There has been a lot of information and misinformation floating around about the proposals for Cock’s Crescent. Some of the misinformation originates in misunderstanding and lack of clarity in the planning brief. Some of this comes from rumours turning into fact. So, let me deal with some of the issues.
Planning brief?
A planning brief is not a plan of what is going to happen. It is something that draws broad parameters to inform any future planning applications. It is the planning application that will define what Cock’s Crescent finally looks like.
The Swimming Pool?
Only a mad Councillor would propose closing the swimming pool or not committing to having another swimming pool. I am a Councillor and if I proposed that New Malden would not have a swimming pool then I would not vote for myself. So, to be clear, New Malden will always have a swimming pool.
However, the current pool is simply not good enough. I remember it as being an OK pool when it opened, but it was not built with a mind to the future and it has struggled to meet demand for some time. It is now in need of refurbishment, but the reality is refurbishment could be throwing good money after bad. The pool is not big enough for the number of people who now wish to swim. I have been turned away on more than one occasion because when lessons are going on there is simply no place to swim. The community facilities around the pool are equally not big enough.
We have recently commissioned a report into our indoor sports facilities and it is almost certainly going to say that we need a lot more swimming capacity. We will be using this report to start the process of building more pools. This is why the idea of removing a pool simply does not hold water (if you will excuse the metaphor).
What I think I am hearing from the emails I have received is that the planning brief needs to toughen its language in relation to the swimming pool and not believe that the Community Hub (which includes a pool) covers it.
Open green space?
The Blagdon Open Space needs investment. Since the unfortunate recent housing development, there are even paths that go nowhere, they just end. So, no one is looking to remove any green space from this area, indeed the whole idea of having a bigger community hub with a pool is to create as much high-quality public space that we can. The draft brief is clear that there must be no net loss of green space. Where there does need to be a debate (after all this is a consultation to get views) is on the location of a new pool. It could be that the pool is pushed further back into the green space and the site of the current pool returned to green open space that means all the houses on Blagdon Road have a more pleasant outlook - that is a debate. Equally, there has been a suggestion that housing could be built around the perimeter of the green space as a way of creating more money for public facilities but also help control the open space in terms of anti-social behaviour. Whilst I am happy to debate the pool moving I am personally less excited about the idea of homes around the edge although I understand why it being proposed.
Number of new homes?
Nowhere in the document does it say how many homes will be built. What it says is that the London Mayor’s Plans say that this site should deliver between 140 and 520 new homes. It is the Mayor’s figure and merely a guide, although as a Local Authority we have to be in ‘general conformity’ with what the Mayor wants. The illustration takes the middle route of showing 330 homes. Again, we will not see how the figures emerge until we know how much money we will need from the sale of the homes to fund the much needed community elements such as the swimming pool or, more importantly, how residents feel any future planning application looks. It is the eventual planning application that will propose the figure, not the planning brief.
Heights of buildings?
Inside the document is a heat map that shows where the relative heights could be appropriate. There are already taller buildings on this site. New Malden's House is approx 12 residential storeys. It appears to be a smaller number but as it was built as an office the floors are taller than residential. This is why I often say it is better to discuss height rather than use storeys as a guide. There is an approved planning application that went through some time ago to strip this building externally and improves its appearance. It will also add two residential storeys, set back from the current top edge.
Given this context, I am open to arguments that a reasonably tall building (not higher than any other building) could be located behind the Multi-storey car park and against New Malden High Street. We just have to see how that works out as a planning application evolves.
Again, it might be that the heat map needs to be clearer, but there is no way anything other than a building of 2-3 storeys could be built opposite the homes on Blagdon Road.
Highways?
There is no plan to remove the barrier on Blagdon Road.
A new exit can be created on the site through to Burlington Road. Any future planning application will need to do the analysis at that time of the capacity of the road network but actually, if the only traffic exiting onto New Malden High Street was that from the multi storey car park then who knows what that might reveal. Maybe the Blagdon Road entrance could be one way into the site and the Burlington Road exit the only way out. All that will emerge as we move forward.
Parking?
The Mayor’s parking standard, against which this will be judged suggest that a site like this would not require one parking space per household. Now I know people cry that is not enough, because everyone has two cars, but that is simply not the case. In many apartment developments like this we often ask for a certain number of spaces and they are never filled. In existing schemes in Kingston they are not able to sell them with the flat or rent them out.
Not that we know what will emerge yet, but if necessary we can consider a car capped scheme where we restrict the number of cars attributable to the development. These schemes will need us to consider moving to a CPZ across New Malden so that cars registered to the new development cannot get on-street CPZ parking permits.
We own it?
Unlike many planning briefs, we own this land. This means that we are in complete control of our destiny subject to what is being proposed being financially viable. This is a lock that does not exist elsewhere.
Resident consultation?
These plans have not just emerged from within the bowels of the Guildhall. The Council has been working with a number of residents for two years in developing some of the ideas around this scheme. As we move the scheme forward we hope that this community planning process will continue.
I believe the opportunity to do something truly wonderful for New Malden is now with us. We could just leave it as it is and see the Malden Centre decline further and frustratingly not do what we need it to. As politicians, doing nothing would give us a quiet life. But we also have the option to create a new heart for New Malden with a wonderful public realm entrance from the High Street to bring people into this area and reinvigorate what is frankly an untidy and tatty place.
We need to move this forward, but also work hard with the residents to keep as many engaged as have the time and the interest.
This Planning Brief will go back to committee for decision in November and we will then start to work on finding the right developer and the right planning application.
