There is very little time left to object to this over development in Kew. As I have mentioned on a previous
e-mail, Kew Residents Association and the Kew Society are fighting very hard to stop this development. Kew is
crying out for a community facility and this site could be ideal for such a project.
I have spoken to Nick True and Stephen Knight who are both looking into what can be done.
Contact wendycrammond@blueyonder.co.uk at Kew Residents Association or
The Kew Society m.glazebrook@hotmail.co.uk for more information.
This is our very last chance to try and have a real say into what is developed in Kew.
The date is set for the public enquiry 27th - 30th July.
Write. Attend. Speak. Get Involved.
NEWS UPDATE RE THE INLAND REVENUE SITE REDEVELOPMENT (Next to The National Archives)
1) A summary of what the proposed re-development is
2) An explanation of why KRA is objecting to it
3) A template letter to sign and send if you wish to object yourself
Action is needed before Thursday July 15th. EVERY CONTACT HELPS!
1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The property development company Parkway Luxembourg SARL want to build a huge development on the
former Inland Revenue site next to the National Archives; the initial planning application - reference 09/0610/FUL – was and is for a development comprising 111 flats, a care home and commercial office space, in six monolithic buildings. Car parking is to be underground, with access to the site being shared with the National Archives via Bessant Drive. This planning application was refused by LBRuT’s Planning Committee in September 2009; however, in March 2010 Parkway appealed that decision. The appeal was automatically referred by LBRuT to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol for their adjudication. But for some reason Richmond Council’s information/consultation mailing letter to previous objectors (including KRA)
did not reach anyone.
The final decision is to be reached by the Inspectorate at a Public Enquiry at LBRuT’s offices in Richmond
taking place 27th – 30th July 2010.
2. WHY KRA OBJECTS TO IT
The reasons for KRA’s objections to the planning application were virtually mirrored in the reasons contained in LBRuT’s formal Refusal; although LBRuT couched these in terms of breaches to the binding Unitary Development Plan, in plain English what was unacceptable was as follows:
a) Excessive height, building mass, density and lack of adequate spacing; buildings out of scale and cramped, resulting in over-development out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
b) The area of amenity space for leisure and recreation too limited in size for the number of users within the site (including children’s play space); amenity value would be reduced by the relative lack of grass area; the presence of vehicular traffic, and the limited scope for tree planting due to shallow soil within the central space of the development.
c) No safety audit provided in relation to access, bearing in mind proximity to the heavily-visited Archives and the Retail Park.
d) Failure to demonstrate that traffic from the site could be accommodated at the junction of Mortlake Road (the South Circular, A205) and Bessant Drive without causing unacceptable traffic congestion and detriment to road safety.
e) The plans failed to include adequate affordable housing provision.
f) Given that the site is very close to the river, the developers’ Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Design and Construction Statement failed to demonstrate how surface water would be managed in an adequate and sustainable manner.
g) The development would have an overbearing and un-neighbourly impact on residential occupiers in existing close-by dwellings, and for one dwelling in particular there would be unacceptable loss of light.
h) Failure to make an adequate contribution towards public infrastructure costs in line with LBRuT’s Planning Obligations Strategy, placing an excessive burden on local transport, education, health facilities and open space.
[Please note that KRA is not opposed to redevelopment of the site in principle, but we wish it to be achieved to the highest possible design/amenity standards and in recognition of its sensitive nature as the last stretch of land available for development close to the river]
3. TEMPLATE FOR SUGGESTED LETTER OF OBJECTION(Please amend/rewrite if possible as an ‘individual’ approach is always best):
For speed, the email address (click the link and copy and paste the letter below into your email) is:
Charmaine.Bird@planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk
To:
Charmaine Bird
Team P6
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/14, Temple Quay House
2 The Square, Temple Quay,
Bristol BS1 6PN
Reference: Case - Planning Application Number: 09/0610/FUL Inland Revenue Ruskin Avenue Kew Surrey
(Planning Inspectorate Reference 212 3838)
Dear Ms Bird
As I have not received any letter of consultation from the local authority (LBRuT) I would ask
the Planning Inspectorate to accept my comments now on the Appeal by Parkway Luxembourg SARL:
I urge the Planning Inspectorate to confirm the Refusal of the planning application 09/0610/FUL by
the London Borough of Richmond Planning Committee. The important reasons for which the original application
was refused remain the same:
Excessive height, building mass, density and lack of adequate spacing; buildings out of scale and cramped;
lack of space for leisure and recreation; not enough amenity space; unsafe arrangements for access by
traffic (no safety audit offered); problems for the Red Route Mortlake Road, the South Circular, A 205;
inadequate affordable housing provision; danger that flooding from the close proximity of the river has not
been taken into account; overbearing new buildings damaging the light of existing neighbouring residential properties,and inevitable pressure on local health, education and transport provision, with no proposals to ameliorate these.
While the developers are clearly unhappy at having their plans rejected, it is also clear that they have many significant objections to deal with, as I have outlined above. Before any permission could be given to develop this crucial site huge issues need to be dealt with.
In essence, the key issues are the over-development of the space available and the requirement to add to the site rather than simply exploit it, coupled with the need to treat it sensitively architecturally, given its unique position.
I trust that you will seriously consider my objections and that you will notify me of the outcome of the Appeal.
Yours etc
** Please don’t forget that for your comments to be taken into account you must get them to the Inspectorate in Bristol before Thursday 15 July.
Please help spread the word: a further copy of this note is attached
KRA would be grateful for a copy of anything you write: email wendy@savekew.org.uk (tel: 0208 255 1919)
Published by Kew Residents Association 83 Mortlake Road Kew TW9 4AA
MEET YOUR COUNCILLORS
Saturday 3rd July I was with my fellow LibDems handing out free cotton bags to persuade people to
stop using plastic shopping bags in Kew as part of the KEEP KEW PLASTIC BAG FREE Campaign.
Last Saturday, 10th July, I was at a ‘meet your councillor’ session, at Kew Library.
Complaints ranged from tree pruning and over hanging branches to the issue of too much street furniture in Kew, especially aluminium posts. I had a look over the weekend and I tend to agree ~ our streets seem to have an infestation of posts and signs. I wonder what the recycle value would be?
WARD COUNCILLORS
Met up with my fellow ward councillors, Meena and David, to discuss the farmers market, 20mph zones,
the Inland Revenue Site and our Primary schools. The coalition is working well in Kew.
COUNCIL MEETING
Went to the second full meeting of the council. It seems to me that we need to start working together
on the issues that are important to local residents, after all that is what we have been elected for.
GOOD SHIP RICHMOND
Went to the freedom parade for HMS Richmond at York House and saw the ship’s platoon march through the
streets of Twickenham. I then went to the reception to meet the troops.