The latest amendments to the plans for development of the former Surrey County Hall do very little to address the concerns raised by CAAC in our appraisal of 10 February 2022.

It is important to remember that this is 1 of only 13 grade 2* listed buildings out of a total of 177 designated assets in the borough. So among just 7% of assets equal to such local icons as Kingston Bridge & Market House. Furthermore, the law (Listed Buildings & Conservation Act 1990) dictates that the curtilage or grounds of a listed building pre-dating July 1948 are part of the listed building itself. That means all development proposed here in the south & part-west side grounds of County Hall is development of the listed building & not just its setting. This gives substantial weight to our objections, particularly to the creation of Milner Passage & buildings A1-3 on the southern range of County Hall.

The design of these buildings has not been improved in any material way. The applicant has merely tinkered with parapets & the position of balconies & privacy screens.

A1 is still too close to the southern flank of County Hall. Its height at 8 storeys, mass and design remain less than “exemplary” & inappropriate to this location. It is still almost 10 metres higher than the listed building and would harm the settings of County Hall & its neighbouring assets, namely the Reg Bailey Building, award winning Town House, and the surrounding Conservation Areas.

Buildings A2 & A3, at 6 and 4 storeys respectively, have not been improved in any material way, with their disproportionate height & bulk within the curtilage of the listed building causing harm to both the historic building & its setting. Again their design remains less than exemplary.

The proposed height of building B has reduced from 6 to 5 storeys but this, together with its bloated mass & bland design, is far from “exemplary” for a structure immediately adjacent to the original 1893 section of the grade 2* listed building.

The applicant has increased slightly the amount of employment space within the development, but it is still a predominantly residential scheme, whereas a truly mixed use scheme including employment, education, and public access uses would maintain the community benefit of the site.

With the slight increase in employment space the applicant has reduced the number of flats from 340 to 323, but it remains a 85-90% residential development comprising predominantly 1-2 bedroom flats, at the expense of family units of 3+ beds as required by the LPA’s Strategic Housing Needs Assessment.

CAAC maintains its Objection.