the vista along Eden Street. The overall height, mass and positioning of the proposed buildings would have little regard for the townscape qualities of the Old Post Office and would have an oppressive impact on the setting of the designated heritage asset making it appear isolated and out of context. In particular, views along Eden Street would be harmed with the new buildings having an overbearing impact on the proud civic character of the Old Post Office. The façade of the Old Post Office would be partially obscured and not ‘revealed’ as was the expectation in the Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD. The image offered by the Applicant to suggest the façade would be revealed, is taken from within the Eden Walk development- this ‘view’ would be impossible once the new Eden Walk has been constructed. This cannot be permissible evidence. This would result in a high degree of less than substantial harm. It should also be noted it is against the Eden Quarter Development Brief.
• As part of the previous application, the Planning Inspector noted the Surrey House site forms a key part of the setting of the Grade II Guildhall. While the current Surrey House buildings do not positively contribute to the setting of the building, he stated they ‘are inconspicuous and do not compete with the form and presence of the Guildhall.’ However, the proposed Honey and Hive buildings would form a much more prominent building in the background of the building’s wider setting and would visually complete with the height, form and roofline of the Guildhall. This is most evident in views 22 and 23 of the Townscape Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment (Part 6) and would result in less than substantial harm.
• The Hive and Honey Buildings would loom over many of the listed buildings in Kingston Market Place and would intrude into the uninterrupted views above the roofline which is an important part of the area’s enclosure and aesthetic value. This would be particularly harmful as ‘development beyond the Market Place and Conservation Area does not noticeably intrude into views from within the space’ as recognised by the Planning Inspector in the previous appeal. Furthermore, the height of the Honey Building along Eden Street would have a poor relationship with the smaller scale and great variety of buildings which characterise the townscape of the Old Town and civic quarter. This includes the Grade II 24-24A Market Place, 30 Market Place, 41 Market Place and 4 Eden Street. Views from the Grade II* Market House would also be significantly harmed which is particularly evident in View 18 of the Townscape Visual Impact and Built Heritage Assessment (Part 6) showing the new office buildings forming an imposing and poorly contrasting backdrop. Greater weight should be given to this harm because of the higher designation of Market House.
• The scale of The Honey Building would also harm the setting of 3 and 18 Eden Street forming an aggressive and ill-considered juxtaposition with these undesignated heritage assets. This would result in harm under paragraph 197 of the NPPF.
• The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area (CA1). The Conservation Area is enclosed by buildings between two and four storeys in height which obscure much of the modern development in Kingston. The Honey Building would form an unwelcome backdrop to this this enclosure and starkly contrast with the 15th to 19th century buildings as noted above. Views out of the Conservation Area along Eden Street from the corner of the Market Place would also be harmed as the height, mass and bulk of the Honey Building would starkly contrast gradual transition with the scale and height of buildings along Eden Street. Both of these aspects would affect the character and appearance of an area which reveals the historic interest of Kingston as a market town.
• Overall the proposals would do little to repair the damage caused by the present development being sub-standard and what little it would do would be overwhelmed by the disparity in scale and impact of the new development on the historic pattern of the Kingston Old Town.
• In the view of the KTCAAC the level of harm to the settings and significance of multiple heritage assets caused would be of a very high degree albeit falling short of the designated “substantial harm”.

20/02495/FUL - Design

In addition to the concerns over the impact on heritage assets, it should be noted that the design of the Eden Walk Campus is exceptionally poor. Rather than opening up the area and increasing access, the Hive and Honey buildings would be located close to the road and the opportunity would be lost to create something more positive and attractive that would encourage people to visit Kingston. This is particularly disappointing as the Eden Quarter Development Brief is clear that the proposal should result in the creation of a new public space at Eden Square. This is very disappointing considering the space around the BoConcept building is used as a major thoroughfare.

Whereas the EW and RE development respect the requirements of the EQDB responding to the presence of the Old Post Office and United Reformed Church with facades that are modulated and articulated with meaningful setbacks and vertical breaks that divide the lengths of their facades into smaller rhythms that enable these larger developments to settle more sympathetically into the finer grain of the historic urban environment, the block on Eden Street adopts a contrary architectural language:-

• Strong horizontality rather than verticality;
• Sweeping wrapping curves to emphasis girth, width and scale rather than breaking up the length in a series of blocks as EW and RE schemes;
• The curves emphasise movement along Eden Street, i.e. defies the requirements of the EQDB to create Eden Square as a destination in its own right;
• Maximum use of curtain wall glazing without incorporating any panels to break up the horizontality;
• Green brick slips and fair faced concrete where the predominant materials in the Old Town are London Stock brick, Portland Stone and some timber frame and render facades.
• No plinth setback at 4th floor (14m above ground level) as both EW and RE developments use as a gesture to the lower scales of both the United Reformed Church and Old Post Office Buildings.

Although there has been some gesture of setting back the building form on Eden Street required by the EQDB to create Eden Square, any space ‘given up’ is swiftly reclaimed by the sweeping curves back out to each corner and the grand entrance steps, ramps and columns that all could easily have been placed internally.

In short, a number of architectural approaches have been deployed to defy the EQDB.

The proposed public amenity space between the buildings is particularly disappointing as it is squeezed in between all three buildings. Described as a “Woodland Walk”, access through and around this space would be extraordinarily tight and unwelcoming. In particular, there is no clear through route in the ‘Woodland Walk’ nor invitation for the public to use this space as it has been designed as a private courtyard for the two office blocks and access for public coming from OPO has been blocked off by the ground floor linking of the Honey and Hive Buildings to create a main office entrance. Why is this entrance not located in one of these buildings and a bridge links them? There is no need to block the ground floor unless it is to dissuade public access. Furthermore, it is also unlikely if it would ever receive any light and part of the space appears to be a service area. It is very clear that the Honey and Hive buildings are over-development of what is already constrained site and no attempt is truly being made to provide public realm.

One unusual aspect of the proposal is the facade for The Beekeepers building which would form the car park. It is very clear that this was the ‘left over’ part of the design where it was felt there was not much needed to blend it in to the rest of the proposals. The glazed green brick and video display unit would have a horrific juxtaposition with the splayed motif panels and surrounding area and can only be described as ghastly. This is particularly evident in figure 8.17 of the Design and Access Statement. This element of the design must be revised, particularly are there are views out toward this tiling from Kingston Old Town Conservation Area and the building forms the backdrop setting for the Guildhall when viewed from the High Street.

In addition to the above comments, while the CAAC is pleased to see a developer engaging with Kingston’s heritage it should be made clear that we do not consider in any way the display of Saxon King names on the side of The Beekeepers building to be a heritage benefit. Should the developer be serious about heritage we would strongly encourage them to revise the scale of the Honey and Hive Buildings to create a more suitable design.

As noted above, the proposal does not in any way meet the aspirations of the Eden Quarter Development Brief. The buildings are too high, lack sufficient articulation and modulation. The design does not improve access to the Hogsmill River, views to the Old Post Office and United Reformed Church are harmed rather than enhanced and there is no real provision for public amenity space. Should the Borough be serious about following the brief agreed in 2015 the application must be amended or refused.

20/02495/FUL - Benefits

The CAAC recognises that the Eden Campus site is an underutilised area which provides an opportunity to create jobs in Kingston which is one of the benefits as part of the NPPF. However, this economic benefit must be achieved interdependently and in a mutually supportive way with the social and environmental objectives of the NPPF – not in isolation which it is currently. Granting permission for this application would not only be a breach of the heritage and design policies of the document but would be totally against the definition of sustainable development outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

In addition to this, it must be acknowledged by the planning authority that the economic benefits of this scheme are limited which is particularly evident in a post Covid-19 world when more office workers are based at home. At this juncture in Kingston’s history, it is vital that the planning authority focus on creating attractive and viable places that would bring visitors to Kingston rather than drive them away. We would strongly urge Kingston-upon-Thames to refuse this application and uphold, as it should, the Eden Quarter Development Brief.

Having considered this application, the CAAC strongly believe 20/02495/FUL should be refused on the basis of the high level of less than substantial harm to the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area (CA1), United Reformed Church and the Former Head Post Office , and the less than substantial harm noted for the remaining heritage assets. As noted by the Planning Inspector in paragraph 96 of appeal decision APP/Z5630/W/19/3223667 for the site ‘the courts have confirmed that less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial objection.’

In addition to the impact on built heritage, there are also significant grounds to refuse the application on the failure to follow the Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD, the design of the building and the lack of any decent public realm provision in the proposal. We hope that refusing the application would ensure the developer can come up with more appropriate proposals which would consider the long-term future of Kingston rather than focus on a short-term benefit which would blight Kingston for years to come for our and future generations.

20/02499/OUT - Heritage Impact

The comments below relate to the demolition and replacement of Lever House with a the 22-storey tower outlined in 20/02499/OUT.

• The height of the proposed 22 storey tower would have a harmful impact on the setting of many listed buildings in Kingston. The most significant of these is the Grade I Church of All Saints which remains the most prominent building on the Kingston skyline. The church has strong visibility from the riverside and is a key identifier of the historic development of Kingston. The Residential Building would reduce the dominance of the church tower, which is already under threat, and would be an unpleasant introduction to the landscape through its alien interaction with the surrounding buildings which are of a small scale. This would result in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset.
• The Residential Building would also have a particularly harmful impact on the Grade II* Market House with the new building featuring in almost every view of the building from the north. This would strongly contrast with the Grade II* building through its height and scale. In particular, it sets up an unintended disturbing rhythm which competes with the Market House turrets. This possibility was identified in the Inspectors Appeal decision as something which would have been considered additionally harmful in that case, thus rendering the current proposals more harmful than those refused on appeal. Greater weight should be given to this harm because of the higher designation of Market House. This would result in less than substantial harm.
• In addition to Market House the tower would also harmfully contrast with a number of other listed around the Market Place. In particular these would include (but is not limited to) the Grade II 24 and 24 A Market Place, 30 Market Place, 41 Market Place, The Former Old Crown Public House, 4 Church Street, 6– 8A Church Street, 14-16 Church Street and 4 Eden Street. These buildings form a key part in the character and appearance of Kingston’s historic marketplace and frame views in this part of the Conservation Area, ensuring that there are only limited glimpses of modern development. The addition of the Residential Building would forever damage the character of the area and the setting of these buildings and would result in less than substantial harm under paragraph 196 of the NPPF.
• As stated above the RBK Views Study Report 2018 (VSR) is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and identifies the Guildhall and All Saints Church as primary landmarks. In particular, it requires that “their setting and open backdrop skyline should be retained.” The proposed residential tower would severely compromise VHIV 10 (one of only 13 views identified as VHIV) by destroying the open backdrop setting of the Guildhall. The addition of the Residential Building would forever damage the setting of the Guildhall and would result in less than substantial harm under paragraph 196 of the NPPF.
• The proposal would also cause harm to the setting of a number of locally listed buildings in Kingston, in particular 3 and 18 Eden Street. Views from this characterful part of Kingston would be framed by this unpleasant tower block and would likely affect the many businesses and cafes which benefit from trade because the area’s historic setting.
• As with 20/02495/FUL, the most damaging impact of the proposal would be in the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area (CA1). This is the historic town centre of Kingston which has retained much of its character and appearance including its street pattern, narrow plot widths, materials and the range and quality of building designs. In particular, the height of the buildings, which are mostly between two and four storeys, greatly contribute to the character and appearance of the area, which is also noted in the Conservation Area appraisal. This is very much an enclosed space with only limited views to modern developments around Kingston. The combination of both the tower and the development detailed in 20/02495/FUL would have a disastrous impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, forcing a modern backdrop behind many of the listed buildings which form the enclosure of the Conservation Area. These views are such an important aspect of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area that the development would clearly result in substantial harm to the special interest of the Conservation Area under paragraph 195 of the NPPF.
• In addition to being visible from Kingston Old Town Conservation, the tower would also be visible from Fairfield/Knights Park Conservation Area and Grove Crescent Conservation Area. These buildings are 2- 4 storeys high, have a distinct Victorian character and appearance recognisable by the road layout, designs, materials and scale of the housing and commercial units. While there has been some harm to the setting of these areas through limited construction of tall buildings, the height of the proposed Residential Building would be much greater than these and would further gradual erosion of the Victorian character of these areas. As a result, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm.
• HE advice note 4 (Tall Buildings) states ‘any new development should be seen as opportunities to remove past mistakes (para 3.4 i ) and their replacement by development of improved quality and scale NOT an even taller building:-
  • As the current Lever House at 35m height is just visible behind the roofline of the Guildhall, when viewed at VHIV 10, the presumption should be to replace the existing Lever House with a lower building should it be demolished.
  • This would also concur with the latest Intend to Publish London Plan Dec 2019, which states that the Local Development Plan will: -
    • Define height of Tall Buildings – 30m+ High (cl. 3.8.2)
    • Decide IF, WHERE and MAX HEIGHT of ANY Tall Building in specific locations after careful assessment at long, mid and immediate views. (the EQDB does this already)
    • PREVENT other Tall Buildings (30m+) in any other location
    • Assess visual Impacts at 3 strategic distances- Long, Medium and Immediate: -
      • Long: - Not adversely affect local strategic view (It would adversely affect the settings of the views of numerous heritage assets)
      • Mid: - Make a positive contribution to local townscape
      • Immediate:- Should maintain pedestrian safe character and vitality of the street
    • Where adjacent buildings of a significant lower height ( i.e.:- Conservation Areas) or park ( i.e.:- Hogsmill River) a transition in scale is required to protect amenity or privacy.
• To reiterate, both the HE Tall Building Guidance, AND the Intend to Publish London Plan 2019 both therefore assume that IF Lever House were to be demolished, that for various reasons, a lower building would be deemed appropriate, NOT a taller one.

20/02499/OUT – Overall Impact

As can be seen above, the proposals are inherently incompatible with Kingston Planning Guidelines and in particular the Eden Quarter Development Brief and would result in a substantial harm to the setting of Kingston Old Town Conservation Area, less than substantial harm to a number of listed buildings (including Grade I and Grade II*) and Conservation Areas surrounding the town centre and harm to locally listed buildings. While there are some very limited benefits through the provision of affordable housing in the local area, there can be no argument that these outweigh the huge degree of harm set out in this application. The application very clearly does not meet paragraphs 195, 196 and 197 of the NPPF and is contrary to local policies CS 8, DM 10, DM 11, and DM 12 and we would urge the local authority to refuse the application.