KINGSTON AND NORTH KINGSTON NEIGHBOURHOOD

Conservation Areas Advisory Committee

PLANNING APPLICATION COMMENT FORM DATE: 9 March 2022

CA6

RBK ref: 22/00602/FUL

Address: The Kingfisher Leisure Centre Fairfield Road Kingston Upon Thames KT1 2PY Planning Officer: Harsha Bhundia

Description of proposed works: Provision of a leisure and community building comprising wet and dry facilities, cafe, community spaces, rooftop flood-lit artificial sports pitch, servicing and plant. Enhancement of Fairfield Childrens Playground, provision of landscape and public realm, cycle parking, and disabled persons parking. Pedestrianisation of existing vehicular access and formation of new vehicular access.Listed building consent for demolition of outrigger building and existing WC block and the erection of a single storey extension on the eastern facade of Grade II Listed Kingston Museum and Library

APPRAISAL

By full committee on …… 9 March 2022 …… with …… 8 …… members present

Issued on 17 Mar 2022

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:

The proposed scale, mass & height of the new building is risible &, at several times more than the Carnegie library & museum immediately adjacent, would completely overwhelm its neighbouring grade II listed buildings. It is a gross over-development of the available site driven by a misguided attempt to cram in/stack up as many sporting facilities as possible. As a single giant cube the proposed design is depressingly bland & straight out of the playbook of the worst examples of municipal architecture. It is extremely ‘blocky’ in appearance with little articulation & very formulaic colour palette/ finishes. It would have a materially adverse effect on the Fairfield CA, causing substantial harm to its character & appearance & blighting important views across Fairfield.

The applicant states that the design has evolved from its ‘honest approach to the external expression of the internal sports spaces’ whilst, at the same time, claims ‘the new building has been designed through a ‘heritage-led design process’’. The Committee considers both of these claims to be spurious. The proposed building is practically a facsimile copy of the Britannia Leisure Centre in Hackney. How have we arrived at this situation after a year-long design process involving three public consultations? And a PA with 101 documents including a 183-page Design and Access Statement?

The Britannia sits comfortably amongst similar scaled buildings, but the same cannot be said of this clone proposal which, if approved, would utterly dominate its setting and its delicately scaled historic neighbours. No part of the design can be said to be ‘heritage-led’; to the contrary, it is devoid of any heritage sensibilities.

Adding insult to injury, the flood-lit roof top football pitches will cause significant nuisance to existing and future residents and harm the setting of the adjacent listed buildings, whilst contributing very little to the borough’s ambitions of increasing biodiversity through Biodiversity Net Gain as outlined in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2021) in §174(d), 179(b) and 180(d), becoming mandatory in 2023 as specified in the Environment Act 2021. A more exciting and appropriate alternative would be to consider a fully accessible rooftop urban forest which would additionally make a significant contribution towards achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals alongside the potential of delivering an exceptional Urban Greening Factor, so necessary for a town centre setting and the well-being of our communities as a whole.

The architects readily admit to the design challenge of trying to minimise the impact of stacking a series of large volumes, required by the brief, in such a sensitive site. And this is where the Committee believes the fault lies and a more acceptable solution must be found.

From an urban design point of view, this sports centre would simply be a large box, similar to a cinema or department store. Placing such a blank box at the heart of a wider plan for the area effectively separates the three adjoining components of the library/museum, children’s play park, and proposed residential towers from each other. The sports centre would isolate the residential component from both the greenery of the children’s play area and the larger expanse of Fairfield, condemning it to be surrounded by traffic to the north and west and the seven storey ‘wall’ of the Kingfisher.

A reconsideration of the wider plan could resolve many of these faults. Specifically, the children’s play park if placed at the heart of the development would address many of the design issues at a stroke. Importantly, the historic library & museum would then share the centre of the composition. The play park would sit above the large span of the pool and sports hall side by side beneath. The taller residential component proposed to the north would then have a much improved aspect across this greenery towards the Fairfield. The residential component in turn could comprise a north west corner tapering to a lower south east corner in deference to the smaller scale of the conservation area, terraced with a green roofscape to provide further urban greening.

The Committee believes the Planning Committee must consider the wider plan for this key site in a holistic way. Given the Borough is itself the developer here, it warrants the kind of thoughtful attention & exciting ideas that a rigorous architectural competition would prompt rather than being: i) a regurgitation of another LPA’s building; ii) a sub optimal solution for the remainder of the site; and iii) utterly disrespectful of its neighbouring listed buildings.