14
A MIX OF TENURES T e overall Kingston Place development comprises the new build elements that VIVID, working in partnership with housebuilder Drew Smith (part of Vistry Group) completed, making up the aff ordable housing portion, and the 83 luxury apartments that were sold privately, completed by St Cross Homes. T e private apartments are within the former prison building, while VIVID’s aff ordable housing is exclusively new build. T e former prison sits at the centre of the site with four new build elements
located around the perimeter within the listed prison walls, and one building constructed outside on the former prison car park. In total VIVID built 183 new homes, 110 of which were for social rent and 73 shared ownership. T e blocks vary in height with the largest standing at seven storeys, and the fl ats are all either one or two bedroom. Planning the landscaping on the site was divided between VIVID and St
Cross Homes, with VIVID ensuring all their fl ats would overlook a courtyard- style green space. However while green space was important, it was also essential to the company that every fl at had at least one parking space, with parking in the city being “one of Portsmouth’s biggest problems,” Samuels says. While the parking provision takes up what could have been green space, he explains how it wasn’t the primary focus with the site backing on to the large Kingston Cemetery. “It was more about ensuring the development was fi t for purpose and had usable space internally, noting that they had plenty of space to go just outside the wall.” When deciding on both unit and bedroom numbers, VIVID works closely
with the council while also “thinking about it from a mixed and balanced community perspective,” Samuels explains. T e company engages with the council, taking note of what their current housing needs are, as well as what the planners want, and what it feels off ers the best mix of tenures. “We’re thinking about what families in there want – communities that support each other. If you get all single living people, you don’t really get that.” With the shared ownership units – all of which were reserved before the
development was completed – Samuels says VIVID looks at what’s selling well in the local market. “T at’s defi nitely more demand-led.” T e overall number of units for the entire development was also somewhat controlled by Historic
England and what they would allow within the confi nes of the listed structures, as well as what would work for VIVID with the Homes England grant funding they received. T e company is a strategic partner with Homes England, which allows
them to utilise grant funding by bidding on an amount and explaining what percentage will be used for social rent and what percentage for shared ownership. “It’s a good position and we value that relationship with Homes England because it allows us to make decisions quickly,” explains Samuels. As a general rule on grant funded schemes, VIVID aims to split the funding by putting two thirds towards social rent and one third to shared ownership, while then also incorporating a mix of private tenures to create “mixed and balanced communities.”
A COMPLEX SITE As well as the prison building and walls, the former engineers’ workshop and entrance complex – comprising a gate tower, detached gate piers and the Chief Warder’s and Governor’s houses – are also Grade II listed, and justifi ably so: “It’s a special building,” says Samuels. However, this coupled with its use as a maximum security prison meant they didn’t know what they might fi nd, both within the building and the grounds. “Everyone was on tenterhooks for most of that,” Samuels admits. T e site itself, in particular the constraints of working within the prison
walls, was one of the project’s biggest challenges. “It’s a very restrictive space, so trying to work in a very tight environment, with all the site compounds and everything, proved to be quite tricky from a logistics perspective,” explains Samuels. T e listed walls meant entrances to the site couldn’t be widened so getting HGVs on and off site required a one-way system. T e design of the new build was heavily infl uenced by the historic prison
building, both in terms of overall aesthetic but also regarding heights and the overall site layout. “We had to fi gure out where we could put height and how you could move around the buildings as there were views through the existing gate and entrances that they were looking to protect,” Samuels explains. T ere was some general remediation work with ground contamination being a regular obstacle in this area, says Samuels. However, this didn’t cause too
Housing Management & Maintenance June/July 2025
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
