Stop plans for Kingston's Cambridge Road Estate

I am asking you to support residents on the Cambridge Road social housing estate in The Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames who are concerned at the plans that Kingston Council has approved to demolish their homes and to build a new estate and who wish to take action if the plans are legally flawed

 

It is time for us all to stand up and make sure that everyone across our communities is given the protections and has access to the quality of life that they are legally due

 

I am fundraising £4000 to seek the legal opinion of Jenny Wigley QC as to whether there are grounds for residents to challenge the decision of Kingston Council’s Planning Committee on 21 December 2021 to approve plans to demolish The Cambridge Road social housing estate of 834 dwellings and rebuild a development of over 2,100 units as set out in planning application 20/02942/FUL

 

Leigh Day solicitors have kindly offered to work with Jenny to send a letter to Kingston Council asking the council to respond to any possible grounds for a legal challenge that they identify

 

We need to raise the funds quickly as Kingston Council may issue the Decision Notice approving the proposal in the near future

 

Residents will then only have six weeks in which to challenge that decision

 

Jenny Wigley will be looking at all aspects of the planning application and recommendation to approve the application. Jenny’s attention will focus on, but not be limited to, whether there are grounds to challenge the decision on:

 

• Lack of on-going consultation: Were last minute changes presented in the officers’ report regarding the provision of amenities consulted upon with secure tenants as is required under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985

 

• Human Rights: It appears that there was no consideration in the officers’ report of human rights’ issues regarding people’s right to respect for their private and family life and their home on the Cambridge Road Estate, including consideration of:

 compulsory downsizing for older tenants in the rehousing strategy,

 the terms of the “offer” of a property to which to return

 the loss of homes for people in temporary accommodation

 the removal of specific private amenity and play space that residents currently enjoy

 residents who currently have pets being unable to bring them back to their new home

 lack of access to secondary education and

 lack of nursery provision

 

• Equalities Duties: Is there evidence that officers paid due regard to the council’s public sector equality duty? This will include, but is not limited to, examination of:

 

 gaps in information held on protected characteristics of residents, for example, children of all ages,

 

 effect of specified matters on people with protected characteristics, for example: assessment based on incomplete information, issues relating to health, transport, overheating, education, fast food

 

 whether due regard was paid to all the effects caused by the disruption of rehousing particularly on older people, vulnerable people or those with a disability and of how any such effects will be mitigated

 

 significance of fact that late material in report to Planning Committee changed provision of amenity

and play space with no updated assessment of equalities impact and no consultation

 

• Amenity and Play Space: Was information provided by officers regarding amenity space and play space in Phase One of the development inconsistent, incomplete and misleading and, if so, did that prevent an informed decision by Councillors on the adequacy of such spaces, including the extent of the need for young children from the three tower blocks comprising Building C and Tower Blocks E to play in public Madingley Gardens

 

• Public Transport Accessibility: Were misleading and incorrect statements relating to future public transport accessibility of the new estate made to councillors?

 

• Overheating: Did planning officers accept without sufficient scrutiny the basis of conclusions of Hodkinson’s Dynamic Overheating Assessment?

 

• Noise: Did planning offers accept without sufficient scrutiny consultants WYG’s conclusions in their noise assessment when the assessment shows required noise levels in some flats are not met even with windows closed, when the assessment assumes that the Cambridge Road Estate is a city centre location and that the estate is "close" to the strategic transport network, and when the assessment was carried out in the quiet August summer holidays? The current large presence of sparrows – one of largest in Kingston – on the estate alone appears to contradict the assumption that this is a “city centre location”

 

• Stag beetle, bat and sparrow: Did officers breach duties under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 relating to the stag beetle and bat and sparrow as well as The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 in relation to the sparrow?

Please donate whatever you can afford

If we do not raise enough funds to pay for an Opinion from Jenny Wigley  and for Leigh Day to send a letter to Kingston Council, I will donate all monies raised net of GoFundMe fees to local charity, Save the World Club, Registered Charity Number 1096271.

Save The World Club was established in 1985 to empower the community to initiate environmental activities to ensure a sustainable future for all