A Statement from Local Community Body, Save Royal Kingston

Definition of an Asset of Community Value "("ACV")

"An ACV is land or a building that has or has had in the recent past as its main use or purpose that of furthering the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and where it could do so into the future"

Kingston Council has approved demolition of The Kingfisher Leisure Centre despite the fact that they are still deliberating on whether an application by our local community group to list this invaluable community facility as an ACV should be accepted

Was the Council's decision to award itself planning permission to demolish The Kingfisher Leisure Centre on 1 September 2021, the first possible day after the summer break, driven by the desire to avoid scrutiny of the fact that they have voted to demolish a community facility with significant value to the communities of Kingston, which the nomination of the centre as an ACV demonstrates?

The council claim in their report to Planning Committee that, although the ACV nomination is a material planning conideration, the nomination has "little weight" because it will not result in a "net loss of community facilities"

We quote the report:

"in this instance, the pending nomination is considered to be a material planning consideration. London Plan 2021 Policy S5 and DM 24 of the Core Strategy 2012 seek to protect community facilities, however, given that Officers have concluded elsewhere in this report that the application would not result in the net loss of community facilities, it is considered that the pending ACV nomination carries little weight in the circumstances.” (SRK highlighting)

However, the report to Committee contained no reference to any council decision to re-provide facilities and to provide new facilities that will be equal at least to what The Kingfisher provides in a way that would justify the conclusion reached by the council in their recommendation to Planning Committee to approve the demolition

In which case, the council's recommendation to Planning Committee that our nomination of The Kingfisher as an ACV should have "little weight" in their decision appears to be undermined by lack of evidence behind the assertion, which is further reinforced by positive evidence in our ACV nomination and from vast support for this petition of the huge social interest and well-being offered by The Kingfisher's facilities

Similarly undermined is the recommendation that the council's  "commitment" to provide new leisure facilities should have "significant weight" when there is no firm commitment from the council to reprovide any facilities at all

No wonder there is an outcry by Kingston residents and resignations from local councillors over the possible demise of our beloved Kingfisher Leisure Centre

There is an increasing expectation amongst the public that properties with a community benefit should be protected

The Kingfisher Leisure Centre must not face demolition