Please donate to seek a legal opinion on the council's decision to approve its own planning application to demolish The KIngfisher

In the latest shock, I have found a planning application by Kingston Council through its Property Development and Investment department  – consultation for which ends today, 21 October 2021 – for a request that it should NOT have to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment of the "proposed development" of a new leisure centre ("The EIA”), details of which, and a planning application for which, are currently non-existent

The request is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Report (“EIASR”) which concludes that “the proposed development” does not need an EIA

The lack of any detailed proposals on what might replace The Kingfisher makes it impossible to assess whether a full EIA is needed or not and the consultants’ conclusions that no EIA is required can not be justified. There is no “Proposed Development” to which the planning application can apply

You can read the documents and respond to this planning application today, 21 October 2021, here

We have no idea from any of the documents submitted with this planning application about the boundaries of the site that is being screened or of what development is being planned on that site and it is impossible to comment

There are no firm proposals for the new building, even its footprint, for the screening assessment.

The "proposed development" shown in figure 3.1 of the EIASR only shows the site for the new leisure centre as being the existing footprint for the current Kingfisher Leisure centre

But it seems now that the Council may be planning to build over the whole site

The EIASR point 3.3.1 states that the site will be redeveloped “to provide a new leisure centre building ranging in height up to approximately 5-6 residential storeys on a slightly larger footprint than the previous centre”.

But, given 'plans' already leaked by councillors showed about a third of the greenspace at the current leisure centre being developed over by the new leisure centre, this is not a 'slightly larger footprint'. It is likely a substantially larger footprint.

Of even greater concern, Yellow Sub Geo, in point 1.2 of their report (Land Quality Desk Study) on behalf of the Council, have been advised by the council that the site for development is NOT just the existing Kingfisher site but the whole area including the library and museum and Cattle Market site, but state that they have no information on what is planned on that wider area[1].

Yellow Sub Geo state that they have been asked to conduct a preliminary risk assessment “to support the proposed planning application for the redevelopment of the leisure centre and adjacent car park and play area” and go on to state that, while they understand that the leisure centre is to be re-built”, “no details on further development of the Site have been provided”

Yellow Sub Geo goes on to state in point 3.2.3 of their report that it “is assumed that the majority of the Site will be covered in hardstanding”.

This implies that the council is considering plans to build on or concrete over the whole Kingfisher site, including on existing open and green space

The lack of consistent, transparent and full information on what the “planned development” is and the lack of a proper assessment against relevant criteria for assessing planning applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 prevents any reasonable response to and comment on this planning application.

There is no planning application for a new leisure centre and no firm details for any such new centre against which a screening exercise can justifiably take place and an evidence-based conclusion be reached. 

The council's plans for The Kingfisher and the wider Cattle Market site continue to be a shambles

We deserve better and must insist for better now

Please donate here if you want to support a legal opinion on the decision to approve the application to demolish The Kingfisher

[1] Maps in “Appendix D – Envirocheck Report” confirm that the site considered by Yellow Sub Geo covers the whole area.