Lower Marsh Lane Planning Application

Update - application refused by Kingston Council July 2004

What is the application?
Where can I find out more?
What has been said so far in the Spring Grove area?
How can I make my views known?
When are the key dates?

What is the application?

A new planning application was submitted earlier this year to redevelop part of the Thames Water sewage works adjacent to the Clayhill Campus. The application is for demolition of existing buildings and the erection of up to 20,400 square metres of new floorspace comprising:

• 16 four-storey residential buildings for 716 students
• 4 three-storey buildings with studio accommodation for 144 key workers
• parking for 151 cars
• a 1-2 storey doctor’s surgery/health centre with parking for 32 cars
• a single storey youth centre
• an all-weather sports pitch
• associated access and highway improvements to Lower marsh Lane
• footpath improvements to Berrylands station and implementation of the Hogsmill Walk and landscaping

The application was made by Attis Real Weatheralls on behalf of Spritbond Student Housing Limited and Kingston University. Note that this is a new application after the first application to develop the site was refused by Kingston Council in March 2003.

Full copies of the plans are available at Kingston and Surbiton Libraries and at the Environmental Services Reception, 2nd floor Guildhall from 9am to 4.45pm (Mon-Thurs) and 9-4.30pm (Mon-Fri). Details can also be found on the website http:\\isis.kingston.gov.uk (search for sewage works Lower Marsh Lane). Enquiries about the applications can be made to Kingston Council (Karen Perry on 020-8547-5418 or Pat Loxton 020-8547-5420).

The subject was discussed (vocally!) at the annual general meeting of the Spring Grove Residents' Association on 29 April. The points made both for and against the application at the meeting are summarised below together with points made by Ken Hopkins, thePro-Vice Chancellor for Strategic Development of Kingston University and Councillor Roger Hayes. Note that a couple of points have been included that were made in subsequent correspondence to the SGRA. A vote was taken at the end of the session in order to give some weighting to the views expressed. This indicated that 3 residents were for the development, 5 were undecided and 24 were against.

a) Points in favour of the development:

• The university is beneficial to the local economy and community. It provides employment, the students provide revenue and they provide a useful workforce.
• Demand for Further Education will continue and should be supported.
• Students have to live somewhere.
• The village will free up accommodation elsewhere in the area.
• Key worker housing (for 144 workers) is very important - this area is expensive for key workers making recruitment difficult for some employers.
• The Lower Marsh Lane area is not currently attractive. The new development could be attractive and bring benefits to the infrastructure.
• The plan must include provision for adequate transport, adequate onsite facilities and adequate measures by the university to deal with noise and disturbance.

b) Points against the development:

• The area is MOL (Metropolitan Open Land), part of the Hogsmill/Bonesgate stream corridor. The wildlife and flora are important.
• Once the open land is lost it is lost forever.
• There are issues with access to, and the layout of the site.
• The bus route to both Clayhill and the new development will be re-routed along Lower Marsh Lane adding to the pressure at the Villiers Road roundabout.
• It will increase noise and disturbance in the Spring Grove Area. The noise created by the 700 or so students at Clayhill is already bad. A further 716 students in the locality could double noise levels.
• There will be a serious impact on local traffic levels. There will be 10 buses an hour.
• The village will adversely affect adjoining properties. It will also impact on the peace and quiet of the cemetery. This could be particularly distressing during funerals.
• There will be a lot of disruption and traffic during the construction period - especially as parts of the development will be prefabricated - and the prefabricated units must be delivered by lorry.
• Kingston University appears to be growing exponentially. Kingston Council should put a ceiling on the number of students.
• Bigger is not always better - either for the town or for the students themselves as it can make a university more impersonal, it dilutes the services available and there can be less sense of responsibility towards the community. The community is one of the strong points of living in this area.
• The University has never succeeded in addressing the problem of the disruption from students at Clayhill. Why should they be any more successful with the students of the proposed village?
• It will create a ghetto.
• The key workers will not wish to reside in a student village - particularly those who work shifts.
• At the recent public meeting there were no answers to fundamental questions about the impact of the development on the roads, noise, disturbance and traffic, suggesting that no impact analysis had been conducted.
• Students will only be housed in the village for one year. Thereafter they will be seeking accommodation in town.
• Other sites are available which could be cheaper and less disruptive.

c) Points made by Ken Hopkins of Kingston University at the AGM:

• Kingston University wants to grow. A recent report into the benefits of further education suggested that higher education assists an individual's job security, impacts positively on salary, and can empower students (both current and former) to influence society.
• Kingston University is not elitist. It favours giving a chance particularly to those who will be first generation university students. Its mission is to be a civic and comprehensive university. It is one of the better new universities and scores highly on teaching though less well on research. It is not financially well endowed.
• The second planning application for the development aimed to deal with the concerns raised when the first application was rejected.
• Although the land is indeed Metropolitan Open Land it is hoped that it will be transformed into something worthwhile.
• By concentrating the village in this particular area it is hoped that it will deal with many of the noise and disturbance issues currently distressing residents.
• Kingston university wishes to avoid “ghettos” of student housing in streets around the town. They also seek to avoid “town and gown” hostility.
• When asked about the origin of students at Kingston University KH answered that they were predominantly regional, though with a proportion from all over the UK and about 2000 of the 17000 students from overseas [824 from elsewhere in the EU and 1253 from the rest of the world according to the Kingston university Facts and Figures card].

d) Points made by Councillor Roger Hayes at the AGM

• The land is greenfield not brownfield. There are some important species of flora and fauna on the land.
• Kingston Council are in dispute with Thames Water over opening up the land further in order to route the Hogsmill walk through the land.
• Kingston council wishes to avoid large concentrations of students in the town as they can destroy both the community mix and the tax base. Reduced taxes have implications for the provision and upkeep of services in the borough.
• When formulating a view it is important that all stakeholders consider the second application and not the first as there are significant differences between them.
• It is not the responsibility of the council to find accommodation for all students.
• While students can be noisy the majority of criminal offences caused by young people in Kingston are not perpetrated by students.
• If the council grant planning permission for the application it will be referred to both the Mayor of London and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

There are several ways to do so. You can:

• Write directly to Kingston council (John Allen, Head of Planning and Development, Directorate of Environmental Services, Guildhall 2, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey KT1 1EU)
• Use the forum below to air your view
• Contact any committee member (names and addresses are listed in Springboard).

The SGRA will be writing a letter to the committee ahead of the deadline in order to summarise the views of the residents both for and against. In the letter it will try to give an idea of the weight of opinion behind each view. Please note the details and deadlines listed below.

Key dates for the Second outline planning application (reference 04/16110/OUT dated 8/3/04)